Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The groovy trick mastered by Republicans from these states is to rhapsodize about small government while tirelessly working to divert federal money to their states.

Robert Byrd invented that.

I don't think it's limited, as you say, to republicans. Everyone inveighs against pork, but when the trough it put out there, they all dive in up to their elbows. That's why pork exists, and why commons get overgrazed.

The only distinction you offer that has meaning, methinks, is that republicans in recent history purported to be the party of fiscal responsibility.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
No you weren't now you are changing your tune now that realize how absurd your position was:


Street Fighting Man Post #3155

In #3155, I said:

• You keep saying that they distrust big government, and ignoring that the clowns they elect are spending federal dollars like it's going out of style. They do not practice what they preach when they go to Washington. And perhaps the only reason they don't do this at home is that their state economies are not rich enough to let them blow money on a similar scale.

I don't think that's the same thing as "argu[ing] that voting population in the rural states are less inclined towards big government." Your point was that they don't spend as much money on their local government, and I said that they're quite happy to spend federal dollars, and would spend more of their own money if they had more of it.

He has tried to make cuts but has been stymied by the legislature.

Which is another way of saying that people like the idea of reform in a notional way, but don't like the idea of actual cuts to the things he'd have to cut.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

oops

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Robert Byrd invented that.

I don't think it's limited, as you say, to republicans. Everyone inveighs against pork, but when the trough it put out there, they all dive in up to their elbows. That's why pork exists, and why commons get overgrazed.

The only distinction you offer that has meaning, methinks, is that republicans in recent history purported to be the party of fiscal responsibility.

It's true that these games are bipartisan, although I submit that the worst offenders are from Southern and Western states (and would consider West Virginia a southern state for such purposes).

And everyone can rail against pork, but we all know that the GOP is the party of small government, right? That was Spanky's point, I think.

Politics is full of hypocrites, but Reagan and W. have purchased popularity through deficit spending, and while H.W. and Clinton paid the price (relatively speaking) for governing responsibly.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's true that these games are bipartisan, although I submit that the worst offenders are from Southern and Western states (and would consider West Virginia a southern state for such purposes).

And everyone can rail against pork, but we all know that the GOP is the party of small government, right? That was Spanky's point, I think.

Politics is full of hypocrites, but Reagan and W. have purchased popularity through deficit spending, and while H.W. and Clinton paid the price (relatively speaking) for governing responsibly.

Clinton didn't pay a price for governing responsibly, he reaped a huge benefit. People were happy to see the deficit eliminated -- remember, it was not long before that Ross Perot gained such popularity with a message that was largely about the deficit.

Clinton squandered that benefit, for himself and his party, in exchange for a couple of blowjobs from a skanky intern.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your point, such as it is, only makes sense as a platitude, ignoring subtleties like the differences between local, state and federal governments.

No its a reality you don't like to admit. Texas, one of the largest states in the Union (population wise) still has a much smaller government than many states with smaller populations. You can babble on all you want but the fact is that the people in these rural areas (or in the red states) have are more sckeptical of big government and this sckepticism is reflected in their governments. That is just a fact. Face it. Yes they may take some money from the Federal Government, yes their systems might not be as complicated. Yes they may elect some politicians that don't practice what they preach. Yes they may like getting Federal pork barrels. But this does not change the fact that the people in these states are more inclined towareds smaller government. People in the big states are less sckeptical of big government (like you for example) and that is reflected in the size of government in these states (as you keep saying that is what the voters in these states want). The thing that is funny is that you clearly think that these states are making a mistake not putting more money into their state governments like we do, but at the same time you are trying to deny that is what they are doing. You also admit that people in the large state put more money in their government, and this is what they want, but at the same time trying to argue that they are not more inclined to big government.

You just have a knee jerk reaction to argue against any point I make. I make a simple point that most any rational person would agree with and you try and argue against it. Then when you realize that your position is absurd, you try and change it to - well that might be true - but blah blah blah. The fact is, my statement was true and it was absurd for you to question it.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Again, I made statement that was obvious, Ty disputed it, and now you are trying to pretend that he did not because you
realize that such a disputation would be absurd.

I refer back to my meta-point about communication.

Like I said, you are/were correct about the psychology. They at least pretend to be for smaller government and almost certainly believe it. I maintain that you and Ty were arguing on different, though parallel tracks.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I am saying that you should judge people by their actions as well as their words, and that the red states tend to be pro-big-government when they don't have to pay for it, when it benefits them, when they realize how necessary it is, or when they need a handout for farm subsidies.

In other words - blah blah blah = no.

You agree with what I am saying but you would also like to point out some other facts. Thanks for sharing.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
The fact is, my statement was true and it was absurd for you to question it.

OK, you win. Your statement was true. What do you win?

More to the point, what do the red states win by inclining to smaller government? Well, other than smaller tax burdens for their residents, not much.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In #3155, I said:

• You keep saying that they distrust big government, and ignoring that the clowns they elect are spending federal dollars like it's going out of style. They do not practice what they preach when they go to Washington. And perhaps the only reason they don't do this at home is that their state economies are not rich enough to let them blow money on a similar scale.

I take a direct quote where you said exactly what you said you were not saying and then you ignore it and throw in another quote. Just because you said something else at a different time does not mean that you did not say it. All this proves is you were backing off from your original position. Why can't you face the reality. This quote shows you argued against the validity of my statement. Just acknowledge that.


Again the proof you want to ignore:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
My point was that they mistrust government, and therefore have smaller state governments. You were questioning the validity of that statement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your response to my statement.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And still do, since the people whom you say "mistrust" government have expanded it, and are using it to redistribute money from their neighbors in other states.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
In other words - blah blah blah = no.

You agree with what I am saying but you would also like to point out some other facts. Thanks for sharing.

Goodness, you get a little bitchy when people criticize you.

I don't agree with what you are saying. I think what you are saying, and what you usually say, is a bunch of mindless platitudes that reflects a complete inability to think critically, at least when it comes to anything uttered by a Republican. (When it's uttered by a Democrat, you are critical, but I don't think yelling "Things are better here than North Korea or Cuba" can really be characterized as "thinking").

The red states talk a great game about hating government. They even play a good game of cutting government when doing so saves them money. But they want and love big government when big government means sucking off the tits of the federal government. They do not act like either social or economic libertarians that you are painting them to be.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
No its a reality you don't like to admit. Texas, one of the largest states in the Union (population wise) still has a much smaller government than many states with smaller populations. You can babble on all you want but the fact is that the people in these rural areas (or in the red states) have are more sckeptical of big government and this sckepticism is reflected in their governments. That is just a fact. Face it. Yes they may take some money from the Federal Government, yes their systems might not be as complicated. Yes they may elect some politicians that don't practice what they preach. Yes they may like getting Federal pork barrels. But this does not change the fact that the people in these states are more inclined towareds smaller government. People in the big states are less sckeptical of big government (like you for example) and that is reflected in the size of government in these states (as you keep saying that is what the voters in these states want). The thing that is funny is that you clearly think that these states are making a mistake not putting more money into their state governments like we do, but at the same time you are trying to deny that is what they are doing. You also admit that people in the large state put more money in their government, and this is what they want, but at the same time trying to argue that they are not more inclined to big government.

You just have a knee jerk reaction to argue against any point I make. I make a simple point that most any rational person would agree with and you try and argue against it. Then when you realize that your position is absurd, you try and change it to - well that might be true - but blah blah blah. The fact is, my statement was true and it was absurd for you to question it.

OK, you win. Everything you say is correct, and it was absurd for me to question any of it.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
OK, you win. Your statement was true. What do you win?

More to the point, what do the red states win by inclining to smaller government? Well, other than smaller tax burdens for their residents, not much.

As Spanky pointed out earlier, California has one of the greatest engines of economic growth in the world, Silicon Valley. (He can't mention Hollywood because it's against the Republican ethos to say anything good about Hollywood, even if it's merely recognizing an economic powerhouse when you see one.)

California has these great engines of economic growth, however, in spite of its evil, anti-free market policies. Just like New York and Wall Street. If only New York and California emulated the great free market states of South Dakota and Nebraska, they might have real economies to brag about.

Meanwhile, the private sector is doing a wonderful job responding to the disaster in the red Gulf states, don't you think?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I refer back to my meta-point about communication.

Like I said, you are/were correct about the psychology. They at least pretend to be for smaller government and almost certainly believe it. I maintain that you and Ty were arguing on different, though parallel tracks.

S_A_M

B.S. You are in denial with everyone else. Ty and I were not talking about two different things. I was making a statement that he said was wrong, and then he backs off from that position by throwing out other B.S. but still denying he has backed off.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, you win. Everything you say is correct, and it was absurd for me to question any of it.

Thank God you finally realized this, you stupid commie terrorist America-hating fuck.