Tennessee Republican Floats Secession Threat

reply to post by Nosred



I wouldnt vote for him. TALKING about sticking to the Constitution and THREATENING to Secede is just the way the Republicans are trying to get people not to abandon the two party system this mid term election.

Republicans have supported things that undermine the Constitution historically too. (Patriot Act?) And made the government immensely bigger. (Homeland Security?)

Its all rhetoric. They may be selling, but Im not buying. Vote both parties out. If you actually want action to go with words, that is. Otherwise you are perpetuating the same 'tell you what you want to hear til they get elected and then do what they want to do" nonsense.

How does the saying go? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Yeah thats it.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Nosred

 

I wouldnt vote for him. TALKING about sticking to the Constitution and THREATENING to Secede is just the way the Republicans are trying to get people not to abandon the two party system this mid term election.

Republicans have supported things that undermine the Constitution historically too. (Patriot Act?) And made the government immensely bigger. (Homeland Security?)

Its all rhetoric. They may be selling, but Im not buying. Vote both parties out. If you actually want action to go with words, that is. Otherwise you are perpetuating the same 'tell you what you want to hear til they get elected and then do what they want to do" nonsense.

How does the saying go? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Yeah thats it.

+1

in all the protestations and regurgitation of talking points by the mind-wiped dailykos automotons here it is forgot that this propagandizing cry of secession is a mere distraction tendered by the Republican branch of the Democrat-Republican Party ... virtually anyone with a R or D after their name is a bootlicker and panderer; this is a marketing ploy and little else

Yum Brands operates KFC to appeal to people who like chicken and Taco Bell to appeal to people who like tacos ... at the end of the day the money is all going to the same place

the Democrat-Republican Party operates their Democrat branch to appeal to leftists and their Republican branch to appeal to rightists ... at the end of the day the money is all going to the same place

reply to post by Ko-Dan Armada


Amen brother. Couldnt agree more.

Its just so frustrating that everyone still believes in professional wrestling, and our two parties. Its rigged folks. They are not on opposite teams. WE the people are the opposite team.

All career politicians, regardless of party affiliation, have the same main objective: to keep getting elected.

However, to say that Reps or Dems are "the same", isn't really true.

There are clearly separate ideologies at work, there.

reply to post by __rich__


Sure there are. Clear differences.


What are they again? Oh yeah, one promises X and does Y, and the other promises Z and does Y.

Both are for the war(s). Both are for increasing the size of government. Both are for allowing illegal immigration. Both are for NAFTA and eventually the creation of an NAU. Both are for slowly eroding the Constitution. Both are for higher taxes. Both are for military spending, deficit spending, and pretty much allowing their rich friends to do whatever they want.

What is the big difference here? The crumbs they throw their fans when they win an election? No one is claiming they dont toss scraps at their fans to keep the game going, but their bottom line goals are the same.

America, Inc. a subsidiary of the NAU Corp.

Well, one party is Pro Union and the other anti.

One is pro corporate regulation and the other anti regulation.

OK...the rest I have to agree with. 2 sides of the same coin.

Originally posted by __rich__
Well, one party is Pro Union and the other anti.

What party is that?

It's certainly neither the Democrat nor Republican branches of the Democrat-Republican Party.

No group that supports Taft-Hartley could be described as "Pro Union." That's like calling a bad hunter "pro-deer."

Originally posted by __rich__
One is pro corporate regulation and the other anti regulation.

What party is that?

It's certainly neither the Democrat nor Republican branches of the Democrat-Republican Party.

No group that supports juristic personhood could be described as "pro corporate regulation." That's like calling a rapist with erectile dysfunction "pro-women."

Originally posted by __rich__
Well, one party is Pro Union and the other anti.

So unions actually gain a lot of ground when Dems are in office? Elaborate. Seems to me no matter what the Dems say, a policy that allows illegal labor in, weakens unions. Puts downward pressure all over wages. Not to mention it was Clinton who got NAFTA passed, and let all those manufacturing jobs flee the country faster. Im sure that helped unions a lot too.

Originally posted by __rich__
One is pro corporate regulation and the other anti regulation.

Seems to me Clinton did an awful lot of deregulation. And, Obama is silent on the new Supreme court ruling that allows corporations free reign to contribute to campaigns, which will also promote more deregulation. Oh, and Clinton was after Saddam too. Same policies. Almost the exact same rhetoric.

www.cnn.com...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Originally posted by __rich__
OK...the rest I have to agree with. 2 sides of the same coin.

Same monster. Two heads. Both heads lying their butt off.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
And, Obama is silent on the new Supreme court ruling that allows corporations free reign to contribute to campaigns, which will also promote more deregulation.

No! Remember, he did a little dog and pony show in the Capitol during the State of the Union where he put on his big frowny face and wagged his finger at the Supreme Court.

That was good enough for the loyalists of the Democrat branch of the DRP so it should be good enough for you!

(Nevermind that SCOTUS was ruling on a statutory, not a constitutional question, ergo it is even now 100% within the authority of Congress to negate that ruling through a simple amendment to the U.S. Code definition of juristic entities. Funny that Obama doesn't bother to bring that up.)

You tell me...which states are generally Unionized, or "right to work" states?


Since Red states are generally "right to work" states, why is it that they need so many agricultural subsidies?

Shouldn't their anti-union stance bring in so many more manufacturing and other non-agriculture jobs? At least compared to the Union Blue states who, according to this thread, get less Federal subsidies because they have less Ag jobs?

Originally posted by __rich__
You tell me...which states are generally Unionized, or "right to work" states?

Since Red states are generally "right to work" states, why is it that they need so many agricultural subsidies?

Shouldn't their anti-union stance bring in so many more manufacturing and other non-agriculture jobs? At least compared to the Union Blue states who, according to this thread, get less Federal subsidies because they have less Ag jobs?

for the 7th time (I counted) states do not receive agricultural subsidies ... Cargill, ADM, Tyson Foods, Monsanto, etc. receive ag subsidies

Again, I've tried to use the simplest words I can possibly find to explain this, but I'm at a loss at how to phrase this in a more basic way that would be better attuned to your specific educational pedigree and background. If you still don't understand, perhaps you could PM me so the rest of the readers don't have to see me repeating this - in response to your repeated question - an 8th, 9th, 10th time? Thanks!

" In 2006, the top 3 states receiving subsidies were Texas (10.4%), Iowa (9.0%), and Illinois (7.6%)


"Top states for direct payments were Iowa ($501 million), Illinois ($454 million), and Texas ($397 million). Direct payments of subsidies are limited to $40,000 per person or $80,000 per couple."



So, back to he original point: States that generally scream about secession usually also beg for Federal handouts. (Texas?)

Just like people who screamed against Universal Healthcare generally are on Medicare.

I find this whole mentality interesting. Possibly psychological denial? Maybe they just hate the fact they need welfare and really don't want other people to be as miserable as them?

Originally posted by __rich__
" In 2006, the top 3 states receiving subsidies were Texas (10.4%), Iowa (9.0%), and Illinois (7.6%)

"Top states for direct payments were Iowa ($501 million), Illinois ($454 million), and Texas ($397 million). Direct payments of subsidies are limited to $40,000 per person or $80,000 per couple."

So, back to he original point: States that generally scream about secession usually also beg for Federal handouts. (Texas?)

for the 8th time: states do not receive agricultural subsidies ... Cargill, ADM, Tyson Foods, Monsanto, etc. receive ag subsidies

you don't understand the difference between the verbiage use of "state" as a geography and "state" as a polity - I get that ... please, don't make the thread suffer just because you are having a difficult time understanding this

Armada, YOU stated that the only reason these Red States receive more Federal Welfare than Blue States was because of Agricultural Subsidies.

To wit:

The reason these states "get more money" is because they are agriculture producers receiving federal farm subsidies to guarantee a price floor on crops for the benefit of agri-business concerns (i.e. Archer-Daniels-Midland, Tyson Foods, etc.).

I have been trying to point out the fallacy in this despite your constant deflections. It's obvious you just will never admit the obvious truth that these red states who scream about secession because they hate the Federal Government so much ironically receive more Federal Welfare than anyone else.

Originally posted by __rich__
Armada, YOU stated that the only reason these Red States receive more Federal Welfare than Blue States was because of Agricultural Subsidies.

To wit:

The reason these states "get more money" is because they are agriculture producers receiving federal farm subsidies to guarantee a price floor on crops for the benefit of agri-business concerns (i.e. Archer-Daniels-Midland, Tyson Foods, etc.).

I have been trying to point out the fallacy in this despite your constant deflections. It's obvious you just will never admit the obvious truth that these red states who scream about secession because they hate the Federal Government so much ironically receive more Federal Welfare than anyone else.

for the 9th time: states do not receive agricultural subsidies ... Cargill, ADM, Tyson Foods, Monsanto, etc. receive ag subsidies ("corporate welfare" is so-called because it goes to benefit of corporations, the majority of whose shareholders are not resident in the states in which they do business)

you don't understand the difference between the verbiage use of "state" as a geography and "state" as a polity - I get that now (it was my fault for, at the outset, assuming you understood this and using "state" interchangeably) ... please, don't make the thread suffer just because you had to settle for a land-grant university to get your degree


[edit on 25-7-2010 by Ko-Dan Armada]

You are impossible to understand since you change your tune to suit your stance.

First you say Red States receive more Fed. money because of Ag. subsidies to support price floors for the concerns of Agri-Corporations. Which implies individual farmers getting money to not grow crops to artificially increase commodities prices.

Then you backtrack and say "Well, actually States themselves get no subsidies, only the Giant Ag Corps like ADM, etc, get them!"

Even though it's already been established that most of the subsidies in question are not Agricultural, but Social Programs.

So, basic attempt at deflection to obfuscate the fact, as presented by the Tax Foundation, that Red States in general receive more Fed. money than they put in the system. These same states are the ones who regularly talk about secession, while at the same time holding out their hands for Welfare.

Now saying that, the Tax Foundation also explains the main reason for the disparity in Federal Spending:

The Blue States in general earn more money, and therefore pay more income tax. it's that simple. Ag subsidies have nothing to do with it.

www.taxfoundation.org...

So, the Unionized Blue States earn more,and therefore pay more, while receiving a comparatively same amount of spending when factored by their relative wealth.

Interesting point to consider when thinking about the common meme that Unions and Blue State Regulations are supposed to stifle business and jobs.

In the real world the exact opposite is true whereas the states with the least Unionization, worker's rights, min. wages, etc, have the lowest incomes and therefore pay the least in income taxes, and hence the least in to the system they also feed from.










[edit on 25-7-2010 by __rich__]

Originally posted by __rich__
you change your tune to suit your stance.

for the 10th time: states do not receive agricultural subsidies ... Cargill, ADM, Tyson Foods, Monsanto, etc. receive ag subsidies ("corporate welfare" is so-called because it goes to benefit of corporations, the majority of whose shareholders are not resident in the states in which they do business)

you don't understand the difference between the verbiage use of "state" as a geography and "state" as a polity - I get that now (it was my fault for, at the outset, assuming you understood this and using "state" interchangeably) ... please, don't make the thread suffer just because you had to settle for a land-grant university to get your degree

Originally posted by __rich__
First you say Red States receive more Fed. money because of Ag. subsidies to support price floors for the concerns of Agri-Corporations. Which implies individual farmers getting money to not grow crops to artificially increase commodities prices.

you don't understand the difference between the verbiage use of "state" as a geography and "state" as a polity - I get that now (it was my fault for, at the outset, assuming you understood this and using "state" interchangeably) ... please, don't make the thread suffer just because you had to settle for a land-grant university to get your degree

Originally posted by __rich__
Then you backtrack and say "Well, actually States themselves get no subsidies, only the Giant Ag Corps like ADM, etc, get them!"

sorry if you missed the first 10 times I said it but ...

for the 11th time: states do not receive agricultural subsidies ... Cargill, ADM, Tyson Foods, Monsanto, etc. receive ag subsidies ("corporate welfare" is so-called because it goes to benefit of corporations, the majority of whose shareholders are not resident in the states in which they do business)

Even though it's already been established that most of the subsidies in question are not Agricultural, but Social Programs.

ONCE AGAIN - the absence of any source or citation does not "establish" this as a fact.

I asked you, on 4 separate occasions, to demonstrate a source that established federal ag subsidies into 26 "red" states was in excess of the input surplus. All you did was keep pounding your chest and roaring "it has been established!"

Screaming at the top of your lungs "it is established" is not a good substitute for a source or citation.

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada


No! Remember, he did a little dog and pony show in the Capitol during the State of the Union where he put on his big frowny face and wagged his finger at the Supreme Court.

That was good enough for the loyalists of the Democrat branch of the DRP so it should be good enough for you!

You are right. Sorry. After the dog an pony show when the most heavily corporate sponsored presidential candidate of all time promised to get right on this;

www.reuters.com...

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," Obama said in a statement.

"We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less."

And the pundits did their hand wringing and cried over spilled democracy, we havent heard a peep since. Well not about that, anyway.

What we HAVE been hearing is a ton of race baiting and a lot about how dangerous the internet is, and how awful BP is. Ignore the real threat to our country, (the for sale sign on our Presidency) and divide the people (racism) give them something else to be outraged about (BP) and then push on with their dismantling of America. (Shut down dissent and information sharing on the web)

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada
(Nevermind that SCOTUS was ruling on a statutory, not a constitutional question, ergo it is even now 100% within the authority of Congress to negate that ruling through a simple amendment to the U.S. Code definition of juristic entities. Funny that Obama doesn't bother to bring that up.)

SEE! The interwebz ARE dangerous! Thats not part of the propaganda! You terrorist!

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

Again, Ag subsidies really don't play a part in the reasons why red states receive more Fed. welfare than Blue states.

From the Tax Foundation:

"Research Areas
Federal Taxes Paid vs. Spending Received by State

States send federal taxes to Washington and receive federal spending in return. However, some states benefit more from federal taxing and spending policies than others. Some "beneficiary" states receive a positive return from Uncle Sam, making other states "donors" who pick up the tab. The most important factor determining whether a state is a net beneficiary is per capita income. States with wealthier residents pay higher federal taxes per capita thanks to the progressive structure of the income tax. Other factors include whether states have powerful Members of Congress, the number of federal employees present in a state, and the number of residents receiving Social Security, Medicare and other federal entitlements."

www.taxfoundation.org...


Nothing about Ag subsidies to Corporations.