Imagine our relief that you’ve decided to secede and form some sort of bathing-optional commune headquartered in California. The money we'll save in aspirin, now that we won’t have headaches from listening to your interminable whining, will be worth it to us alone.
Dear Blue States:…
Article comments
26 - gonzo marx
Mr Nalle sez...
*but I add to it a healthy dose of distaste for those who spend all their time and effort attacking one side or the other because of a slavish adherence to extremist ideology.*
i had to read this one twice to make sure i wasn't suffering from severe flashback hallucinations...
Mr Nalle, you do realize that the words i have quoted from you describe at least half of your commentary?
oh, the humanity...
Excelsior!
27 - Larry
Sacrelicious: Libertarian candidates ARE fiscally conservative. So this combination DOES have a candidate... now it's up to you to vote for him! :-)
28 - gonzo marx
my only problem with much of the Libertarian party is..their concepts of political strategy are peurile and inneffectual...putting up presidential candidates when they don't even have a congressman...
the second is their love of letting big business do what they want in the name or de-regulation...
to me, one of the most crucial functions of government is to protect the welbeing of the Individual, as well as the common environment, from the ravages of Greed...don't get me wrong, i'm no tree hugging(tho i love the trees on my property) granola eating eco-terrorist...
but far too often, Corps do anythign to make their quarterly numbers, regardless of ethics or laws or who they screw over
so, balance the budget, social Liberty, corporate and environmental ethics...provide for the common defense, for us and our posterity...
oh, wait...that part has been said already...
heh
Excelsior!
29 - Dave Nalle
>>Mr Nalle, you do realize that the words i have quoted from you describe at least half of your commentary?<<
No, I don;'t realize that. I am extreme only in the defense of liberty and truth. I attack those who wish to take the first away and who abuse the second. I find targets on both the right and the left. It may seem like I target the left more, but only because they embrace an ideology which is more antithetical to liberty and therefore their lies and deceptions serve a more reprehensible objective. But go through my past posts and you will see that I've attacked the extremists of the right quite a few times.
Dave
30 - Dave Nalle
Larry, Gonzo - the Libertarian party is not a viable alternative because it will never be able to mount an effective political campaign. They're completely ideologically hidebound, and the party contains a core of extremists who are completely unwilling to make any practical compromises with political reality.
All the sensible Libertarians are in the GOP these days, holding to the same beliefs, but willing to work within the system and actually get things done. They realize that it doesn't matter how pure your ideology is if you never get to put any of it into effect because your extremism permanently marginalizes you.
Check out The Liberty Caucus
Dave
31 - gonzo marx
Mr Nalle sez...
*It may seem like I target the left more, but only because they embrace an ideology which is more antithetical to liberty and therefore their lies and deceptions serve a more reprehensible objective.*
and thus proves my point...painting with that broad brush again...
can you say ad hominem attack?
i knew you could
then right after that he is shilling for the GOP again...
Mr Nalle, please believe that i would like nothing better than your "Liberty Caucus" to team up with the Log Cabin types and take over the GOP...
which will happen right after Pee Wee Herman is elected Speaker of the House
all said Caucus' do is drag more well meaning folks into a political entity for electoral and monetary cannon fodder
whenh you can convince the GOP majority to cut the fucking pork, and balance the budget...then we will talk...until then, such mini-organizations under the control of Rove/DeLay ad nauseum are simply non-factors
nuff said?
Excelsior!
32 - Margaret Romao Toigo
I am curious. How is the authoritarian half of the GOP getting along with the libertarian half?
33 - Dave Nalle
>>and thus proves my point...painting with that broad brush again...<<
No, gonzo. I did not say 'democrats' or even 'liberals', I said 'the left'. It's not a broad brush. I refer specifically to the extremist socialists and communists who are an incresingly loud voice within the Democratic party and Liberalism in general. Not all Democrats and not all Liberals are at issue, just those who have gone over to the 'dark side' of moveon.org and CPUSA.
>>Mr Nalle, please believe that i would like nothing better than your "Liberty Caucus" to team up with the Log Cabin types and take over the GOP...
which will happen right after Pee Wee Herman is elected Speaker of the House<<
I think that the moderate movement led by McCain and others creates an opportunity to either reform or break away from the GOP. Either that or the extremists will discredit themselves.
BTW, why not take issue with the moderate and principled Democrats who are increasingly beholden to extreme left radicals from moveon.org who are attempting to control their party just as the Neocons are trying to control the GOP?
>>whenh you can convince the GOP majority to cut the fucking pork, and balance the budget...then we will talk...until then, such mini-organizations under the control of Rove/DeLay ad nauseum are simply non-factors<<
Right now there's a voting block of more than a dozen congressmen and about 7 senators who are voting on Libertarian principles and who are members of the GOP. That's not a bad start. Win a few more over, work with the principled moderates and it's enough to turn the tide on a lot of legislation.
Frist and Delay's hold on the party is by no means absolute, and because of their extremism they're naturally inclined towards self-destruction. Give it time. It will happen.
>>I am curious. How is the authoritarian half of the GOP getting along with the libertarian half?<<
Not well at all, Margaret. But there is some progress. Ron Paul managed to get an amendment tacked onto the Patriot Act last month which provides protection for some core civil liberties. More on this later.
Dave
34 - gonzo marx
Mr Nalle, your qualification on the "leftist" bit helps tremendously...now, if only you would always be so clear in yoru diatribes, you and i woudl get into a lot less arguments...
but you see, most times...you are not so clear...you toss out "liberals" and "leftists" in the midst of severe hate spewings and thus seem to paint any not fo the GOP with slanderous invective...
and you are far from being the only one
as for the extremeists on the left side of the aisle...when i run across soem being silly, i will verbally slap them around just as much as i9 do any other
but currently, it is GOP folks in charge...and neocons + fundies are running the show...
as long as they are, i'll keep shouting against them...
nuff said?
Excelsior!
35 - Dave Nalle
Those in charge should always take more heat than those who just want to be in charge, but I do think there's an awful lot of unfair and partisan attacking going on from the left. You can't really damn Bush as a failure when you never give him a chance to succeed and immeidately spin even his small victories as defeats.
Dave
36 - Matthew T. Sussman
This thread is proof that debate always triumphs over petty name calling, proving my original claim that these two pieces by Balletshooz were poorly done and detrimental to the goal of politics.
Now, let's hug.
37 - Rob Gordon
Who exactly is the "whiner" - that is the most whiney thing I have ever read in my life! Are these people capable of forming their own thoughts? - or do they just follow whatever that pathetic and grossly incompetent Bush has to say- while still managing to blame Clinton for everything.
R.G.
p.s. I consider anyone who attacks "single moms" to really be a pathetic loser.
38 - gonzo marx
and to Mr Nalle's point...
the "right" did better with Clinton?
hell, they still take him out of the dumpster and trash him on a regular basis
with the Shrub, there are clear Issues and items to smack on...and he andhis neocon buddies are running the show
so they get the heat
and Matthew...you can have a hug if ya really want one...
heh
Excelsior!
39 - Bennett
Left of Right Wingers sez:
Those in charge should always take more heat than those who just want to be in charge, but I do think there's an awful lot of unfair and partisan attacking going on from the far right.
You can't really damn Clinton as a failure when you never gave him a chance to succeed, and you folks stonewalled everything he tried to accomplish while distracting the entire nation by painting his and Hillary's lives before Washington as worthy of persecution by a special prosecutor.
It's all so hypocritical.
40 - Dave Nalle
Amusing, Bennett, but for a few errors.
Clinton was under attack from the far right, moderates, independents and people in his own party, because his offenses were not political, but personal. And ultimately he was able to get a lot more done, even with GOP opposition than Bush has been able to get done, so no whining.
Dave
41 - gonzo marx
ummmm...excuse me Mr Nalle
care to look at how many judicial appointmets went thru for each?
i do agree that Slick Willie got quite a bit more done...form defecit to surplus for one thing
how was the Shrub obstructed when his cronies control both the House and Senate?
who's whining?
Excelsior!
42 - Bennett
but I can still dine, right?
43 - Dave Nalle
Bush isn't so much obstructed as distracted. He has had so many other things to deal with that he hasn't been able to get to some very important things he should have. Part of this is that the political opposition has made him go to greater lengths than he should have to justify everything he does, which wastes time and resources that could be used for other policy improvements.
Dave
44 - Bennett
Plus, he's been busy with the Iraq thing.
45 - Dave Nalle
Especially the Iraq thing. IMO on a political level the most objectionable thing about Iraq is how much of a distraction from important domestic agenda issues it's been.
Dave
46 - gonzo marx
ah..so he suffers from ADD?...could be the sugar...
thisis as opposed to oh...Ken Starr and his over 40 million dollar, multiyear witch hunt?
how about Newt and the kooky House?
i refuse to believe that you really can say this kind of shit with a straight face...
hey..i know, how about the Shrub takes somebody even folks in his own part are concerned with and makes a recess appointment?
oh wait, he did that...
so sorry he can't just ram shit through by fiat...oh wait, he can and has...
put the kool-aide down, Mr Nalle...what you had hoped he woudl do is not on his priority list, so he has spent his time acheiving the neocon agenda, and not what moderate GOP memebers thought he would...
in gamers terms, we would say..."crai more, n00b"....or perhaps "weep profusely, novice" serves better...
you got what you paid for...you can't ask for a more favorable political environment than controlling the WH, Senate and Congress...
with '06 coming up, and the Shrub done running for anything, you can just about kiss any further Agenda good bye
let's just hope he can finish what he started in Iraq, and more importantly Afghanistan...
and down the road, when our Nation's "mortgage" comes due, and it totally fucks things up...
well, you will hear me weeping all the way in texas as the Chinese foreclose
Excelsior!
47 - Dave Nalle
>>thisis as opposed to oh...Ken Starr and his over 40 million dollar, multiyear witch hunt?
how about Newt and the kooky House?<<
That was then, this is now, and the facts remain what they are.
>>put the kool-aide down, Mr Nalle...what you had hoped he woudl do is not on his priority list, so he has spent his time acheiving the neocon agenda, and not what moderate GOP memebers thought he would...<<
He hasn't achieved anything on the Neocon agenda either, Gonzo. Name some core Neocon agenda items he 'rammed through'. Good luck.
>>and down the road, when our Nation's "mortgage" comes due, and it totally fucks things up...
well, you will hear me weeping all the way in texas as the Chinese foreclose<<
Talk about 'straw man' arguments. Even you know the deficit isn't anything like the problem you make it out to be.
Dave
48 - gonzo marx
no, Mr Nalle..i don't know that...you see, i have to balance my checkbook every week
follow that train of thought...
as for the neocon agenda...ummm, howabout Iraq, bankruptcy "reform", patriot act, class action suit "reform", all kinds of tax stuff...
there's a start
how much do you have to pay for those "red state" colored glasses , anyway?
Excelsior!
49 - Dave Nalle
>>as for the neocon agenda...ummm, howabout Iraq, bankruptcy "reform", patriot act, class action suit "reform", all kinds of tax stuff...<<
Gonzo, this is typical. Not of you, but of a lot of people in general. You say all this stuff is part of the Neocon agenda, but in fact it isn't. The Neocon agenda is entirely different and breaks down into two parts, a social agenda in domestic policy and an imperialist agenda in foreign policy. There's no Neocon economic policy or legal reform policy or any of that. All the things you object to are well intentioned but poorly executed programs which have little or nothing to do with the Neocons.
The Neocons want religion back in public life and an end to abortion and 'sexual deviancy' in domestic policy. No progress to speak of there. In foreign policy they want to establish direct US domination over key parts of the world and vital resources. Again, no progress there. Even in Iraq which could have been a Neocon project, Bush abandonned all of their ideas and has gone with a more pragmatic game plan.
Dave
50 - gonzo marx
/sigh
oh Mr Nalle..one could almost feel sorry for you sometimes..
so, folks like Ari Fleischer, Perle, Wolfowitz...these boys are fundies?
maybe i'm the deluded one.l...but i note who wrote a lot of the current policies...including the ones i mentioned, among others...
and those folks are the ones , among others, i refer to as neocons
i don't know your definition...but i guess i do now..you just made it
seems like we are talking about 2 different sets of people...
who knew?
can ya list some of the neocons you are talking about?
Excelsior!
51 - Dave Nalle
Neocons break down into two basic groups, the 'intellectual' brand (William Kristol, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith) and the 'religious' brand who signed on with the Neocons because they shared their goals in foreign policy, but also have a strong moralistic agenda (Bill First, Rick Santorum, Dick Durbin, et al.). For the most part the Neocons don't occupy the top positions in government, but work behind the scenes. Wolfowitz, Rove, Cheney and Bush are more professional politicians than Neocons, using the Neocons and being used by them in turn.
The key defining elements of the Necocons are:
They're all former Democrats or people from a Democrat background who left the party because of differences over religion (particularly support of Israel) or moral issues (southern Democrats).
They have an aggressive foreign policy with an emphasis on unquestioned support for Israel and opposition to communism in any form. This makes them inherently strongly opposed to many Islamic groups and states which combine elements of communism with hatred of Israel. Support for Israel largely comes for religious reasons because most neocons are either Jewish or extremist Chritians who believe in the prophetic importance of the state of Israel.
They believe in a basic philosophy of moral absolutism, including opposition to all forms of abortion, a general reduction in licentiousness and libertinism in society, hatred of homosexuality and a firm belief that liberals are trying to destroy america from within by corrupting our moral institutions. They want to control and restrict the media and hollywood as one of the main sources of this corruption. They're the kind of guys who in an earlier age would have been wearing hair shirts and scourging themselves for impure thoughts.
A lot of the people who are often described as Neocons really aren't. The majority of Republicans in Congress and in the administration really aren't Neocons. They're just pragmatic politicians who are willing to play along so long as it's to their advantage.
IMO the Neocons are evil, but running away from them doesn't justify embracing the equally evil counterparts on the other end of the political spectrum.
Dave
52 - gonzo marx
and i say "when you lay down with dogs, you rise with fleas"
know what i'm saying?
i am just as loathe to see the extreme left runninjg things...but they aren't....they never have, and they never will...semi-left, and moderate left...sometimes...but please...spare me the fear of socialists taking over
on the other hand...the neocons and their allies HAVE FUCKKING TAKEN OVER!!!
and well meaning folks , such as you, Mr Nalle, aid and abet them
sow the wind and all that...
Excelsior!
53 - Bob A. Booey
I don't care to read most of this discussion, but a brief correction on the genealogy of neo-conservatism here.
Wolfowitz and Perle are most certainly NOT professional politicians. They're neo-con intellectuals straight out of the Chicago school and right-wing thinktanks who caught favor with Rumsfeld and thus Bush.
Dick Durbin is the furthest thing from a neo-con. For that matter, Bill Frist is hard to label as a neo-con either.
The true mark of neo-conservative ideology is in foreign policy -- you can't be a neo-con because of your views on domestic affairs. Neo-cons are primarily about foreign affairs.
The original neo-cons who started the movement like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz were socialists who became disillusioned with Stalinism and turned toward hawkish, anti-Soviet and pro-Israel foreign policy. Most of the current generation of neo-cons were never Democrats. It'd even be hard to say the founders of neo-conservatism among the New York publishing intelligensia were Democrats either -- they started out as leftists. It's true that a lot of people cite the influence of socially conservative big-government liberals like Moynihan as an early influence for the moral approach of neo-cons, but there's never been a party affiliation with the Democrats.
Dave: you're starting to lose all credibility in talking about politics.
Who did you work for in Washington years ago?
Fleischer is largely non-ideological. He's a political tool, a PR man, not an intellectual.
Robert Kagan is the pre-dominant neo-con intellectual now and Charles Krauthammer is the journalist most often espousing neo-con views.
That is all.
54 - gonzo marx
thanx for the info..seems i got some of it right..
i knew about Krauthammer..just forgot to mention the bastiche...
it was Perle and Wolfowitz tat stuck in my mind...Ari just hung out with him, is why that held in my tiny lil skull
good stuff...
Excelsior!
55 - Dave Nalle
>>Wolfowitz and Perle are most certainly NOT professional politicians. They're neo-con intellectuals straight out of the Chicago school and right-wing thinktanks who caught favor with Rumsfeld and thus Bush.<<
I classed Perle with the neocon intellectuals, not with the professional politicians. As for Wolfowitz, my take on him is that he's broadened beyond pure dogmatic Neoconism because of the kinds of jobs he's been given.
>>Dick Durbin is the furthest thing from a neo-con. For that matter, Bill Frist is hard to label as a neo-con either.<<
I think you're wrong on this in the current environment the Neocons and the former Dixiecrats are ideologically very similar and have formed a clear alliance. The former Dixiecrats who never had a foreign policy have adopted the Neocon one, and the Neocons whose domestic policy was compatible have linked up with the fundies on the right. They're a perfect fit.
>>The true mark of neo-conservative ideology is in foreign policy -- you can't be a neo-con because of your views on domestic affairs. Neo-cons are primarily about foreign affairs.<<
Like I said, while that may be true on an ideological purist basis, in practice we now have two groups who are essentially Neocons with both a domestic and foreign policy.
>>Most of the current generation of neo-cons were never Democrats. It'd even be hard to say the founders of neo-conservatism among the New York publishing intelligensia were Democrats either -- they started out as leftists. It's true that a lot of people cite the influence of socially conservative big-government liberals like Moynihan as an early influence for the moral approach of neo-cons, but there's never been a party affiliation with the Democrats.<<
You're quite right, I should have said leftists instead of Democrats, but so often they're the same thing. It's from the socialistic left that they get their statist attitude.
>>Who did you work for in Washington years ago?<<
LOL, Al Gore, among others. But there were no Neocons back then.
Dave
56 - Bob A. Booey
Dave, my many doubts about Al Gore have now been confirmed :)
I kid, I kid.
Durbin (my Senator) is not a Dixiecrat nor a Blue Dog Democrat. I realize you haven't been on the Hill in a long time, so we'll give you a mulligan on the party/ideology identification thing today, since it doesn't seem to be your strong point.
Wolfowitz was one of the leading academic neo-cons. I'm not sure why you think his bureaucratic experience has broadened his worldview rather than narrowed it, but he's most certainly not a politician. He's never run for office and never will. The World Bank appointment was very typically Wolfowitz, for those who have followed him over the years -- he's a behind-the-scenes policymaker who prefers to be an architect and engineer of international affairs rather than a public persona.
Even Dave picked up on an interesting point that's elementary to neo-conservatism: they believe in the role of government, an inheritance from the leftist origins of the movement. They particularly believe in the necessity of a strong, well-armed state in matters of defense and national security.
There is no school of "domestic" neo-cons in Congress. Neo-cons are defined by foreign policy. Take away the bellicose but internationalist foreign policy (as opposed to the so-called "Paleo-con" isolationism of old-school conservative xenophobes and anti-Semites like Buchanan) and you basically have an overlap with social and religious conservatives. Most social and religious conservatives are not neo-cons and resist self-identifying as such. There is no such thing as a "domestic" neo-conservative because they are internationalists first and foremost. "America First," anti-immigrant isolationists who focus on moral issues at home traditionally play far better in Middle America and the South. But neo-conservatism isn't about winning elections, it's about ideology. It just so happens that it's become a more politically viable, if spectacularly unsuccessful, ideology post-9/11. It will probably fade in importance the further we get from 9/11.
That is all.
57 - Dave Nalle
The thing is that the true Neocons as a group are such a small elite that they don't have the ability to influence an election in any way. What they do is influence policy makers and leaders. Without what you call 'paleocons' and the religious right to work with they would not be able to achieve much of anything. If the true Neocons as we've both defined them came out to vote they'd barely be able to elect a dogcatcher much less a president. It's the people who listen to them and accept some or all of their philosophy who actually make things happen, and without their inherent harmony with religious and moral extremists they wouldn't have that outer circle which makes up their more meaningful power base.
So the point is that your super-strict definition, while technically accurate, is meaningless. People identify as Neocons those who have become part of the broader movement which has true Neocons at its core, but includes other elements of what we can call 'the new right'. It includes the religious, the moralistic, the former Dixiecrats, the paranoid state control types and some old-style military imperialists. They've all got enough in common to form a larger movement, and for all practical purpose THAT group has become the Neocons in practice if not in purity of ideology.
They are in direct opposition to the old Republican party - my party. Which was characterized by fiscal responsibility a foreign policy centered around economic rather than military expansionism, and a real fondness for civil rights and individual liberty.
On Durbin you have to pardon my slip of the keyboard. When I originally typed Durbin I meant to type Delay. Durbin is a Democrat and from Illinois and a whole different kettle of fish. I'm afraid I sometimes get annoying people whose names start with the same letter confused.
Dave
58 - Bob A. Booey
Dave, I think we're quibbling about semantics here, mainly because you're clinging to some silly thread of definition here that's not going to hold you up. Your parsing of words is becoming almost Clintonian, might I say :)
Dave -- you've taught enough logic to know that being part of a narrow subset of a larger group does not make the entirety of that larger group part of the narrow subset. All neocons are conservatives yes. That does not mean all conservatives are neo-cons. Your paleo-con example about you and the traditional Republicans who win elections and make the neo-con advisors have GOP presidents to advise disproves your example. I may be a pet owner and a dog owner, but I may decide that I can only have chihuahuas due to my distaste for dog dander. Just because I go to the dog park and associate with other dog owners and may even be a member of a kennel where I board my dog while on vacation doesn't mean that all dog owners share my views about chihuahuas and dog dander. Not all dog owners are chihuahua owners because I am. I know I'm being difficult and pedantic now, but I think I've proven my point.
While they may generally agree on most social issues with mainstream conservatives, the neo-cons hold certain views about foreign policy that are not universal to conservatives, particularly on Israel and the role of America in foreign policy. This also is relevant to domestic issues, because of the anti-Semitism of the traditional GOP establishment and, unfortunately, its electorate. Before it became influential over at the DOD, neo-conservatism and its intellectual progenitors were regarded quite suspiciously and oftened assailed by paleo-cons like Pat Buchanan for its concern with Zionism and the Israeli state. I suspect that much of this suspicion still lingers and remains part of the dominant attitude among the party rank-and-file. Bush may be won over by neo-conservatism regardless of the various social attitudes that have been attached to it, but that doesn't guarantee future GOP presidents will be neo-cons. In fact, it's quite unlikely and it's more likely that the GOP will retain certain themes from the neo-con experiment of the 2000s regarding the Middle East and terror while relegating the movement itself back to the margins of conservative thought and think tanks.
What you call the "New Right" is not an accurate description of anything political scientists regard as a new political movement today. In fact, that'd be a more apt description of the old Right based on social cleavages and social politics. And many of the factions you outline have competing and often conflicting goals, hence the general incoherence of much of conservative doctrine today (which, I suppose, is better than having no doctrine or ideas like the Democrats).
Your notion of the Republican Party is admirably restrained (and quite contrary to your style of discourse on here, might I add), but largely a notion of the past that is alien to the reality of your party today. Reagan was not the kind of Republican you aspire to be. George H W Bush might have been, but he was a managerial failure. The entire Southern electoral strategy since Nixon and the makeup of the modern GOP almost forces the party to continue to fight a culture war and focus on military/defense issues to the exclusion of civil rights/liberties in order to win elections and maintain power. There are a few examples of the kind of Republican you describe in Congress, but they aren't influential within the party. I too like McCain, for what it's worth, but he can't get through and win a primary and won't in 2008.
You really got Rep. TOM DELAY and Sen. DICK DURBIN confused? I guess it happens. Tom Delay is very much an old-school conservative who's been around the block too many times. He's an anti-intellectual who's not educated about nor much concerned with foreign policy affairs. He's also not a neo-con.
That is all.
59 - Red Professor
I'm glad you all enjoyed this, but whoever "Jimmy" is, he didn't write it. I did.
I originally posted it on HabitableZone on a dare from a liberal friend who had sent me the "Dear Red States" joke.
I'm a "Red" professor living in a very Blue state.
Cheers,
Red Professor
60 - Red Professor
Sorry, forgot to send along the URL, where it first appeared and where it initially generated discussion:
here
61 - Laura
If you wrote it, will you please explain why there are so few actual statistics? The Blue State version was compelling precisely because of these, so I think the Red version needs to be equally fact-based or it will be dismissed as baseless proseletizing.
62 - Al
I expected it to be quietly racist. Glad I wasn't disappointed.
63 - Steal_the_Election_Back_This_Time!
Interesting that the condition of those urban communities and their terrible schools are sure to be kept that way by the right who, if they had their way, would take away every dime granted to improve the educational system in those areas. Also interesting is that the right, left to their own demise, would plunder those beautiful rural areas the author claims to appreciate, by raping their forests, even to the point of selling off National Parks, putting the proceeds towards those wonderful schools the author speaks of (yet still underfunded??), while not giving a penny to those horrid urban schools who obviously need it much more; and he calls the liberals hypocrites.
64 - Cannonshop
#63: If Urban People cared about their schools, they would be leaning on the school boards and city officials to get those schools fixed, instead of leaning on them to cut deals with pro-sports-teams to build pro-sports-team Stadiums at Taxpayer expense.
It isn't the fault of people living in small towns that their counterparts in the big cities would rather have a professional Football or Basketball team than decent education for the kids. It also isn't our fault that the city folk would rather tolerate gangs and crime than do something serious about it-if they really wanted to end these problems, those city folks could, and would-but they don't, that's not our fault, why should we be penalized for their self-destructive behaviour?
65 - tv76on
interesting -- spoken like a true racist. gotta love the generalization and stereotype slinging... despite higher crime rates, i'll give you that, you make it seem like we're living in bedlam here in these urban areas. i'll take a city any day over small town rural nothing... i'd rather know i'm living a life being exposed to the endless possibility this world and life has to offer, than seclude myself in an isolationist society afraid to mingle and interact with any part of the world different from me.
66 - nicole
i cant even stand to read this article. ignorance, lack of empathy, and greed seem to be what those die hard repubs are all about. spare us the bs about how we are turning into socialists and making friends with terrorists... its just complete and utter nonsense. get a grip reddies... life should be about love, compassion, hard work, and honesty. period.