"The unteachable ignorance of the red states"

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by Delija

lol....Sounds like some "Typical White Person" here...an opinion stated as fact.

Whatever.





First off, it sounds like you are talking about the old "DixieCrats", but that's beside the point.

What is to the point is saying that "If you took out the big cities...etc."....is like saying "if the Queen had balls, she'd be the King". I mean seriously......people do live in large cities. What would you propose? Move them all to farms so they'd change their politics? Put them in concentration camps?

"High reliance on the government for everything"...what does this mean? They like paved roads and safe bridges? I read constantly about the US being a "welfare state"....why do I not know of anyone on welfare? It isn't because of where I live or who I know...it's more that it's a talking point far more than a reality. If people get food stamps, wow...that's really living "high on the hog" as we've been told here (by the expected source).

"Elite colleges tend to be blue"...what does that imply? Do you feel about them like you seem to about large cities? Better off without them?

As far as union workers not doing their share of hard work....this is based on what?

Tennessee is "for prayers in school" and "the Ten Commandments on the courts and so on"...

Yeah, Tennessee is very typical of the religious beliefs of the rest of America. Scopes trial and so on. Bills introduced to require "intelligent design" to be taught in science classes. Tennessee is ONE STATE and quite unique about it's ideas about religion in schools. And very far from representative of the rest of the US.

Ten Commandments on the courts? (Where...over the judges head? Outside on a monument? Where? Why?).

Which version of the Ten Commandments? (yes, there is more than one). Who gets to choose?


Why is it that a state or the people in that state can't just leave a private matter (religion) private?

If I hang the Ten Commandments above my bed, does that make me any more religious than if I don't? More spiritual? More observant?
and most importantly.....Will God like me more?

I personally could not care less if the courthouses in Tennessee had their walls engraved with the entire Bible. Wouldn't bother me or offend me in the least. But if my tax money were used to do it, I'd think it was an enormous waste of money. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just hand out bibles to everyone who walks into the courthouse? They could do it right at the metal detector stations. Give us a gun, get a bible....LOL

Sorry dude...Guess I'm still a little sour on Tenn ....I'm still pissed at getting a $200 speeding ticket in Tenn. in December for going 9 MPH over the limit with out of state plates. Cop didn't even wish me a 'merry Christmas" (after I did to him!).

Peace,
D.

Very good, Delija!

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by UncleBuck

By the way George Bush is the POTUS.

Yeah, and we're surely suffering because of it!

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by FLSTFI Dave

Why is it that a state or the people in that state can't just leave a private matter (religion) private? They didn't for the first 180 years, and it worked good, why change it?

I graduated from public high school in 1970. We never prayed in school. I did when I went to Catholic school.

[Etta Place]

Many progressives, liberals and Democrats have been frustrated with the Republican Party's ability to win elections based on a type of fake populism - that is, a populism not based on economic issues, which has been the traditional definition, but one based on cultural issues. A book was published in 2004 by Thomas Frank called, "What's the Matter With Kansas?" This book has been very influential among liberals and members of the Democratic Party in explaining why people of modest means vote Republican. The author thinks a lot of the reason is because of people buying into this cultural populism argument. I will quote a description of the book from Wikipedia:

What's the Matter with Kansas? (2004) is a book written by American journalist and historian Thomas Frank, which explores the rise of conservative populism in the United States through the lens of his native state of Kansas, which was once a hotbed of the left-wing Populist movement of the late nineteenth century, but has become overwhelmingly conservative in recent decades. It was published in the United Kingdom as "What's the Matter with America?".

What's the Matter with Kansas? spent 18 weeks on the New York Times Bestseller List.


[edit] Overview
In the book, Frank examines what he calls "The Great Backlash", which he describes as a reactionary movement against the cultural changes of the 1960s and 1970s. According to his analysis, the political discourse of recent decades has dramatically shifted from the class animus of traditional leftism to one in which "explosive" cultural issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, are used to redirect anger towards "liberal elites".

Against this backdrop, Frank describes the rise of conservatism and the so-called "far right" in the social and political landscape of Kansas. He finds extraordinary irony in working-class Kansans' overwhelming support for Republican politicians, despite the fact that, in his view, the laissez-faire economic policies of the Republican party are wreaking havoc on their communities and livelihoods for the benefit of the "extremely wealthy". Meanwhile, he says, the party fails to deliver on the "moral" issues (such as abortion and gay rights) which brought the support of cultural conservatives in the first place -- deepening a cycle of frustration aimed at cultural liberalism.

Frank also sees the bitter divide between moderate and conservative Kansas Republicans (what he labels "Mods" and "Cons") as an archetype for the future of politics in America, in which fiscal conservatism becomes the universal norm and political war is waged over a handful of hotbutton cultural issues.

Not long ago, Kansas would have responded to the current situation by making the bastards pay. This would have been a political certainty, as predictable as what happens when you touch a match to a puddle of gasoline. When business screwed the farmers and the workers - when it implemented monopoly strategies invasive beyond the Populists' furthest imaginings -- when it ripped off shareholders and casually tossed thousands out of work -- you could be damned sure about what would follow.

Not these days. Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, further to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower.

The book also details how Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a liberal Democrat who is a native of Ohio, was able to win in conservative Kansas. By emphasizing issues like health care, school funding, and avoiding the hot-button social issues, Sebelius successfully fractured the Kansas GOP and won a clear majority.

Franks' basic theory of the book is simple. He says that the conservative coalition is the dominant coalition in American politics. According to Frank, this coalition is composed of two halves, the social and the economic conservatives. His theory is that, while the two halves may not dislike each other, they have fundamentally different interests. The economic conservatives want business tax cuts and deregulation. The social conservatives want bans on gay marriage and abortion. Frank says that since the coalition formed in the late 1960s, the coalition has been "fantastically rewarding" for the economic conservatives. The policies of the Republicans in power have been exclusively economic, but the coalition has caused the social conservatives to be worse off, due to these very economic policies and because the social issues that this faction pushes never go anywhere after the election. According to Frank, "abortion is never outlawed, school prayer never returns, the culture industry is never forced to clean up its act." He attributes this partly to conservatives "waging cultural battles where victory is impossible," such as a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He also argues that the very capitalist system the economic conservatives strive to strengthen and deregulate, promotes and commercially markets the perceived assault on traditional values.

So the central idea of the book answers the question as to why these social conservatives continue voting with the Republican Party, even after their social issues never go anywhere and when the economic policies which result, "end their way of life." He says that this coalition is held together because of the belief of the social conservatives in a "liberal elite" which does not actually exist. This elite, according to Frank, does not respect the social conservatives or their "culture," disrespects family values and is responsible for just about everything that they see wrong in the world. Frank describes what he calls the "Plen-ti-Plaint." He says that this is the device the social conservatives use to outrage their voters. The Plen-ti-Plaint catalogues "ridiculous examples of liberal intolerance, such as discrimination against Christians or silly mascot issues." He says Bill O'Reilly uses this in his television show where he "gets indignant one day about the Insane Clown Posse and indignant the next about the man-boy love association." By using "explosive" social issues like gay marriage to blame the "liberal elite," the social conservatives remain in the Republican coalition, even against their own economic interest.

[PackerfanXD]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

What are San Francisco values?

You know, hating the U.S. and capitalism.

[robinsre]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

What are San Francisco values?

Acceptance and Validation rather than simply tolerance of all other lifestyles.

Sacrifice of certain individual liberties for a perceived "greater good".

Peace at any cost.

Disgust and disdain for almost anyone who represents the United States government.

Rejection of traditional values of the United States such as liberty to defend oneself, capitalism, liberty to decide for oneself what is moral and immoral, and the willingness to fight to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness simply for the appearance of being more "progressive".

Disgust, disdain, or pity for anyone who embraces traditional values.

The understanding that they must attempt to spread these ideals.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by robinsre

Acceptance and Validation rather than simply tolerance of all other lifestyles.

I'm not here to defend SF....but I did live there for a short period of time, and this makes no sense to me. What does 'validation" mean?

Originally Posted by robinsre

Sacrifice of certain individual liberties for a perceived "greater good".

Example? Again, I have no idea what you even mean.

Originally Posted by robinsre

Peace at any cost.

Again...no idea what this means. If SF was attacked, the citizens would lay down their arms? Ridiculous. SF is part of the US. The people who live there are Americans. Americans have always fought to be free. No matter where they were from. When Pearl Harbor was attacked, the lines in SF at the enlistment centers were as long or longer than anywhere else in the US. SF was also the staging point for almost everyone who was sent to fight in Vietnam and SE Asia. SF had it's anti-war demonstrations in the later stages of that conflict, but so did virtually everywhere else in America. Small towns, large cities....everywhere.

Originally Posted by robinsre

Disgust and disdain for almost anyone who represents the United States government.

LOL....have a single example? Or just an explanation? Lot's of assertions, but no facts. Not much sense either. I'm struggling just to even understand your post, let alone figure out if your points are valid.

Originally Posted by robinsre

Rejection of traditional values of the United States such as liberty to defend oneself, capitalism, liberty to decide for oneself what is moral and immoral, and the willingness to fight to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness simply for the appearance of being more "progressive".

Interesting...considering that San Francisco has perhaps the largest military presence on the West Coast.
Rejection of 'traditional values'? What are "traditional values'? How to you qualify or quantify something that is completely subjective?
"Rejection of a willingness to fight to preserve .....(edit)...-Really? People from SF are less patriotic than people from elsewhere? This assertion is based on what? Less people from SF serving in the military? No, I know that can't be it. Less willing to serve in government? Nope, that's not the case either. What is?
Less willing to "defend oneself'? No idea what that means.
Less willing to 'defend capitalism"? Not only ridiculous on the surface, but SF is the financial capital of the Western region of the US.

Originally Posted by robinsre

Disgust, disdain, or pity for anyone who embraces traditional values.

Define "traditional values". Again you try and quantify and qualify a matter of subjectivity.

Originally Posted by robinsre

The understanding that they must attempt to spread these ideals.

My favorite...I've seen all kind of religious evangelicalism. I've never seen anyone attempt to "spread the ideals" you make allusions to (but don't define) with the kind of zealotry we see in tent revivals....(or other such events with the sole purpose of "spreading ideals").

I've heard people claim (for example) that the gay community tries to "enlist" or "recruit" new members. All I can do is laugh at stuff like that. Is it this kind of nonsense you are trying to imply? I mean can anything be more ridiculous? If you are a heterosexual, what in the world could anyone say or do to change your sexual orientation? This is just the kind of hysterical scare tactics used to influence the stupid.... for political or financial gain. What other motivation could there be for such absurdity?

Whatever.....obviously you are an expert on San Francisco. Can you tell us how you got to be so knowledgeable on the subject?

LOL

Peace,
D.

[FLSTFI Dave]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

He was talking about towns in Pennsylvania where they have seen a mass exodus of their jobs to other countries.

Um....PA is not the only place in America that has lost jobs to other countries.....

Rural PA is a whole lot like Rural OH, KY, TN and so on.

[FLSTFI Dave]

Originally Posted by Etta Place
What are San Francisco values?

Originally Posted by robinsre

Acceptance and Validation rather than simply tolerance of all other lifestyles.

Sacrifice of certain individual liberties for a perceived "greater good".

Peace at any cost.

Disgust and disdain for almost anyone who represents the United States government.

Rejection of traditional values of the United States such as liberty to defend oneself, capitalism, liberty to decide for oneself what is moral and immoral, and the willingness to fight to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness simply for the appearance of being more "progressive".

Disgust, disdain, or pity for anyone who embraces traditional values.

The understanding that they must attempt to spread these ideals.

Very good reply, to the question.

I would add it seems to be things that much of America really does not want cramed down our neck.

[FLSTFI Dave]

Originally Posted by Delija

.



Interesting...considering that San Francisco has perhaps the largest military presence on the West Coast. Very wrong. No base in SF,
Rejection of 'traditional values'? What are "traditional values'? How to you qualify or quantify something that is completely subjective? "Rejection of a willingness to fight to preserve .....(edit)...-Really? People from SF are less patriotic than people from elsewhere? This assertion is based on what? Less people from SF serving in the military? No, I know that can't be it. Less willing to serve in government? Nope, that's not the case either. What is?
Less willing to "defend oneself'? No idea what that means.
Less willing to 'defend capitalism"? Not only ridiculous on the surface, but SF is the financial capital of the Western region of the US.



Peace,
D.

You better check again, San Fransico now has almost zero military personel. San Fransico hates the military. Berkely has tried to even kick the Military recruiting centers out of town. They backed down when several congressmen sought to stop fedral funding to the area if recruiters were kicked out.

Traditional values, marriage is between a man and woman, for example.

I would not want my children taught that two mommies is OK, which they teach in SF.