Re: POLITICS :-D

[Guest guest]

Living Simply

>

> Not to worry. With the Blue States in hand, the Democrats have firm

> control of 80% of the world's fresh water, over 90% of our pineapple and

> lettuce, 93% of the artichoke production, 95% of America's export

> quality wines,

> 90% of all cheese production, most of the US low-sulfur coal, all

> living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister

> schools, plus Stanford, CalTech and MIT. We can live simply but well.

>

> The Red States, on the other hand, now have to cope with 88% of all

> obese Americans (and their projected health care cost spike), 92% of all

US

> mosquitoes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, 100% of all Televangelists,

> Rush Limbaugh, Bob University, Clemson and the University of

Georgia.

> A high price to pay for controlling the presidency.

But Texas has all that oil and cattle. And don't tempt them with the idea

of withdrawing from the Union....they've been making noises about doing that

for years. There are even commercial advertisements for the Tourist Bureau,

declaring that Texas " is like a whole 'nuther country. " And they believe

it.

Then there is all of the rice and seafood stuffs from Louisiana and I hope

you don't like cotton fabrics or cane sugar-based sweeteners. And Indiana

with all of the corn and wheat. And that just covers the red states I've

lived in and seen first hand. I'm sure that there is more that I'm missing.

I'm thinking that pineapples, lettuce, artichokes, cheese, and wine make a

very narrow diet and I'm dubious about the durability of grape leaves for

clothing, but I could be mistaken....wouldn't be the first time. <grin>

--s, thinking that the ensuing trade agreements would

be....um....interesting....

[Guest guest]

> But Texas has all that oil and cattle. And don't tempt them with the

> idea

> of withdrawing from the Union....they've been making noises about

> doing that

> for years. There are even commercial advertisements for the Tourist

> Bureau,

> declaring that Texas " is like a whole 'nuther country. " And they

> believe

> it.

I buy all my meat from here in Oregon anyways, and I've been trying to

talk my husband into buying a biodiesel still. Texas can close its

borders for all I care; we used to work for Enron. Not fond of that

place right now (though we like most Texans we've met and says

Houston's one redeeming feature is excellent texmex food).

> Then there is all of the rice and seafood stuffs from Louisiana

California is a major rice producer (Lundberg alone in the organic

field, and they're just the barest tip of the industry) and hello?

Pacific Ocean.

> and I hope

> you don't like cotton fabrics or cane sugar-based sweeteners.

Cane sugar is also grown in Hawaii; as for cotton, Oregon can just

continue to buy cotton from overseas textile producers like most

people, including Southerners.

> And Indiana

> with all of the corn and wheat.

Eastern Oregon and Washington are also major producers of wheat. Plus

hey, aren't we all supposed to be going gluten-free or something?

> And that just covers the red states I've

> lived in and seen first hand. I'm sure that there is more that I'm

> missing.

> I'm thinking that pineapples, lettuce, artichokes, cheese, and wine

> make a

> very narrow diet and I'm dubious about the durability of grape leaves

> for

> clothing, but I could be mistaken....wouldn't be the first time.

> <grin>

OK, just speaking for Oregon: Throw in grains, mint, apples, pears,

cherries and other stone fruit, every kind of berry you can name,

salmon, trout, filberts (hazelnuts to you non-Oregonians--we're the #1

producer), walnuts, grapes, lentils...and that's just the stuff

commercially grown and harvested. We also have a thriving cheese

industry (Tillamook, anyone?) and wine scene. We even grow artichokes

commercially. My yard is frighteningly verdant and will grow at a

ridiculous rate any non-tropical thing I stick in the ground. We also

grow a lot of wool here, were within memory a major producer of

flax/linen, and could start growing hemp I suppose. We don't really

need cotton, but getting it from elsewhere than the American South is

not much of an issue. Oh, we're also the nation's #1 producer of grass

seed, as in lawns--though we produce a lot of the other too.

As someone who lives in one of the states (almost entirely Blue) who

pay out more money to the feds than we get back, I'm kinda tired of

subsidizing the states (almost entirely Red) who most vehemently want

to limit who I can love, what I can say, which god(s) I can believe in

and what I can do with my body--and who while getting more money from

the feds than they pay in scream the most about limiting federal

government. You want small government? I'd love to keep Oregon's money

in Oregon. I know we could do great things with it for Oregonians.

Let's go for it.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

I can't believe that I'm contributing to this g*forsaken thread, but...

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:55:41 -0800, Lynn Siprelle wrote:

>

>> And Indiana

>> with all of the corn and wheat.

>>

Hey, Illinois is blue. We grow PLENTY of corn here if you want it. And

soybeans too (but who wants those? ) Believe it or not, there's a huge part

of the state that isn't Chicago. We're as much cornbelt as Iowa or Indiana.

Joan Cole

[Guest guest]

> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:55:41 -0800, Lynn Siprelle wrote:

>>

>>>  And Indiana

>>>  with all of the corn and wheat.

>>>

>

> Hey, Illinois is blue. We grow PLENTY of corn here if you want it.

> And soybeans too (but who wants those? ) Believe it or not,

> there's a huge part of the state that isn't Chicago. We're as much

> cornbelt as Iowa or Indiana.

Weren't me what wrote it, but I'll trade you some corn for some salmon

if it comes to it.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Lynn Siprelle [mailto:lynn@...]

>

> As someone who lives in one of the states (almost entirely

> Blue) who pay out more money to the feds than we get back,

> I'm kinda tired of subsidizing the states (almost entirely

> Red) who most vehemently want to limit who I can love...

There's no serious movement by either of the major political parties to

limit who you can love. I believe that same-sex marriage (or the legal

equivalent) is a legitimate issue, and for a few people in unusual

situations, a very important one, but let's not distort the issue.

> ...what I can say...

Do you have any examples? The last major restriction on speech (or attempt

at one, anyway) that I remember was McCain-Feingold, which was supported

overwhelmingly by Democrats.

> ...which god(s) I can believe in...

No.

> ...and what I can do with my body...

Well, one out of four isn't bad, although there's plenty of that from both

sides (the left-wing war on fat, for example, or the bipartisan war on

[some] drugs).

There are many very good reasons to criticize Republicans (basically all of

their characteristics except for [kind of] not being Democrats). There's no

need to resort to making things up.

> ...and who while getting more money from the feds than

> they pay in scream the most about limiting federal

> government.

There's a certain irony in that, if you look at it that way.

But when you look at it in a more meaningful way--at the individual

level--you'll see that there's a strong correlation between high income (and

presumably being a net tax producer) and voting for Republicans. Even in

Georgia, Kerry won by eight points among those (in households?) making

$50,000 per year or less, while losing by 36 points among those making more.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/GA/P/00/epolls.0.html

There were similar results for House candidates throughout the South:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.3.html

> You want small government? I'd love to keep

> Oregon's money in Oregon.

If the Democratic party abandoned their " We can spend your money even

faster " platform and adopted " Keep Oregon's money in Oregon, " they might do

a little better at the polls.

[Guest guest]

BTW, I sent this post out as some Monday morning humor. I did not

author it, nor do I know who did.

And let me tell yer somethin': Texas IS a nuther country.

YeeeeeeeHaaaaaaa! Pecans a plenty!

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> If the Democratic party abandoned their " We can spend your money even

> faster " platform and adopted " Keep Oregon's money in Oregon, " they

> might do

> a little better at the polls.

>

>

>

But , fact is there was a surplus fund when Clinton was in

office. Now we are borrowing $ billions a day under Bush to pay

interest on our ever rising deficit. Doesn't Congress have until

Thursday to agree to raise the debt ceiling or we will default on the

loan? Whatever Republicans were, they don't seem to be fiscally

responsible anymore.And Bush's cabinet members are dropping out like flies.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

I'm not hugely fond of Bush, and I like to think of myself as almost

'A-political', however, to be fair, there was no money sucking war during

Clinton's admin.

Carol

But , fact is there was a surplus fund when Clinton was in

office. Now we are borrowing $ billions a day under Bush to pay

interest on our ever rising deficit. Doesn't Congress have until

Thursday to agree to raise the debt ceiling or we will default on the

loan? Whatever Republicans were, they don't seem to be fiscally

responsible anymore.And Bush's cabinet members are dropping out like flies.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> There are many very good reasons to criticize Republicans (basically

> all of

> their characteristics except for [kind of] not being Democrats).

> There's no

> need to resort to making things up.

You're focusing on law. I'm focusing on society. The last thing I'd

ever want to be would be a non-Christian in the Bible Belt, except

maybe a gay non-Christian in the Bible Belt. And if you don't think

those states would outlaw homosexuality, establish state religion and

put limits on free speech if they could, you're naive. And I don't

think you're naive.

I'm not saying the Democrats are Good and the Republicans are Evil. I'm

against nanny states of all varieties, personally, though I disagree

with Libertarians on what exactly makes up a nanny state law (I don't

have a problem with environmental protection, for instance).

> But when you look at it in a more meaningful way--at the individual

> level--you'll see that there's a strong correlation between high

> income (and

> presumably being a net tax producer) and voting for Republicans.

That's called Greed. The other G's are Gays, Guns and God. My family of

four makes well under $40k. We get no form of public assistance

whatsoever, though we actually qualify, and as homeschoolers we don't

even get schooling for our kids. Don't assume that low income people

get more services. That's flat wrong.

>> You want small government? I'd love to keep

>> Oregon's money in Oregon.

>

> If the Democratic party abandoned their " We can spend your money even

> faster " platform and adopted " Keep Oregon's money in Oregon, " they

> might do

> a little better at the polls.

There's a growing populist movement among progressives to do just that,

believe me.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

> BTW, I sent this post out as some Monday morning humor. I did not

> author it, nor do I know who did.

Yeah, sorry about that.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Deanna [mailto:hl@...]

>

> > If the Democratic party abandoned their " We can spend your

> money even

> > faster " platform and adopted " Keep Oregon's money in Oregon, " they

> > might do a little better at the polls.

>

> But , fact is there was a surplus fund when Clinton

> was in office.

He doesn't really deserve credit for it, though. Tax revenues were being

pushed up by an unsustainable boom, and the Republican Congress simply

refused to pass budgets as big as he wanted. Remember the so-called

government shutdown? Unfortunately, they lack either the courage or the

inclination to do the same to Bush.

> Now we are borrowing $ billions a day under

> Bush to pay interest on our ever rising deficit. Doesn't

> Congress have until Thursday to agree to raise the debt

> ceiling or we will default on the loan? Whatever Republicans

> were, they don't seem to be fiscally responsible anymore.And

> Bush's cabinet members are dropping out like flies.

As I said, there are many, many good reasons to criticize the Republicans,

out-of-control spending being one of the primary ones. But as long as

Democrats run on a platform of spending even faster, which is precisely what

Kerry did, those of us who care about freedom don't really have a clear

choice. Do we want Kerry because he might be crippled by the Republican

congress? Or do we want Bush, because we can't take the risk of giving Kerry

a chance? And what about Supreme Court nominees? It's a crapshoot, and even

if you win, it just means losing a little more slowly. If Democrats returned

to their libertarian/federalist roots, we would have a clear choice, and it

would be them.

[Guest guest]

Carol wrote:

> I'm not hugely fond of Bush, and I like to think of myself as almost

> 'A-political', however, to be fair, there was no money sucking war

> during Clinton's admin.

> Carol

>

Hi Carol. I refuse to put myself in the donkey or elephant categories.

We need more viable parties like the British have. But, to be fair,

Bush is the first president to lower taxes during war. McCain is

da man, imo. He'll have my vote should he run again.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> As I said, there are many, many good reasons to criticize the Republicans,

> out-of-control spending being one of the primary ones. But as long as

> Democrats run on a platform of spending even faster, which is precisely what

> Kerry did, those of us who care about freedom don't really have a clear

> choice. Do we want Kerry because he might be crippled by the Republican

> congress? Or do we want Bush, because we can't take the risk of giving Kerry

> a chance? And what about Supreme Court nominees? It's a crapshoot, and even

> if you win, it just means losing a little more slowly. If Democrats returned

> to their libertarian/federalist roots, we would have a clear choice, and it

> would be them.

>

My god, I'm glad you care about freedom and I don't.

[Guest guest]

> > If the Democratic party abandoned their " We can spend your money even

> > faster " platform and adopted " Keep Oregon's money in Oregon, " they

> > might do

> > a little better at the polls.

> >

> >

I caught a keeping money more local or at least more evidence of more coming

more local than the Middle East in Kerry's employment, environmental,

alternative energy and agriculture platforms.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

OK, I've deleted too many of these messages, so I have to throw in my 2 cents

worth.

In my family I have Democrats, Republicans and neither. We were born in and

have lived in the South all of our lives. We don't drive a pick-up truck, tote

a gun, or discriminate against people, animals, or those of opposite political

views. But we do enjoy living in the South. We like our warmer weather,

mountains, plains and beaches. We like both our farms and our big cities.

And, believe it or not, we have a multi-cultural community with Christian,

non-Christian, Jewish, Muslim, agnostic, atheistic, black, white, Latino and

Asian members. All can be found within a 5 mile radius of my home. Believe it

or not, some of went to college !! And graduated !! All of us work hard, pay

taxes, and do our best to raise our family in the way that best fits.

Politically sometimes we agree, sometimes not, but either way, we still enjoy a

quality of life that many in other countries envy.

It is grossly unfair to stereotype all Southerners as either ignorant, racist,

or religious nuts, just because some in the South voted red. Argue/discuss

politics and various view points all you want, but you're in danger of becoming

what you criticize, if all you can do is judge people en masse.

Rebekah

Lynn S. wrote:

You're focusing on law. I'm focusing on society. The last thing I'd

ever want to be would be a non-Christian in the Bible Belt, except

maybe a gay non-Christian in the Bible Belt. And if you don't think

those states would outlaw homosexuality, establish state religion and

put limits on free speech if they could, you're naive. And I don't

think you're naive.

[Guest guest]

>That's called Greed. The other G's are Gays, Guns and God. My family of

>four makes well under $40k. We get no form of public assistance

>whatsoever, though we actually qualify, and as homeschoolers we don't

>even get schooling for our kids. Don't assume that low income people

>get more services. That's flat wrong.

Actually a LOT of the government money goes for services to the

middle and upper classes. I am the beneficiary of some of that

money and have been in the past. Many of my peers have kids

that are in good " special education " and therapy programs that

are funded by state or federal dollars. Our state also has a fund for

homeschoolers to buy supplies. And of course I take great advantage

of our local parks and libraries!

Not to mention all the gov't money I got second hand when

I worked for Boeing ...

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/15/04 1:30:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, cah@...

writes:

> I'm not hugely fond of Bush, and I like to think of myself as almost

> 'A-political', however, to be fair, there was no money sucking war during

Clinton's

> admin.

_____

~~~~~~> But it was Bush's choice to make a preemptive war.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/15/04 5:50:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, cah@...

writes:

> The country is so equally divided right now, but I really don't think that

> means both candidates were good. I'm more prone to thinking it was because

> both candidates were so bad it was difficult to choose the lesser of the

> evils. :-)

_____

~~~~~> Not only are they equally divided, but fiercely so. Turnout was very

strong for both candidates this year. But I think both sides were motivated

in large part out of hatred for the other candidate. I don't think really

anyone had any excitement about Kerry, but Bush is widely despised. I think a

lot

of people do like Bush, but I think his turnout was so strong because people

were afraid of a " traitor " getting elected to office.

In the 2000 election, exit polls revealed that about 50% of people voting for

each major candidate saw themselves as voting against the other candidate

rather than for their candidate. IIRC, they each garnered roughly 48% of the

vote, and turnout was somewhere around 50% of the electorate, which means that

roughly 12% of the electorate voted for Bush because they wanted him to be

President, and roughly 12% of the electorate voted for Gore because they wanted

him

to be President.

12% isn't really a mandate.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

Politically speaking, I think it's a sad state of affairs when the two major

political parties are so morally bankrupt that many people don't want to claim

either party. To make matters even more interesting, those of us who really

would like to vote their actual convictions are afraid to dilute their vote by

voting a third party, because the two parties are so powerful. (And, there

really isn't a third party that completely fits with my beliefs.) The country

is so equally divided right now, but I really don't think that means both

candidates were good. I'm more prone to thinking it was because both candidates

were so bad it was difficult to choose the lesser of the evils. :-) For fit

with my beliefs, both candidates had highly objectionable ideas. I would have

had to put the two of them together, and by the time I deleted all the

objectionable ideas, there would be less than one man remaining.

Well, now you see why I don't enter much into the political debates. I have a

pretty dim view of the whole situation, and have no impetus to argue anything.

:-)

The best I can do is support the president who is in office and our troops, by

not casting too many stones at the admin. Once presidents are in office, I

think their intentions are a little more wholesome than prior to

election.......hopefully so, anyway. I DO think it's the most difficult job on

earth, and many have the highest intent, though they may be misguided.

Just wish we could get the government out of our personal business. I don't

want to stop anyone from getting an abortion, but I don't want to pay for their

abortion either. There are many things like that in both parties. In my

opinion, none of that is the business of the government, and whether I'm for or

against any of it is really none of anyone else's business, much less the

governments.

Carol

Carol wrote:

> I'm not hugely fond of Bush, and I like to think of myself as almost

> 'A-political', however, to be fair, there was no money sucking war

> during Clinton's admin.

> Carol

>

[Guest guest]

> It is grossly unfair to stereotype all Southerners as either ignorant,

> racist, or religious nuts, just because some in the South voted red.

> Argue/discuss politics and various view points all you want, but

> you're in danger of becoming what you criticize, if all you can do is

> judge people en masse.

Let me be clear: I am talking about the states, not the individuals in

them. If your state held an election today that would put prayer back

in the schools and make homosexuality illegal (if it could, which right

now it legally cannot), how do you think it would vote?

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

> Let me be clear: I am talking about the states, not the individuals in

> them. If your state held an election today that would put prayer back

> in the schools and make homosexuality illegal (if it could, which right

> now it legally cannot), how do you think it would vote?

>

> Lynn S.

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

Hey Lynn, I think that Texas does indeed have a law against homosexual

behavior. Gosh, I'm trying to retrieve it from my memory bank. Didn't

the Supreme Court get in on it?

Both of your examples above would take a particular philosophy and

enforce it on ALL the people. Whose prayer? Om nama sivaya, Hail ,

atheism rules, Our Father, Praised be the Glutenator? I say, what you

do in your bedroom is your business, UNLESS it is done without mutual

consent (if more than one party is present) or a minor is involved.

A lone voice in the Lone Star State,

Deanna

[Guest guest]

What is a surplus fund? I thought it was illegal for government to put money in

a lockbox. I'll probably wind up with egg on my face...

Darrell

[Guest guest]

Whats wrong with driving a pickup or toting a gun?

How do you discriminate against an animal? Is that like only choosing to eat

one particular color of cow?

Darrell

[Guest guest]

Let me be clear: I am talking about the states, not the individuals in

them. If your state held an election today that would put prayer back

in the schools and make homosexuality illegal (if it could, which right

now it legally cannot), how do you think it would vote?

Lynn S.

I think it would be pretty well evenly divided on the prayer issue, using the

Presidential results as a comparison. But regarding the illegality of

homosexuality, it was the legal definition of marriage that was voted on here.

Our state hasn't outlawed homosexuality, but we haven't legalized homosexuals to

be married either. I think a great deal of the impact of allowing homosexual

partners to be married would be financial, i.e., legalizing insurance benefits

to partners, etc. Herein enters the big corporate institutions seeing monetary

loss/increased expenses that play into this arena as well.

Rebekah

[Guest guest]

Tongue in cheek ! My brother-in-law drives a pickup (and he's a great guy), and

I'm not against people toting guns (we have done some seasonal hunting). As far

as animal discrimination goes, that would only apply to the dinner table at our

house; what do we have a taste for/against tonight ! ;P

Rebekah

Re: Re: POLITICS :-D

Whats wrong with driving a pickup or toting a gun?

How do you discriminate against an animal? Is that like only choosing to eat

one particular color of cow?

Darrell