Obama's State of the Union remarks

[LCMS_No_More]

So there should be a quota on the number of retirees mvoing to a state so it does not offend your senibilities?

Your numbers mean nothing other than when people retire they like to move to warmer climates and that the military likes bases that have mild weather.

Huh?

I did a little checking. You know…checking how many military bases are in each state, how they voted in the 2004 election (to make sure the data from the map is in sync), etc. Interestingly, when it comes to military bases, your facts are in question.

My home, the Golden State of California, a true blue state, tops the list at 51 military bases statewide but only received 0.79 for every dollar paid in Federal Income Tax by Californians. How can it be that nest of “liberal socialist commie pinko fruits and nuts” known as California have so many military bases and yet be a contributor state that is so economically powerful that we fund taker states to the tune of $0.21 on the dollar?

The extremely, almost blood, red state of Texas has 35 military basis and is also a contributor state, receiving 0.94 cents for every dollar paid to the Feds by Texans. Of course, Texas ROCKS because it’s a good, blood red Republican state. Pro-life to the core with the killingest death row in the nation! And, being a good, supply-side, right-wing Republican state, it’s awash in economic activity to the extent that Texans fund their Republican brethren in taker states at $0.06 for every dollar they pay in Federal taxes…and there’s none of that budget deficit problem that Cali…oops, never mind.

46% of all military bases are located in contributor states over 54% in taker states, the first two states that have the most military bases overall are contributor states. Something tells me there’s more to it than weather.

As to retirement communities, I don’t know what that has to do with anything. My grandparents and my parents both retired in Nevada, a contributor state at 0.73:1. Florida is also known as a retirement haven…home of the Golden Girls, in fact, which is nearly evenly balanced with a ration of 1.01/1.

 

[estesbob]

Huh?

I did a little checking. You know…checking how many military bases are in each state, how they voted in the 2004 election (to make sure the data from the map is in sync), etc. Interestingly, when it comes to military bases, your facts are in question.

My home, the Golden State of California, a true blue state, tops the list at 51 military bases statewide but only received 0.79 for every dollar paid in Federal Income Tax by Californians. How can it be that nest of “liberal socialist commie pinko fruits and nuts” known as California have so many military bases and yet be a contributor state that is so economically powerful that we fund taker states to the tune of $0.21 on the dollar?

The extremely, almost blood, red state of Texas has 35 military basis and is also a contributor state, receiving 0.94 cents for every dollar paid to the Feds by Texans. Of course, Texas ROCKS because it’s a good, blood red Republican state. Pro-life to the core with the killingest death row in the nation! And, being a good, supply-side, right-wing Republican state, it’s awash in economic activity to the extent that Texans fund their Republican brethren in taker states at $0.06 for every dollar they pay in Federal taxes…and there’s none of that budget deficit problem that Cali…oops, never mind.

46% of all military bases are located in contributor states over 54% in taker states, the first two states that have the most military bases overall are contributor states. Something tells me there’s more to it than weather.

As to retirement communities, I don’t know what that has to do with anything. My grandparents and my parents both retired in Nevada, a contributor state at 0.73:1. Florida is also known as a retirement haven…home of the Golden Girls, in fact, which is nearly evenly balanced with a ration of 1.01/1.

Thank you for confirming what I said about your numbers being meaningless. The reason retirment factors into the numberss is becuase social security and govt pensions are considered govt outlays.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Thank you for confirming what I said about your numbers being meaningless. The reason retirment factors into the numberss is becuase social security and govt pensions are considered govt outlays.

Sometimes I wonder if you’re in this to dialogue with others or just to “be right” and “win” the argument by getting the “point” and then moving on.

I state that I believe that California, which is a blue contributor state, could do pretty well if it broke off from the rest of the US. After all, California send far more to Washington than it gets back in funding and services from the Federal Government. Meanwhile, a lot of Republican red states (not all, a lot of them) are taker states that receive more funding than their residents pay in federal taxes at the expense of those who pay more. I make a tongue in cheek statement about welfare and…you lead me down the rabbit hole. Gotta watch for that…this is how you “win” by making your “point” and moving on.

 

[Roselle]

Enjoyed Charles Krauthammer’s article this morning on Obama’s State of the Union address.

investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/561403/201101281851/Obama-Seems-Tone-Deaf-On-Budget-Deficit.htm

From the article:

The November election sent a clear message to Washington: less government, less debt, less spending.

President Obama certainly heard it, but judging from his State of the Union address, he doesn’t believe a word of it.

The people say they want cuts? Sure they do — in the abstract. But any party that actually dares carry them out will be punished severely. On that, Obama stakes his re-election.

No other conclusion can be drawn from a speech that didn’t even address the debt issue until 35 minutes in. And then what did he offer?

 

[ishii]

Sometimes I wonder if you’re in this to dialogue with others or just to “be right” and “win” the argument by getting the “point” and then moving on.

I state that I believe that California, which is a blue contributor state, could do pretty well if it broke off from the rest of the US. After all, California send far more to Washington than it gets back in funding and services from the Federal Government. Meanwhile, a lot of Republican red states (not all, a lot of them) are taker states that receive more funding than their residents pay in federal taxes at the expense of those who pay more. I make a tongue in cheek statement about welfare and…you lead me down the rabbit hole. Gotta watch for that…this is how you “win” by making your “point” and moving on.

Yeah, Estesbob. Don’t bother people with facts. Let them enjoy their own delusions.

Ishii

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

We tried that about 150 years ago. The rebels lost the military conflict, but** I think those same rebels still exist today and are winning on other fronts**.

Well at least there is a spot of good news in your post.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Please explain Repubblicanist. I am not familar with that term.

Its a term of derogation to people who believe in small government, low taxes, and no entitlements. Kinda like how Martin Luther used the term papist on Catholics.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Hmmm. People’s Republic of California, People’s Republic of New York, Republic of New Mexico, etc… Not a bad idea.

I agree, when do we start?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

A bit of bait and switch here. you posted a chart based on total federal spending then cliamed it showed red states got more welfare spending. not true. The Federal spending in the mostly southern “red states” has little to with welfare spending and much to do with the location of retirees and military bases.

Not to mention the insane amount of federal dollars spent on government contractors, most of which are headquartered in Northern Virginia (Pentagon, Crystal City, Rossyln, Clarendon, Herndon, Reston, etc…)

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Its a term of derogation to people who believe in small government, low taxes, and no entitlements. Kinda like how Martin Luther used the term papist on Catholics.

Right. The same as how some people refer to the Democrats as Demo-Rats or Demo-Krats. The trouble with using any of such labels is “heard that, said that.” None of it is original and we’ve pretty much heard all the epithets that each group uses on others.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Well at least there is a spot of good news in your post.

So, rebellion against a lawful authority is a good thing?

And here I always thought that it was mortal sin.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Well at least there is a spot of good news in your post.

Right. The same as how some people refer to the Democrats as Demo-Rats or Demo-Krats. The trouble with using any of such labels is “heard that, said that.” None of it is original and we’ve pretty much heard all the epithets that each group uses on others.

Right…and to an observer it would seem that for most politically active people on this forum who are the “true” Catholics among us, the Republican party is all-good and all-holy. No Republican has ever done anything that is immoral, evil or unethical. Republicans are all living saints (Reagan’s 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not criticize a Republican). It’s considered a branch of the Church that is even more holy and true that the Church itself and its actions and ideology are not to be questioned in any manner, way shape or form. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised that some would like add a Canon or two to Trent:

“If anyone voteth not Republican in any and all elections in the United States, let him be anathema.”

“If anyone sayeth that the Republican Party in the United States is not divine and that its elected membership are not all good and holy and living saints who are truly pro-life at heart, regardless of their actions, let him be anathema.”

 

[Raskolnikov]

So, rebellion against a lawful authority is a good thing?

And here I always thought that it was mortal sin.

No, it’s good as long as it’s for a noble cause, like the one the South surely had.

 

[ishii]

Right…and to an observer it would seem that for most politically active people on this forum who are the “true” Catholics among us, the Republican party is all-good and all-holy. No Republican has ever done anything that is immoral, evil or unethical. Republicans are all living saints (Reagan’s 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not criticize a Republican). It’s considered a branch of the Church that is even more holy and true that the Church itself and its actions and ideology are not to be questioned in any manner, way shape or form. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised that some would like add a Canon or two to Trent:

“If anyone voteth not Republican in any and all elections in the United States, let him be anathema.”

“If anyone sayeth that the Republican Party in the United States is not divine and that its elected membership are not all good and holy and living saints who are truly pro-life at heart, regardless of their actions, let him be anathema.”

Of course, you’re doing nothing but making a joke out of the discussion with these ad hominem comments. No one says that you have to vote Republican. No one (to my knowlege) says that Republicans are perfect. However, one must not vote for a pro-abortion rights candidate. I would also say that based on the idea of “the only way for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing” one should also vote for the most effectively pro-life candidate possible. Most often, the candidate is Republican - its not my fault that’s true. Its also true that the biggest pro-abortion rights supporters are Democrats. I’m sure that bugs the heck out of those who hate Republicans more than abortion. It also bugs those catholics who probably wish the abortion issue and the pro-lifers would just go away so they can pull the lever for their environmentally friendly, liberal, big spending, feminist candidate. Oh the abortion issue muddies things up doesn’t it? Makes it so hard to be a good Catholic and a Democrat voter at the same time.

Ishii

 

[bbarrick8383]

Of course, you’re doing nothing but making a joke out of the discussion with these ad hominem comments. No one says that you have to vote Republican. No one (to my knowlege) says that Republicans are perfect. However, one must not vote for a pro-abortion rights candidate. I would also say that based on the idea of “the only way for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing” one should also vote for the most effectively pro-life candidate possible. Most often, the candidate is Republican - its not my fault that’s true. Its also true that the biggest pro-abortion rights supporters are Democrats. I’m sure that bugs the heck out of those who hate Republicans more than abortion. It also bugs those catholics who probably wish the abortion issue and the pro-lifers would just go away so they can pull the lever for their environmentally friendly, liberal, big spending, feminist candidate. Oh the abortion issue muddies things up doesn’t it? Makes it so hard to be a good Catholic and a Democrat voter at the same time.

Ishii

I must apologize to you Ishii, LCMS has decided at some point to use my words, as inarticulate as they may be at times, as the talking point for his/her posts. I’ve somehow become the voice for all that is Catholic and Republican by stating my views.

By stating my opinion I have somehow convinced LCMS that I believe that the Republican party is the chosen party of the Catholic faith, even though I’m not Catholic and it doesn’t matter what you or anyone else says not that I have convinced him/her this, I said it so it must be.

 

[ishii]

I must apologize to you Ishii, LCMS has decided at some point to use my words, as inarticulate as they may be at times, as the talking point for his/her posts. I’ve somehow become the voice for all that is Catholic and Republican by stating my views.

By stating my opinion I have somehow convinced LCMS that I believe that the Republican party is the chosen party of the Catholic faith, even though I’m not Catholic and it doesn’t matter what you or anyone else says not that I have convinced him/her this, I said it so it must be.

You are not at fault, bbarick. Following the meandering and tortured logic of some of these posters is very tedious. They jump from point to point and when you call them on their “facts” they merely race on to the next point rather than entertain the possibility that they might be wrong or atleast engage in a thoughful discussion. Then at the end of the day they are reduced to caricaturing their opposition as they did in the post I responded to. The GOP is the only pro-life party out there that can make a difference. Until the “pro-life” Democrats grow some you-know-what then the GOP will remain the only pro-life party. We could sure use some help from pro-life Democrats but I have my doubts about their committment to the pro-life cause. Sure there are some opportunist Republicans - I think Charlie Crist comes to mind - who use the pro-life mantle to get votes then change when it suits them. But I take most pro-life Republicans at face value. It comes down to overturning Roe V Wade and to do that we need to have vacancies and a Republican president to decide on who will fill them. Then they need to get past the pro-abortion rights Democrats. It may take years but to the Republican haters it should have happened during Reagan’s presidency. They forget that there is such a powerful pro-abortion rights lobby in charge of the Democrats. That is where they should focus their anger, not the Republicans who by and large have been trying to make progress on the issue the past few decades. Thank you for your posts and your honest committment to the pro-life cause.

Ishii

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

So, rebellion against a lawful authority is a good thing?

And here I always thought that it was mortal sin.

Secular law that violates natural law or God’s law is not law, but tyranny.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Right…and to an observer it would seem that for most politically active people on this forum who are the “true” Catholics among us, the Republican party is all-good and all-holy. No Republican has ever done anything that is immoral, evil or unethical. Republicans are all living saints (Reagan’s 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not criticize a Republican). It’s considered a branch of the Church that is even more holy and true that the Church itself and its actions and ideology are not to be questioned in any manner, way shape or form. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised that some would like add a Canon or two to Trent:

“If anyone voteth not Republican in any and all elections in the United States, let him be anathema.”

“If anyone sayeth that the Republican Party in the United States is not divine and that its elected membership are not all good and holy and living saints who are truly pro-life at heart, regardless of their actions, let him be anathema.”

I am not a Republican. I am a registered and donation-giving Libertarian. So, there goes your arguement.

 

[crazzeto]

Right…and to an observer it would seem that for most politically active people on this forum who are the “true” Catholics among us, the Republican party is all-good and all-holy. No Republican has ever done anything that is immoral, evil or unethical. Republicans are all living saints (Reagan’s 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not criticize a Republican). It’s considered a branch of the Church that is even more holy and true that the Church itself and its actions and ideology are not to be questioned in any manner, way shape or form. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised that some would like add a Canon or two to Trent:

“If anyone voteth not Republican in any and all elections in the United States, let him be anathema.”

“If anyone sayeth that the Republican Party in the United States is not divine and that its elected membership are not all good and holy and living saints who are truly pro-life at heart, regardless of their actions, let him be anathema.”

For the record, I used to be heavy left leaning but still tried my best to be moderate… Now I’m generally moderate but I try my best to keep my vote as aboslutely within the bounds of the Catholic Moral teaching…

It doesn’t necessarly mean Republican (there are bones to be picked with them), but it also certainly (from my POV) would preculde me being a platform democrate or even as left leaning as I once was.

My heart is broken that democrats have so fundamentally embrassed the Culture of death, and it continues to break as I see the Republican party abandoning the moral platform slowly, bit by bit. It leaves me wondering who will be left to stand for God?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Of course, you’re doing nothing but making a joke out of the discussion with these ad hominem comments. No one says that you have to vote Republican. No one (to my knowlege) says that Republicans are perfect. However, one must not vote for a pro-abortion rights candidate.

You get no disagreement from me there.

I would also say that based on the idea of “the only way for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing” one should also vote for the most effectively pro-life candidate possible. Most often, the candidate is Republican - its not my fault that’s true.

Here is where we disagree. I don’t believe that Republican politicians are effectively pro-life. They have a policy of being opposed to abortion-wrongs (abortion isn’t a right and it isn’t right), but policy can be, and often is, ignored.

Its also true that the biggest pro-abortion rights supporters are Democrats.

Agreed…which is why I don’t need to call them out on it…they’re pretty blatant about what they are about.

I’m sure that bugs the heck out of those who hate Republicans more than abortion.

I don’t have any person. I hate the ideology espoused by the Republicans and fail to see how one can marry a completely amoral ideology, such as that espoused by the Republican party, with a moral position on unborn human life. I see Republican ideology as so amoral as to be completely incompatible with the moral position that every human life is sacred. On one level, Republicanism can be taken to such an extreme that I’m surprised that someone hasn’t used the ideology to call for forced abortion, but I digress.

It also bugs those catholics who probably wish the abortion issue and the pro-lifers would just go away so they can pull the lever for their environmentally friendly, liberal, big spending, feminist candidate. Oh the abortion issue muddies things up doesn’t it? Makes it so hard to be a good Catholic and a Democrat voter at the same time.

Ishii

Talk about ad hominem.