Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics

Journal EnronHaliburton2004's Journal: Why do the Red States require so many government subsidies? 28

Journal by EnronHaliburton2004

Ah, beautiful. I've made this argument to several Republicans from Republican voting states, it's nice to see this other person making the same argument. Best constructive use of profanities I've read in a while.

Republicans constantly talk about responsibility, low taxes, less subsidies and less government overall.

But the truth is that most Republican states receive federal subsidies at the expense of the Democratic states.

The next dickwad who says, "It's your money, not the government's money" is gonna get their ass kicked. Nine of the ten states that get the most federal fucking dollars and pay the least... can you guess? Go on, guess. That's right, motherfucker, they're red states. And eight of the ten states that receive the least and pay the most? It's too easy, asshole, they're blue states. It's not your money, assholes, it's fucking our money. What was that Real American Value you were spouting a minute ago? Self reliance? Try this for self reliance: buy your own fucking stop signs, assholes.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why do the Red States require so many government subsidies? More

Why do the Red States require so many government subsidies?

Comments Filter:
  • now I can piss some friends off
  • I am going to send that to my sister. She will love it. Thanks for the fun "get your anger" out read. BTW, I live in one of those red states. *sigh*
  • But haven't we always know, that Rep's are nothing but a congregation of hypocrits and a breeding ground for hypocritical ideas, plans, and projects?

    Never the less, thanks for the argument fodder, I'll copy parts of your text onto my site (if you don't mind...).

    I just love the provoking explicit language, how has the feed back been? :D
    • You don't think that maybe there's a few Republicans who just disagree with you? Or is anyone who disagrees with you a hypocrite?

      ...and I thought the Republicans were supposed to be the ones who were intolerant of opposing viewpoints...

      I hope for the sake of the Democratic Party that your attitude isn't typical of Democrats, though part of what drove me away from the Democratic Party in the first place was exactly the type of indignant, dogmatic bigotry expressed in your post.

      • No. It is not about disagreement, it is about what one says, and what one does - generally referred to as hypocrisy. I guess you didn't read the article I was referring to. Intolerance......yes, I am defnetly intolerant, when it comes to stupidity and ignorance, but this does NOT depend on party affiliation.
        The problem lays with the statement of mine, being a generalisation. I have met republicans, that are great people, with just another opinion then mine. Never the less, most I got to meet, and most of
  • First, let me say that while I'm a conservative, I'm not a fan of the current Republican Party. I voted, but not for Bush. Nor Kerry, for that matter. A conservative wouldn't run up a $587 billion annual deficit, wouldn't sign into law the single largest entitlement program in 40 years, and wouldn't wage war on a nation that has never attacked the United States. While I hate higher taxes as much as the next guy, I realize that it's cheaper in the long run to pay off the debt sooner rather than later - a
    • 12 of the Constitution's 39 signatures and 17 of the 56 signatures on the Declaration of Independence are those of men from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.

      Should be:

      12 of the Constitution's 39 signatures and 17 of the 56 signatures on the Declaration of Independence are those of men from Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.
    • I have no problem with the 10 commandments being displayed in public buildings - most of them are good ideas anyway

      Hell, you can't even get past the first commandment, never mind the second, third, and fourth.

      #1 full version: I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

      And no matter what abridged version you select it is still a direct violation for the government to establish preffered standing for one rel
      • While I have no problem with the 10 commandments being displayed, I also have no problem with them being removed. To be blunt, I couldn't give half a shit whether they're displayed or not.

        I have no problem with a high school football team praying before a game.

        You say that as if there's some "other side" that *is* objecting to that.

        See Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Doe [cornell.edu].

        A football team is welcome to take personal time to pray, however a coach that is a government employee acting in his offi

        • If you read the above link, you'll also see that student-led prayer is also now prohibited.

          As I said "And they are also prohibited from abusing their powers to intentionally manipulate and granting power to chosen students for the purpose of manufacturing "student lead prayer".

          The link you posted was not a football team taking personal time to pray. The school officials abused their government powers to create a "student chaplin" positition, and to grant that student special powers to IMPOSE that prayer
          • Actually, nobody is required to be at a high school football game other than the coaches. Everybody else you see at a football game has volunteered to be there. Many paid for the privilege, from the players whose parents pay an athletic participation fee to the spectators who bought a ticket at the gate. The cheerleaders, marching band, student trainers (the waterboys and the people who bring cold compresses to mildly injured players) are all volunteers, and many of them paid a fee to be there. They're
            • Actually, nobody is required to be at a high school football game

              Ok, I accidentally blurred the current violation with Santa Fe's history of other in school violations.

              However as the court noted: For some students, such as cheerleaders, members of the band, and the team members themselves, attendance at football games is mandated, sometimes for class credit.

              And even without that, it is still a case of government officials abusing their government power with unconstitutional intent and purpose. They ca

              • NO! THAT IS A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH! You cannot tell the student what they can and cannot say. That may sound contradictory, but it isn't.

                Asking someone (or a lot of someones) to be quiet for a minute is not a violation of free speech. If asking people to STFU for 60 seconds is a violation of free speech, then every teacher in every school in the world is guilty of such violation. Hell, when I went to school, speaking out of turn in class would generally be rewarded with a ruler slapped across my knu

                • akkk, double confusion there. I screwed up my comment about "violation of free speech" with unstated assumptions, plus you misinterpreted the target of the comment.

                  Asking someone (or a lot of someones) to be quiet for a minute is not a violation of free speech.

                  Correct. I was not talking about the audience and the audience's rights.

                  I said: "You cannot tell the student what they can and cannot say". The target there is the individual student at the microphone, and a reference to that individual's rights.
            • But what if the students just want to play football? What if they're not there for the religion, just the sport? Do they stay or go?

              I think that's the point. When you start to talk about religion, you exclude others not of that faith. That's why you don't see too many christians hanging in synagogue foyers across the country - there's nothing for them. (Please bear with me on this slightly laboured point) imagine if that hypothetical synagogue was also the local post office, and you can only post a le

              • I'm fairly sure I've addressed the first part of your post in my other posts in this thread, so I'll skip to the second part...

                The Second Amendment as ratified on 15 December 1791 states:

                "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

                Eugene Volokh [ucla.edu], a professor at the UCLA School of Law and former United States Supreme Court clerk, testified before the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution in 1998, and the
                • Sorry 'bout that redneck thing - musta slipped out :)

                  I just don't see how people acting in complete isolation are a "well-regulated militia". "Well-regulated" implies some sort of underlying cohesion or organisation, which is clearly non-existant. I've seen lots of people who have guns, and they'd not be able to put a dent in anything the army has, even the MREs. They need more protection from themselves than the government. If the people are to be able to fight against any aggressor, as in Switzerland

                  • Well, to put it bluntly, there is no right guaranteed by the Constitution to not have people with guns around you. However, there is the 9th Amendment, which says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

                    Here's where the rights to freedom of movement and freedom of association come in. You could always move to Morton Grove, IL or Washington, DC or any of the other towns and cities in the US where the ownership of f
    • What is it with some of these rabid anti-religionists that they're so offended by displays of faith?

      I have no problems with religious displays- if they're done on your own time. Imagine just for a second that the football team wanted to lead a Hindu prayer. Would you have a problem with that? I suspect so. For those of us who do not hold religious beliefs, being asked to bow our head and listen to a prayer goes against our beliefs. The 1st amendment says that the government shall not foster nor hinder

      • Read my other posts in this thread; I've already said that I don't care if they want to pray to whomever or whatever they want (including the Great Pumpkin, Gaia, their pet cocker spaniel, etc. etc.)

        I'm equally indifferent to Hindu, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Deism, Animism, Shamanism, and any other types of prayers. I'm not afraid that I'll hear a student recite a prayer at an extracurricular activity outside regular school hours and suddenly find myself doubting my own lack of religion.

        And yes
        • I'm equally indifferent to Hindu, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Deism, Animism, Shamanism, and any other types of prayers. I'm not afraid that I'll hear a student recite a prayer at an extracurricular activity outside regular school hours and suddenly find myself doubting my own lack of religion.

          Sorry to jump in in the middle of this, but there is one point I didn't see anybody else address, when you said earlier that you don't have a problem with the 10 commandments being displayed in a courthouse.
          • I am a non judeo-christian. I am an atheist. I have appeared in a court that had the ten commandments, framed, hanging in the foyer. Granted, it was just for a traffic ticket. In Georgia, however, it is possible, though extremely unlikely, to get jail time for "laying drags" (See Georgia Code, Title 40, Chapter 6, Section 251).

            I felt no undue anxiety - and I won my case. Apparently nobody told Walker County Sheriff's Deputy Chris Anderson that 40-6-251 only applies if the tire squealing doesn't involv
            • I am a non judeo-christian. I am an atheist.

              I did follow the thread before I posted, so I knew that.

              40-6-251 only applies if the tire squealing doesn't involve any fishtailing or "doing doughnuts".

              What's your engine/suspension like, or are you just that good not to fishtail at all or did they just have no video ;-)

              I may yet decide that I have a problem with it. Right now, I just don't care enough about it to put it high on my list of priorities.

              I'm a good looking, making good money kind of white
              • What's your engine/suspension like, or are you just that good not to fishtail at all or did they just have no video ;-)

                They had no video, the officer couldn't possibly have even seen me from where his car was when I squealed my tires, and I didn't fishtail. I drive a 1996 F-150 longbed with a 4.9L (300ci) inline six-cylinder (the best damn work-truck engine Ford ever made), automatic transmission, and towing package. The towing package includes, among other things, a limited slip differential, stiffer r

    • first off, let me agree the original poster was a moron, and his depiction of the south is completely unrealistic.

      -snip- Due to the devastation visited on the South at the end of what my US History professor called "The War of Northern Aggression," and the retribution extracted from her afterwards, the South is still the poorest region in the nation -/snip-

      HIGHLY dubious. the war contributed a decent share of economic hardship, but is definetly NOT the end-all be-all reason as you seem to express here. Th
      • I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of why the South lost the Civil War, and concede your point about Civil War monuments being all over the place. I was actually thinking of the monuments and statues relating to the Revolution being mainly in VA and DC, but I immediately followed that point up with a reference to Civil War monuments, so that's a door I opened :)

        However, I believe a large part of the reason why the Southeast is still the poorest region in the nation has to do with the Civil War an
  • Do you know why you people in blue states pay higher taxes? Because you want to! Let me rephrase that in terms that this illiterate journal owner can understand: because you fucking want to! You keep electing people that just want to raise your taxes. Who is more stupid, the people who get federal subsidies, or the ones who voluntarily pay high taxes knowing where the money is going to go? Still on your high horse now? Explain why you allow this to happen.
    • We're talking about federal taxes here, not state taxes.

      You pay federal income tax, which goes to the federal government. The feds redistribute some of those funds back to the states. You vote to raise and lower on your state taxes, but you cannot vote to raise or lower your federal income tax.

      And we're not talking about intellegence, but ethics. You can't have a smaller government and more local control if you take more then your fairshare of government handouts.

      It is ironic, since this is an example of

Slashdot Top Deals

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Close