24: It's Over - Buy The DVD's

I could tolerate 24 going carbon neutral as part of Fox's corporate nonsense, but Janeane Garofalo?? Janeane Garo-friggin'-falo ... because of a lackluster season? Garofalo couldn't add luster to a car finish with wax and a wet Tee shirt. Stick a fork in 24, it's done.

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - The political left and the political right will join forces on Fox's "24" this coming season. Janeane Garofalo, an outspoken liberal, is set to co-star on the conservative-leaning real-time drama, whose co-creator/executive producer Joel Surnow jokingly describes himself as a "right-wing nut job."

Garofalo will play a government agent who is part of the team investigating the crisis befalling Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) and company in the upcoming season.

Garofalo is the second major cast addition to the action drama, which is going through a major revamping coming off a lackluster sixth season. Cherry Jones was tapped last month to play the new president.

Comments

[seekeronos]

Shows like "24" or "Walker, TX Ranger" and like programming venues exist as fodder for the masses, whose brains are easily sated by the appearance they project of "manly conservative values".

IMHO, I think that Hellivision programming went down the toilet almost two generations ago, when shows like "Father Knows Best", "Leave it to Beaver", "My Three Sons", or even "Mr. Ed" were no longer serious contenders for the American advertising dollar.

Those were TV shows that reinforced solid American values, and weren't vacuous celebrations of "guns, grit, and patriotism" meant to placate and fill the vaccuum left over by the dreck that fills the airwaves now, like "Reality TV" and the shenanigans of the Celebritard Set.

Best solution for the Hellivision these days is to either unplug it, or save it for watching what few halfway decent movies one can score out of NetFlix, and maybe the History Channel.

[LOL]

ah fred such a pathetic failure, proof that conservatives are stupid by nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)

Notice how at the bottom of the list we have a whole bunch of Red States. Looking through the list the trendline becomes obvious. But let me spell it out for the stupid (aka conservatives): The states that went "blue" in 2004 tend to be on top, the "red" on the bottom.

Compare for example Connecticut in 2005 -- GSP ~ 55,000
To Kentucky 2005 -- GSP ~ 33,500

20,000 dollar difference! Average Conn resident makes about 67% more than a kentuckian!

Now let's look at the difference in taxation:
Conn 10.5%
Ken 10.3%

Big fucking deal.

Even if you compare Maine at 13% to alaska at 6.4%, the difference between taxes is so minimal compared with the difference in average income that your argument is absurd!

Federalism is great because it allow states to be laboratories trying out different forms of governments. It's pretty clear that the high-taxing highly socialized blue states are generally outperforming the low-tax, laissez faire conservative failure states. The trend is true in health coverage, emigration, education levels, and life expectancy as well.

Conservatism is an ideology of failure.

[bloodrage bob]

...and liberalism is an ideology of lies.

[bloodrage bob]

one item on your little laundry list i couldn't help but notice that you omitted, LOL, was "crime rates of the big cities".

last time i checked, the top 10 crime cities were pretty much *all* located in your bucolic blue-state/liberal paradises. philly, D.C., LA, oakland, chicago, baaaastin, myjammy, new orleans, (can't forget new orleans, can we? ask a houstonian about N.O. people sometime), st. louis, aaaaaaand, far & away the most godawful, stinking, pestilential, unmaintained crime-ridden hellhole in the USA, "detroit". interestingly, the public school systems in each of these lawless liberal DUMPS have been controlled by liberals for decades, and in each & every case, is an absolute disaster. featuring high-school graduation rates on the 30% range. or worse.

liberal democrat strongholds all. and they have been for *decades*.

therefore, using your own "logic", we can safely assume that 'liberalism causes crime and stupid people; or at least, causes societal breakdowns.' just what us "failed" conservatives have been saying for years. the murder rate in detroit or philadelphia is...what? 20, 30, *50* times higher (per hundred thousand) than salt lake city, say. it MUST be liberalism that's causing that, right?

what else could explain why those high-taxed liberal democrat cities are such shitholes?

[Fred Beloit]

Sure, P, you want me at 12:48 am. But will you call me in the morning? Alas, I have no illusions.

[Fred Beloit]

LOL, you must have gotten up too early or gone to bed too late. The nums I provided aren't tax rates. They are rates as a percentage of per capita income, as is clearly stated in the link. Here are CT's tax rates.

CONNECTICUT
Sales Taxes
State Sales Tax: 6% (food, prescription & non-prescription drugs exempt).
Gasoline Tax: 40.5 cents/gallon
Diesel Fuel Tax: 39.8 cents/gallon
Cigarette Tax: $1.51/pack of 20.

Personal Income Taxes
Tax Rate Range: Low - 3.0%; High - 5.0%
Income Brackets: * Lowest - First $10,000; Highest - Over $10,000

They also have a stiff real estate and personal property tax.

Message is don't smoke, don't drive, don't own a boat, live in a cheap house. Eating is OK up ar.

[Fred Beloit]

Looks like whatever unprescribed meds you are on are OK too, LOL.

[Fred Beloit]

LOL writes:

"Compare for example Connecticut in 2005 -- GSP ~ 55,000
To Kentucky 2005 -- GSP ~ 33,500

20,000 dollar difference! Average Conn resident makes about 67% more than a kentuckian!"

Glad you mentioned CT, LOL, I lived there for quite a spell. Much of that money in CT is in the southeastern part of the state: Greenwich (home to many hedge fund managers), Westport (Paul Newman lives there), Weston, Darien, New Canaan. Bridgeport, New Britain, New London, Waterbury not nearly so well off. These latter of course are the bastions of Democratics. Like, as BB pointed out to your pointy head, New Orleans. (Spartan wants us to call all Democrats Democratics now. OK with me.)

I assure you many residents of these latter cities would love to have an average income of $33,500 like Kentucky's. By the way it is incorrect to use the term "the average citizen" in this context. There are many very wealthy folks in CT keeping that number so high. If the man over on another street from me makes makes $2,000,000 a year, and he does, and I make $60,000, our average is $1,030,000. This does not help me nor hurt him, and as a piece of data it is useless.

[seekeronos]

Hmmm.

LOLlerskates missed a few things. #6 on the list, WYOMING, has a rock-solid Republican base, and is fairly wealthy. Good schools, too, unlike the typical socialist dumbing factories (public schools) in the inner cities along the coasts.

[Fred Beloit]

Good catch as usual, seek.

[Phoenix]

"...you want me at 12:48 am. But will you call me in the morning?"

My darling, F. 12:48 A.M. is the morning. Where were you?

p

[bloodrage bob]

LOL?? buddy? don't care to discuss big-city crime rates? cat got your tongue?

liberalism is an ideology of gutlessness.

[LOL]

ROFl your counterargument is Wyoming? A state with 1 congressional rep? So a handful of repubs are doing well in wyoming, while all the ones in Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas etc are dying.

as for crime rates, well of course big cities have higher crime rates, any fool could tell you that. Cities provide opportunity for crime. I find it funny that the first thing conservatives turn to is fear when they want to win an argument. They're so brave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-world-murder-rate.svg

Notice how a lot of the socialized countries of the world, Canada, France, UK, Norway, Germany all have lower murder rates than the US. May I remind you that New Orleans and St. Louis are both in "red" states, that have often have Republican legislatures and governors, so it really doesn't bolster your argument to include them.

If you look here

http://www.morganquitno.com/DANG00RANK.htm

You'll find out that Crime is pretty much all over the map in terms of red/blue and there really isn't much of a connection. For example Alaska looks pretty crime-filled, and so does Maryland.

Compare say Texas which is in the teens on all levels with California which is in the teens on some things, single digits on others, and very low on thing like rape (but wingers probably don't care about that statistic I would guess.)

More broadly though, crime isn't the only safety issue we face in our lives. Life expectancy is really a better measure of how governments are dealing with ALL of the safety issues of its citizenry.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2006/db20060913_099763.htm

The top isn't all "blue" states, But isn't it interesting if you look at the bottom of the list. Look at the bottom 15 on life expectancy. 15/16 are "red states". The list is 51 (includes DC which is at bottom, and which also ironically has no representation in congress, coincidence that it's at bottom?) And of course DC has been denied representation by who else? Conservatives! People so in love with power they would rather disenfranchise voters instead of risk losing a single vote in the House.

More proof that conservatism, when given the reins of power, fails.

But if you need more proof look at a country by country comparison:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html

And again the socialized western countries are leading the way in life expectancy. Conservatives in the US have done a great deal of work in allowing the US to fall behind our socialized European brethren.

Of course if you needed more proof of conservatism's utter failure to properly execute a government, one need truly look no further than this administration's execution of the Iraq war.

[LOL]

I love Fred's ignorant reply. Connecticut is home to over 3.4 million people dude. Per capita income is an important statistic with that high of a population. I find it ironic that you would not lob this criticism at the person who included Wyoming -- a state of not even 0.5 million people, and an example where your argument would more correctly fit.

No in fact you PRAISED someone for pointing out the Wyoming outlier.

[LOL]

Isn't this also ironic?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211080_sciglianomoney.html

Even though as Fred pointed out, blue states have higher tax rates, they also spend the money responsibly. If all the red states were to secede and form a new country today, they would run up a huge deficit, while the blue state country would actually run a surplus. Conservatives can't even succeed in one of their ideology's supposed pillars: responsible spending. This is because conservatives are failures.

[seekeronos]

Maybe sour grapes on my part... but if y'all libs really like socialism and those socialised countries because they are so much more progressive than us backward dimwits who don't have much use for the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-pervasive, and EXTREMELY corrupt nanny state...

...why are you still here in the USA? How come you haven't booked your one-way tickets to those socialist worker's paradises like France, Sweden, or even Canada (if you don't mind waiting 10 years for a kidney transplant) ... ?

I also suspect that if the red states were to secede (assuming that we didn't have to fight another civil war over it) - we'd do very well, thank you kindly - because we won't have to feed an entire welfare class people who can't be bothered to do an honest day's work, like so many succubi who leech off of society.

Coming back to your supposed allegations of conservatives being more prone to corruption than liberals, I highly doubt that. One side is just as corrupt as the other when it comes to seeking, and then holding on to, power.

Just look at the Kennedy dynasty, and especially Ted "dude, where's my car" Kennedy.

[seekeronos]

Also, per capita income is not necessarily a true reflection of individual income:

IS it treated as an AVERAGE, or is it a median, or a mean?

If it is an average, like the wiki says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita

... then it is an unfair measure in this case, because the handful of billionaires and millionaires living in CT easily blow the curve when accounting for the numerous poor in CT.

But another study here:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/redblue11.pdf

...tends to suggest a pattern of extremely wealthy people voting Democratic. If this is so, then how come I suspect that this wealthy class is voting Dhimmicrat for some reasons not involving socialism, re-distribution of wealth, or many of the other populist causes espoused by the extreme left?

Or is it because of the Nanny State -- wherein those same ultra-wealthy folks would be a protected class yet, and be a little more sure of controlling the middle class man, particularly by disarming him (gun control/ammo control) and then slowly moving to disenfranchise him and rob him of any pittance he has left with crippling taxes (all the while shielding themselves from things like the AMT or other progressive taxes) -- just like they accuse the Republicans of doing.

Fancy that.

[Fred Beloit]

LOL you are such a dope. You wrote this: "Cities provide opportunity for crime. I find it funny that the first thing conservatives turn to is fear when they want to win an argument. They're so brave."

First, big cities have high crime because they have mostly Democratics in charge who historically hate to convict and hate to confine. Second, the Democratics use fear to attempt to advance their causes every day. Global warming and partial privatization of Social Security are two examples.

[Fred Beloit]

Here is another beaut from LOL (Left of Leftville):
"Of course if you needed more proof of conservatism's utter failure to properly execute a government, one need truly look no further than this administration's execution of the Iraq war."

That's true LOL. Liberal Harry Truman not only executed a government, he executed two entire cities with nuclear weapons to do it. And he was right to do so. They sure don't make Liberals like they used to.

[bloodrage bob]

what a sad, pathetic loser you are, LOLly. desperately cranking our paragraph after paragraph, trying your best to avoid answering an uncomfortable question.in your earlier post, you crowed about the wonderfulness of blue states. noted how wealthy they are, told us that wealth was due to their high taxes and liberal politics.

but when it was noted that *each & every* big city in this country is controlled by democrats, and has been for decades, and yet is still afflicted with
A) incredibly high crime rates
B) notoriously corrupt city governments
C) shockingly incompetent schools .....

you run away like a little bitch, throwing out wordstorms in a laughable attempt to cover your retreat.

can't have it both ways, loser. if you wanna claim that "riches come from liberal politics", (every rich blue state you listed derives their wealth from their principal cities), then you have to take the bad parts too. nitwit. so if "high taxes and liberalism makes us rich", as you said, then it must also be true that "high taxes & liberalism leads to stunning high crime rates and the worst schools in the world", as *I* said. you used stats & figures, so did i.

and then i innocently asked why all the high-tax, liberal-for-decades big cities were such hellholes. detriot, philadelphia, atlanta, pittsburgh, boston, newark, oakland, LA, houston, baltimore, D.C., dallas, new orleans, miami, chicago, st. louis, cleveland OHIO .....

all high-tax, liberal-controlled nightmares. each featuring vast sections of town that you wouldn't survive sundown in. each vying for the coveted liberal title of "worst school system in the world".

and the only thing all those cities have in common is their liberal politics. right?

of course, that's the point at which you ran away screaming.

[Fred Beloit]

Feets, don't fail him now.

[LOL]

seeker stupidly says: "because we won't have to feed an entire welfare class people who can't be bothered to do an honest day's work, like so many succubi who leech off of society."

You apparently didn't read the article. The "welfare class" is actually more prominent in red states. Red states are taking more government handouts on average than blue states.

Let me spell it out for you, because you seem to be having trouble getting it.

The US government is raising more money from taxes in the blue states than it is spending in them.
The US government is spending more money on welfare/etc in the red states than it is raising from them.

Read the fucking article first, then reply, Ok?

[bloodrage bob]

still no substantive comments from LOLly re big city crime rates. we DO get a taste of the typical liberal pottymouthism they use when trying to establish their street cred, ("i *AM* a badass hip-hop street smart muthha! just ask my therapist!"), but not much else.

ok, show of hands: who DIDN'T see that coming?

give up, LOLly. i OWN your weak ass. it'll only get worse, you know. much better & easier for you to use the classic liberal "run away!" strategy; or maybe morph into sockpuppetry.

[legaleagle]

"if y'all libs really like socialism and those socialised countries because they are so much more progressive than us backward dimwits who don't have much use for the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-pervasive, and EXTREMELY corrupt nanny state....why are you still here in the USA?"

Ahh, yes, the old "love-it-or-leave-it" stupidity of which reactionary fanatics are so inordinately fond. Except that the shoe would be on the other foot now, wouldn't it? Why do liberals stay in the U.S.? Here's one good reason: because we're in complete control every part of this country where I'd even consider spending enough time to take a shit. Oh, yea, we have a number of scattered 'necks even in the livable parts of the country (like the freaks who buy the New York Post to read, rather than pick up dogshit and dead racoons), but they generally know enough to keep their yaps shut and maintain a low profile. Let's face it, in any decent part of the United States, acknowleding that you're a Republican or approve of George Bush elicits about the same response as announcing that you like having sex with goats and immediate family members.

"we DO get a taste of the typical liberal pottymouthism they use when trying to establish their street cred. . . ."

Yet another reflection of a brilliant Republcian rhetorical device. How do you counter overwhelming evidence of the continuing Republican tradition of bigotry and racism? Why that's easy!! Just claim over and over again that using the word "doody" is as much a form of hate-speech as advocating the transformation of the entire United States governemnt into a wetback-hunting lynch mob. And then, to top it off, make sure your children fully recognize that you're as witless and imbecilic as your hero, George Bush, by uttering the word "pottymouth."

Once again, we never get an answer to the question of why -- if liberal areas of the country are such overtaxed, crime-ridden, educationally deprived nightmares -- EVERYONE WANTS TO LIVE IN THEM, as evidenced by real estate prices, salries, jobs, school applications, and all the other indicia of human civilization. Guess that would be the holy conservative doctrine of supply and demand, huh? Then again, maybe the explanations here provide a pretty good clue after all. Here're a few:

"far & away the most godawful, stinking, pestilential, unmaintained crime-ridden hellhole in the USA, detroit."
"if the red states were to secede (assuming that we didn't have to fight another civil war over it) - we'd do very well, thank you kindly - because we won't have to feed an entire welfare class people who can't be bothered to do an honest day's work, like so many succubi who leech off of society."
"all high-tax, liberal-controlled nightmares. each featuring vast sections of town that you wouldn't survive sundown in."

Hmmmm, I wonder if we could find some consistent thread that runs through every one of these observations and provides a common thematic identity to the Republican base? Oooooh, oooooh, here's one: how about "Nigger-hatred," the defining ideological foundation and unifying political weapon of Republicanism since Reagan declared his candidacy on the graves of three civil rights workers.

Finally, Seekeronos gets to the heart of the matter when he asks, "Do you do elitist liberal bigotry much? I mean, you make no attempt to conceal your utter hatred for those whom you consider yourself better than. Kudos to you for your raw honesty, at the very least." Yup, you finally got it right, buddy. See, Republicans think relentless, unmitigated hatred of liberals is their goddamn birthright, but seem a little put off now that the shoe's on the other foot. Through irredemable human filth like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the dung heap, they've declared cultural and political civil war on their enemies. Guess what? That war has now been joined, so get used to it. All I can say is I now have a lot of company in my political priorities; specifically, I don't give a shit what a candidate's positions are regarding abortion, Iraq, or immigration. What I DO care about is that he or she clean up the rancid Stink of Republicansim, and eradicate the Republcian Party as a viable force in American life. Please feel free to babble on like chimpanzees with the usual "Oh, isn't it sad how angry the Democrats are, how they're filled with hate instead of the love and generosity we Republicans have for our fellow man?" Good luck with that; I'm sure you'll find two or three people in the United States who care. In the meantime, you got ass fucked like wild in 2006, and better get ready for deeper penetration in '08 and beyond.

[bloodrage bob]

changed screen names, didja, LOL? it figures. after all, "when you're losing the argument (badly), stoop to sockpuppetry!" *does* seem to be the liberal catchall strategy these days, don't it. or did you just take a page from halfwit scuzzbucket ambulance-chaser (and democrat presidential candidate) john edwards and send in a girl to do your fighting for you?

we'll ignore 90% of your girlfriend's voluminous horsehit, and focus instead on her blatant racism. all i ever noted was that liberal, high-tax, democrat-controlled big cities were corrupt, ultra high crime, incredibly poorly schooled shitholes. i innocently offered up a dozen or so examples of this well-documented phenomenon. "detroit"; "cleveland"; "philly", etc.

*you* immediately blamed the ...what was your word, "legalmoron"? ...oh yes: you blamed the "niggers". just as if it were something you've been long secretly thinking in your shriveled racist heart and your tiny vestigial brain.

is it then your despicably racist assertion that african-americans (that's the phrase that us *non-racists* use nowdays. undoubtedly, that hasn't filtered down to you and your KKK buddies yet) are incapable of running a city properly? or was it just more convenient (and despicably racist) for your and your liberal KKK racist buddies to place the blame for the failures of liberalism onto .... black folks? so all that talk at election time of "we wants to help out black people" was just another liberal lie, asswipe? is THAT what you've just inadvertently admitted to here?

aren't you and scummy people like you really just another kind of high-tech lynchmob? haven't your *true*, long-denied hatreds of black people been exposed now as you've become unbalanced in your slobbering rage? what a contemptible POS you truly are, legalbozo. may god's curse light upon all of you lying, hypocritical, RACIST scumbags!

lastly, i couldn't help but notice that SO MUCH of your moronic gibberish seemed to focus on images of anal sex, legaleagle. it's my assertion that you're a womyn, so perhaps this is to be expected: liberal women DO tend to be so ugly they can only obtain sex from the rear. IF, however, you really are a male - unlikely, given the breathless and hysterical tone of your infantile foulmouthed prose - then that focus upon rectal insertions becomes even more telling. what might a psychiatrist make of your compulsions, loser? hmmmm? would he call you a 'bitch'? would that be a label you're secretly *proud* to have hung on you?

[seekeronos]

Legaleagle/LOL/legalize/Justin Whittaker -- ah, does the sockpuppetry know no end!

BB, either he is a "womyn" as you said, or he might be a revolutionary queer of a particular stripe - that is, one who receives his love in the rear. These sorts of ghoulish homosexual men typically are the most acidly, almost demoniacally opposed to sound reason, much less the things of God.

They are of the ilk whose savage lack of hospitality and human kindness brought down the wrath of God upon Sodom and Gomorrah and her sister "cities of the Plain".

They turn their poisonous, venom-laden asp fangs upon any who dare oppose them, and unfortunately, many unfortunate and innocent victims are cut down.

The best thing we can do is wait upon God to remove these reprobate vermin from our midst, and the second best thing will be to continue efforts to keep them (a VERY small minority, however noxiously vocal) stymied and marginalized.

Poor LOL/Legalize/etc/... he is so convinced (during the few clearer moments of thought which his crystal meth addled brain will allow him) of his own intellectual superiority and that of his own cause, that even mainline Democrats would reject his premature verbal vomitus out of hand.

Like this fetid little gem:

"--- Guess what? That war has now been joined, so get used to it. All I can say is I now have a lot of company in my political priorities; specifically, I don't give a shit what a candidate's positions are regarding abortion, Iraq, or immigration. What I DO care about is that he or she clean up the rancid Stink of Republicansim, and eradicate the Republcian Party as a viable force in American life. ---"

Really? SO you DON'T care about the war in Iraq, or the immigration problem, or whether or not millions of tiny little babies are snuffed out like the weaker dogs in one of Vick's pit fights?

Tell me more: will you accept some crazed leader who promises to bundle everyone to the right of Hillary off to extermination camps? By the sound of it, you would, you disgusting excuse for a human being.

As for your (LOL/Legal---)'s presumption that we hate liberals:

I can speak for myself: I don't hate you.

I just think your ignorant, and in fact, dead wrong.

[legaleagle]

So many words, so little content. Such as:

"all i ever noted was that liberal, high-tax, democrat-controlled big cities were corrupt, ultra high crime, incredibly poorly schooled shitholes."

Let's try it yet again: If liberal areas of the country are such overtaxed, crime-ridden, educationally deprived nightmares -- EVERYONE WANTS TO LIVE IN THEM, as evidenced by real estate prices, salries, jobs, school applications, and all the other indicia of human civilization.

"was it just more convenient (and despicably racist) for your and your liberal KKK racist buddies to place the blame for the failures of liberalism onto .... black folks?"

Ahhh, yes, of course; your outrage and indignation clearly prove that the DEMOCRATS are the REAL racists!! After all, we all know by now that Robert Byrd once called a black man a nigger during the Al Smith campaign. Isn't it funny, though, how black people continue to vote for the Democrats at the rather stunning rate of EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT? If only they'd listen to Republicans telling them who the true racists are. But keep it up; I'm sure you'll convince them sooner or later!

"The best thing we can do is wait upon God to remove these reprobate vermin from our midst, and the second best thing will be to continue efforts to keep them . . . stymied and marginalized."

Uh, uh, uh!!! Democrats - 55%, Republicans 32%, and shrinking.

"will you accept some crazed leader who promises to bundle everyone to the right of Hillary off to extermination camps?"

Absolutely not; clearly, that would never constitute the most effective way of cleansing the Stink of Republicanism.

[LOL]

ROFL it amazes me how wingnuts will resort to fact-less smears and conspiracy theories (sockpuppetry or whatever nonsense) instead of just recognizing that we're regular people chatting on the internet.

See I brought facts forward that establish blue state's superiority over red states in basically all aspects of life. As legal has noted too, despite the higher crimes rates, Americans continue to emigrate to urban settings. The price of real estate in those places continues to escalate as well. All while conservative strongholds like mississippi, alabama, and tennessee enjoy the worst education systems, the worst poverty, the highest rates of welfare recepients, and some of the lowest life expectancies.

It's amusing to watch the raving loonies clutching at straws as they watch the twilight of the Conservative Majority. Face facts wingnuts, your governments have failed. The people see that now. All you have left is to hide and pray to your imaginary friend that he will slaughter us all. It's sad really, but you brought it on yourselves.

[seekeronos]

Funny, I bet waiting 10 minutes between following up Legaleagle with LOL must have just killed ya, huh Justin?

Either way, I donn't see how the Dhimmicrats are doing all that great. I mean, what is it down to now? 18% approval rate? Or maybe 15% by the end of the week?

I'll grant you that most "young urban professionals", as well as the social elites, tend to live in (or at least, take advantage of easy access to -- despite actual domicile) the Big Cities. It is simply a matter of convenience and access to services that take much longer and at greater expense to get out to the countryside. After all, nothing out there in NASCAR-land but us unwashed hillbillies and children of incest, right?

I won't deny also that there _are_ underprivileged folks by the truckload outside the major exurbs, indeed, some folks might need to take off their boots to count to twenty.

HOWEVER, the fact remains that for every millionaire (or even six-figure income person) in the big city, there are several thousand more folks just scraping by to make a living. In. The. Big. City.

If the Dhimmicrats are all that, then how come they haven't FIXED those poor wrecked areas they call on to relect "each and every term" them like faithful patrons/serfs they are? Is it because a fat, dumbed down electorate that is just barely given enough to believe that there just might be more if they hit the feed bar (Row A, Dhimmicrat) just _one_ more time?

Why haven't they made the "trains run on time" for those wrecked areas?

Just because the intelligentsia chooses to live the life cosmopolitan - walking briskly past the beggars and drunks in the gutter for hope that their new season's Prada or Armani Collezioni is not besotted by the filth of those poor, savage untermenschen -- it does not change the fact that there are so many more of them living below the poverty line in the cities than those in the multi-million dollar Upper East Side palaces. Heck, just a ride a few blocks up north of 96th St. would do wonders for some of you libs.

Fancy this - some of those urban poor are thinking about making the switch to Red - more than you might think - and that also might make a difference - perhaps not enough yet to make the big Apple Red, but perhaps enough to sink a few local elections, and perhaps give Sen. Hitlary and Sen. Screwmer a wake-up call.

Y'all are almost guaranteeing a Republican tsunami in 2008 with dumbbells like Pelosi and Reid leading that gang of fools. And the expected Hitlary/Pretty-Headwards ticket will float -- in a toilet.

Keep it up, I'll be laughing all the way home from the polls, and when the tallies come up RED.

[LOL]

ROFL the non-hater-who-prays-to-his-god-for-our-bloodshed has spoken, and what more idiocy flies forth?

ROFL Sen. Schumer is the safest Senatorial seat up for election in 2008. Not even an blindly optimistic republican strategist would believe something that ignorant.

As to the weak substance of your post, sure there is still a great deal of poverty in the blue states, and many social ills. The bottom line though, those living under Democratic governments are living better on average than those living in Republican governments. And people in the red states are living off government programs more than those in the blue states. Governments can't solve all social ills, and can't even solve many of them in a short spand of time.

However, evidence has shown the social programs in the blue states are working to wean people into successful taxpayers while the red states have only succeeded in creating more poverty. This is what you continue to ignore in my arguments, and it was proven in the last article I linked. You cannot deny the simple fact that the hard "conservative" states are taking more taxpayer money than they are spending.

[LOL]

oops I mean "taking more taxpayer money than they are raising."

[seekeronos]

I'm bored, so I'll play along:

You misread me, LOLlerskates.

"--- ROFL Sen. Schumer is the safest Senatorial seat up for election in 2008. Not even an blindly optimistic republican strategist would believe something that ignorant. ---"

Seated Senators are far and away the hardest folks to unseat by way of election. Once elected, they pretty much are in the catbird seat for as long as they want to run again after six years, unless they really screw up bad... and even their snuffing out their mistresses or having some other grisly business going on might not unseat them... Ted Kennedy's living proof of that.

And unfortunately, the two (currently Democrat) Senate seats represent much more the liberal 40% of the state that happens to live in NYC. To put it another way, it almost seems as if 1.75 of the two Senate seats are from the City, whereas less than half of NY State's population actually lives in the City. I guess them's the brakes, as things go.

But if 2008 sees more HOR seats for NY turn red, as well as NY state assembly and NY state senate seats it might clue in the distinguished creatures from NY that people are less than satisfied with Democratic policies.

For me, it is more of a case for returning to the original system of having state legislatures choose the US senators, to say nothing of congressional term limits.

"--- the non-hater-who-prays-to-his-god-for-our-bloodshed ---"

Nah, I don't need to pray for anyone's destruction. Rather, I am commanded to pray for your salvation.

We all do a good enough job wrecking ourselves, and God, in His infinite mercy, quite simply provides the of escape through His Son.

Of course, certain kinds of sin, especially sexual immorality - and doubly so when it egregiously violates God's laws (such as men with men and women with women, and people lying with beasts, etc.) leads to the rapid descent of a society into the hellish pits of moral relativism and then nihilism and ultimately, destruction.

On observation, I've noticed that male homosexuals (especially the ones playing the "woman's role" or "bottoms") tend to be some of the unhappiest, nastiest, meanest, God-hating folks around.

I'm not really sure why this is so, but perhaps it is because their very lifestyles are an offense to God, and deep down, they feel guilty of it? By trying to "kill God", these individuals attempt to rid themselves of shame and guilt by walking past their own graveyard, that is, the imminence of their own mortality... whispering to themselves the sweet Nietzsche-an chant of how God is dead.

To pick on the sexual practices of homosexuals at length however, is not fair to the other sins that so easily enslave us, much more doom us to eternal hellfire. Sin is sin, as far as God is concerned.

But some sins seem to reap their hateful and wicked harvest much more fruitfully than others.

"--- Governments can't solve all social ills, and can't even solve many of them in a short spand of time. ---"

Perhaps the smartest thing out of you in recent posts.

However, I still don't see how the blue states are so far ahead of the red states in addressing poverty. Or that it is a red vs. blue issue to even begin with.

Wealth tends to be generated in cities, for a simple reason - that is where people go to buy, sell and trade. The left-wing machine does better where it can play on the needs, wants, and feelings of the urban underclass, with familiar Marxist lies and deceptions about "to each his own, according to his ability", but while actually taxing the daylights out of the exurban middle class to keep the lazier folks who see more value in milking the system so that they can have their $40,000 faux-gold-trimmed Cadillac Escalades _and_ eat the government cheese, too.

Indeed, if the blue states are really doing such a great job, then kudos for them. But I'm not seeing it: where are all those folks who have decided that an honest day's work for an honest day's pay is better than sponging off of Uncle Sam (as well as their state and local social programs) ... ?

But these ultra rich liberal elites will be just as niggardly (that means cheapskate, not a slur against African-Americans) with their hiding of money in tax shelters as a wealthy conservative ever was expected to be.

[legaleagle]

The Stink almost always manifests itself in at least one of three frequently overlapping constituencies -- religious fanatics, hard-core racists, and authoritarian war-mongers. Let's see which of the three Seekeronos belongs to. Hmmmm; first, we have,

"To pick on the sexual practices of homosexuals at length however, is not fair to the other sins that so easily enslave us, much more doom us to eternal hellfire."

Yes, it really is SO unfair; so many sins, so little time!! "Of course, certain kinds of sin, especially sexual immorality - and doubly so when it egregiously violates God's laws (such as men with men and women with women, and people lying with beasts, etc.) leads to the rapid descent of a society into the hellish pits of moral relativism." I just can't help but be curious, Seekeronos; which beast is it that lying with sinks a society into the hellish pits of moral relativism most quickly? I mean, I don't mean to make fun of you or anything, but you really ought to get your hands on a somewhat smaller buttplug, and you might devote a little less time to worrying about lying with beasts.

"while actually taxing the daylights out of the exurban middle class to keep the lazier folks who see more value in milking the system so that they can have their $40,000 faux-gold-trimmed Cadillac Escalades _and_ eat the government cheese, too."

Uh, uh, uh; THERE WE GO AGAIN!! Yes, Seekronos, I'm quite familiar with the definition of "niggardly;" we covered that during my freshman comp. class at Columbia. But "Cadillac Escalades" and "government cheese?" Of course, you can certainly talk about that Robert Byrd--Al Smith connection again, but I'm afraid that won't change the fact that your nigger-hatred is showing again.

So, we've established Seekronos's religious fanaticism and racism; all we have left to establish is his democracy-hating authoritarianism. Come on, don't stop now; you're in line for the big trifecta!

[Fred Beloit]

"...democracy-hating authoritarianism..." You're not talking about the attitudes of New York elites concerning fly-over land are you legal? If you are then Mr christamfordmum is your prime huckleberry, not seek.

[bloodrage bob]

couldn't help but notice, LOL/legaleagle (yes, pretty sure you're the same gal. as noted above, the 10-minute gap (!) between the appearance as one before you "become" the other is just a little too convenient), couldn't help but notice that at no time in your massive pack o' lies did you apologize for your disgusting racism.

using the "n" word; blaming black people for the *fact* that all (liberal, high-tax, democrat-controlled) big cities are high-crime, corrupt, poorly-schooled nightmares. instead, in typical spineless liberal fashion, you tried to blame YOUR racism on .... nascar. mewling "alabama! mississippi!" when asked about the decades-long corruption, crushing poverty, and miserable schools that are to be found in ALL (liberal, high-tax, democrat-controlled) big cities. among them detroit, cleveland, newark, baltimore, D.C., boston, pittsburgh, philadelphia, dallas, new orleans, houston, st. louis, chicago, LA, oakland..... quite the laundry list of "failures of liberalism". (which, you'll remember, YOU chose to blame on the "niggers", as YOU refrerred to them.)(it's standard liberal dogma that 'liberalism/socialism can never be at fault!', which is why history books never mention the ukranian genocide; or mao's "great leap forward". that same dogma also states that 'a scapegoat for our failures must be found!', which is no doubt why you attacked african-americans.) you'll note NONE of the above cities are in "alabama!" or "mississippi!". i don't think they run nascar races in *any* of them, actually. (hell, maybe there's a correlation: "nascar prevents liberalism-caused poverty/corruption/bad schools!")

as i said before, what a truly contemptible POS you are, sockpuppet grrrl. do us all a favor, and have a suicide party with your racist liberal buddies, if someone like you HAS any friends.

[seekeronos]

Hmm, LOL/LegalBeagle/Justin seems to think he has me painted into a nice corner with his "trifect of evil".

Let's see if he's right!

1) Religious Fanatic: If in fact I am preaching the cross of Christ as the only way to salvation, and winning souls to Jesus Christ, and my life is daily being conformed ever more to the likeness of my Lord and Saviour, and if I am spreading Christ's love abroad in my own life... then I gladly would accept the epithet of "Christian Fanatic".

As far as fanaticism for religion for its own sake, religion and "religiosity" only goes so far, and in many ways, it can be just as destructive as a great many other pitfalls we humans are so prone to falling into. Just look at the Pharisees of Jesus' time, or the Catholic Inquisitors of the Middle Ages, or today's breed of Islamic Jihadists. They are all of the same species of fanatic in the end.

And concerning the gay screed that's been building up here (since you mentioned it in a most perverse way)...

I'm not looking to see in LGBT folks hurt or killed or burned at a stake, but I would like to see them acknowledge their sins and turn to Christ for forgiveness (just like anyone else for that matter).

I do want to see certain LGBT politicizing for their "rights" stymied, whereever they force themselves and their depraved lifestyle in the public sphere upon my community, my church, and my family. Sorry, but that lifestyle is NOT the norm, nor is it an acceptable expression of love between people of the same gender, despite what mass media tries to tell the 98% of Americans who aren't in the LGBT community.

Keep in your bedrooms and out of our classrooms and public forums; it is not a matter of something that God gave you and is immutable like skin colour or the like. Homosexuality, like all sins, is a matter of choice, as in the choice to have another man's member in your rectal cavity or in your mouth ... or not.

2) You think that my choice of words to describe the multi-generation welfare family was unfairly slanted toward African-Americans because of the $40,000 blinged-out SUVs and the government cheese?

Sorry, but the plain truth is that there are a lot of urban poor folks who do this (regardless of colour) ... you are the one reading "black" into that stereotype. I don't begrudge any man or woman their choices in chrome or SUVs, but when I see that they are taking advantage of social services and pumping out litters of kids far beyond their ability to support them as a conventional family would be challenged to --- I smell a fish coated with not Republican "stink", but the foul, pungent, and nauseating odor of death and decay tinged with a certain fecal and fungal quality that only comes of the Democratic policy of keeping the underclasses well fed with cheap cheese and the other off-scourings of our system, and kept hopelessly in the dark to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to find a better way for themselves.

The same could be said for the hypothetical po' white buckra living in the trailer park in a with bruised wife and five rugrats and a $40,000 collection of Dale Earnhardt memorabilia cluttering up the dingy 30 year old single-wide they call home... but I reckon I haven't seen too many of them spanning three or more generations on the dole.

I have no particular malice toward white, black, red or yellow... but if you are a lazy good-for-nothing rapscallion who is trying to steal my hard-earned money, I probably am not going to have much sympathy.

On the other hand, if a person is down on hard times, and is earnestly trying to get ahead by legitimate means, then I'll be more inclined to do what I can to help them out.

3) Democracy hating authoritarianism? I'll leave that to you and your kind, as you seemed to think in your earlier screed that the people living in red states were neither worth sharing the air you breathe, nor be fit to have your excreta come to it final resting place upon.

The Bible says that "from out of the abundance of the heart speaketh the mouth" -- and with a mouth so full of cursing and bitterness as yours, I fear that you'd do much more for soul-crushing authoritarianism than I would be willing to entertain.

I am probably a good bit more "libertarian" (although conservatively so) than you think. I like small, responsible, local governments to see things done in their proper sphere. I'd like to see the federal government pared down to size, term limits for congresscritters and possibly even SCOTUS justices and federal judges.

There is much than can stand change within the GOP, and like any other political machine, it has its unsavoury parts that we could do better to discard. But, the policies that the GOP offers seem a lot more tolerable than some of the horrors that the Democrats would see visited upon us and our children.

My take on things is not really so much Red vs. Blue or Black vs. White.

It is more a matter of Good vs. Evil, and the Word of God vs. the lies of Satan.

It may well be that the nation is reaching a point in the life cycle of all nations where the society has largely grown too rich and too effete for its own good, and that we are on the downward slope into dissolution and oblivion. The proliferation of ungodliness and rebellious, riotous living by others, and our tolerance of the same - murders, sexual sin, abortions, debauchery, and the glorification of unrighteousness (tantamount to aiding and abetting it) point to a coming judgment of God upon our nation for its selfish pride (the real sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, of which the gay thing was but a symptom among many).

I hope that I do not live see such a sad end to our great nation in my lifetime or my children's lifetimes, but wickedness seems to be abounding at a fearsome rate here in the USA.

[LOL]

out looking to unearth the lies eh seeker?

The simple fact that you continue to ignore, or simply are too stupid to read correctly is obvious and I'm now stating it for the fifth time or so.

Red states are the welfare states.
Blue states are the productive states.

All your bullshit talk about how "liberal" governments are creating a permanent underclass of "government cheese" dependents is the exact opposite of what is happening. It is the red states that are draining our tax dollars. Red states are creating an impoverished class doomed to a lifetime of welfare.

Of course I won't deny that this class exists in both states, however, as one can gleam from the data in that article, blue states are doing a better job.

[LOL]

another wingnut myth (or Satanic lie as the fella says) that needs to be smashed is that the wealthy elites are all some Democratic cabal. Nonsense, the wealthiest have voted Republican in all the recent elections.

Those who identify as Republicans:
http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/2ndtable/t2a_2_2.htm

Those who identify as Democrats:
http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/2ndtable/t2a_2_1.htm

Independents too
http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/2ndtable/t2a_2_3.htm

Look at the income bracket. It's not overwhelming, but there's a clear trend.

Two wingnut myths that I see in this thread are just false. Based on the facts they are false.

1. Liberal governments create a class of state-dependent slackers. (Wrong, conservative governments do a better job!)
2. The wealthy elite vote Democrat and and trying to control the lower class. (Again wrong, the opposite is true)

Now I can imagine a wingnut might have some difficulty wrapping your warped brain around this. Your wingnut mythology has taught you that liberal areas of the country are basically filled with 2 types of people: Poor slob welfare recipients who also commit crimes and do drugs. And a second class of elite super-rich professional latte-drinkers who read the NYT, literature, and make tons of money.

The fact is, to find an area of the USA where you'll find almost no middle class, a hopeless underclass, and a corrupt wealthy class, you're better off traveling to a Red state. Because conservative governments are quite simply better at creating that nightmare.

[bloodrage bob]

gonna stick with the "LOL" identity today, eh, LOLlylegaleaglewhatever? hmmm. i see you're using the classic "get the last lie in and claim victory" strategy that the clintons think serves them so well.

based on your latest screeds, i see you're not only racist, but you indulge in class envy as well. how very liberal of you. still no cogent comment on (liberal, high-tax, democrat-controlled) big city crime rates? how very liberal of you. ah, well. at least you managed (for once) to post without using the n-word; or foul language. it WAS amusing to hear you describe the peaceful, low crime rate poor states as a "nightmare". question: which would you rather break down in while driving through at night? a poor section of rural mississippi, say?

or any part of the vast hellish ghettos to be found in the (liberal, high-tax, democrat-controlled) strongholds of newark, cleveland, D.C., LA, boston, miami, atlanta, dallas, st. louis, philadelphia, new orleans, houston, oakland, chicago or "god-help-the-soon-to-be-killed-fool-who-drives-through detroit"? or, as they're sometimes called by people with some sense, "nightmares".

oh, dear. does that question make you angry? make you want to get all racist and foulmouthed again?

i'll wait while you change identities.

[legaleagle]

"oh, dear. does that question make you angry? make you want to get all racist and foulmouthed again? i'll wait while you change identities."

Bloodrage Bob,

here's an idea: How about if you ask whoever runs this scholarly publication to check the IP addresses of myself, LOL, and anyone else you think shares a common identity; I hear they can do that now. That would take care of this obsession of yours once and for all, would it not? Your confusion, I suspect, results from receiving such a total and unqualified beating from so many different directions; it must be disorienting to be proven so completely wrong about so many things at once.

I have to admit I probably won't be pursuing this conversation any further, since you're neither willing nor capable of addressing even the most basic issues. LOL has a far more extensive grasp of the actual statistics than I do, which you've repeatedly ignored. My own question - which you simply ignore again and again - is, If liberal cities suck so bad, why does everyone want to live in them, based on all the measures I mentioned previously. Christ, didn't you have the benefits of even the most rudimentary education? I mean, at least try to make something up! You don't win an argument by simply ignoring the parts you don't like and repeating your babbling irrelevancies over and over again.

By the way, the word is "nigger," not "the N-word." See, I don't have any fear of the word, because I'm not racist, I don't use it to refer to black people, I don't support a political party that relies on racist appeals to its constituency, and I don't indulge in euphemisms like "pimps" and "welfare queens" or talk about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson every time an issue of relevance to African-Americans is raised. So this hysterical indignation, "How DARE you say 'nigger' instead of the N-word" doesn't mean a goddamn thing.

Oh yea, ONE MORE TINY LITTLE THING.

Seekronos said "I do want to see certain LGBT politicizing for their "rights" stymied, whereever they force themselves and their depraved lifestyle in the public sphere upon my community, my church, and my family. . . . Keep in your bedrooms and out of our classrooms and public forums."

I just can't help but wonder: How come Republicans insist on keeping homos out of their bedrooms and classrooms, but just LOVE wrapping their lips around a really big cock in public toilets?

[bloodrage bob]

golly. sockpuppetry *AND* a sad compulsion to 'get the last word in and claim victory'. y'all must be so *proud* of the great things you've accomplished for the liberal cause here.

after all, not just ANYone can blame the poverty & high crime inherent in (liberal, high-tax, democrat-controlled) big cities on "(black people)". not just ANYone can run away from easy questions in a dizzying blur of wordiness, foul language, and suspiciously handy hyperlinks. not just ANYone can excuse robert byrd's undisputed position as the number 2 KKK man - by all accounts, a senior leadership position - in the entire *state* as "byrd said a bad word way back when". nope. it takes a LIBERAL to do *those* great things.

OH, YEAH, ONE MORE TINY LITTLE THING: you can pretend that your despicably racist usage of the n-word in a passage blaming (liberal, high-tax, democrat-controlled) big city crime/corruption/lousy schools on african-americans doesn't matter or shouldn't count. liberals *always* think they shouldn't be held accountable for their hateful words or actions. you can tell yourself that all you want, LOL/legaleagle/chris/whoever.

but that doesn't change the fact that you've proven yourself, in your very own words, to be a racist asswipe. a racist asswipe with laughable fixations on anal sex and "big cocks".

how very liberal of you, LOL/legaleagle/chrissie/etc. your parents must be so PROUD!

[seekeronos]

"--- I just can't help but wonder: How come Republicans insist on keeping homos out of their bedrooms and classrooms, but just LOVE wrapping their lips around a xxxxxx xxx xxxx in public toilets? ---"

Actually, that would be classrooms, churches and generally, the public sphere. I really don't need to see gay couples holding hands or kissing in public in front of my kids.

What they do in their _bedrooms_ or elsewhere in their homes is their bailiwick.

As for the congresscritters caught in flagrante delicto... You'll have to talk to Mark Foley and Larry Craig about that one. I'd say those chaps did what they did because they are very sick, and are in need of help.

Personally, I think that they should forfeit their nice retirement Congressional package and their Senate/HOR seats when caught in such heinous and vile activity.

Especially if they've stumped for family values.

I tend to think that they are the smallest minority, and that otherwise, most people in the Republican camp do practice what they preach.

Like I said, I've nothing personal against folks who choose to practice the LGBT lifestyle - if they keep it behind closed doors in their homes, and between adults of legal age of consent.

- - - - - -

Concerning cities - I'm no Donald Trump, and I generally choose not to buy $6 lattes *especially* when I can mill my own coffee for 1/4th of the cost... and being the typical product of middle-"generation X", I would be a prime candidate for being one of those city-dwelling uber-liberals.

Fancy that though - I'm a fairly right-wing conservative, don't much care for NYC (arguably one of the most liberal stronghold cities in the USA) and all its pollution, pushy, snotty people, and only deal with it when I absolutely need to go there. Yup, I am making a decent living in what by rights should be a red state (upstate NY) and loving it, as are several hundred other people I know of my age cohort and marketing demographic, those who are in my professional circles.

Funnier thing also - is that my local group of communities tend to run right of center as well - we tend to have a lot of NY state senators and assemblypersons who are GOP. The big ticket races (Gov., Lt. Gov, Atty. Gen. and the like are controlled by leftist NYC and center-left Buffalo, to a lesser degree) C'est la vie.

Of course, if I had my druthers, I'd quit NY and head for the one of the nice Confederate states of old -- perhaps S. Carolina, Texas or Oklahoma, where a larger portion of the population still has their heads screwed on straight... but for now, here is where the money I make is made, and this is where God has put me into His service, so I bear with it, by the grace of God.