Well, you can use those sites’ own intolerance and kneejerk banning relfex against them.

Log into the site from as many places as you can: Home, work, library, public access, etc. They’ll have to IP ban so many sites it’ll begin to interfere with their conservative users.

If a lot of people did this to redstate.org and similar poison spewing far right sites, they’d probably end up banning half the internet IP ranges in a reflex, and keep a lot of their normal posters from being able to access the site because their ISP was in at least one banned range.

This is the kind of filthy attack that I’d expect the right to play on the left, and maybe it’s about time we started matching them in the dirty tricks department. It would basically be using their “Ban anyone who disagrees with us!” mentality against them.

Also, it wouldn’t work on us so well because we don’t do that as a rule, as evidence by the far right trolls that are allowed to speak here.

Comment by marlow — October 15, 2007 @ 10:09 pm

Sorry I didn’t get to respond to ya sooner, bud. I hate to leave ya feeling bad. I never claimed to be better than anybody, did I bud? I just don’t want govt policies that remove personal responsibility. And, again, contrary to what you and Jim Hightower seem to believe, there is more in the middle of the road than “yellow lines and dead armadillos.” Lots of regular conservative folks of both parties are firmly there. Try it sometime, bud, you’ll find that most of the folks there aren’t as hateful as those at either extreme. ;)

I finally had time to check out the link you posted. As I said, that’s interesting information. In addition to my previous comments, I noticed that Montana, North and South Dakota were in the top ten. They are among the lowest in population, so could easliy draw more federal dollars than they send with one or two projects, keeping in mind that the information doesn’t give any actual figures as to how much more any state pays than it receives. Mississippi and Louisiana were also in the top 10, that’s a given. Then I became curious as to more current figures and discovered that the Tax Foundation also gives some insight into the disparity. From thier site:

“High-income states cannot hope to receive back from the federal government more than they send in federal taxes because of the progressive nature of the federal income tax. Since the tax structure is unlikely to change, and federal spending is largely on auto-pilot, donor states are almost certain to keep sending more to Washington than they get in return.”

Some states’ high ratios have a clear spending-related cause. The large number of retirees collecting Social Security in Florida increases the flow of federal funds. An even bigger difference is created by the disproportionately large federal grants funneled to Alaska and the District of Columbia. Virginia and Maryland benefit greatly from their proximity to the capital in salaried federal employment. Alaska, Hawaii and New Mexico also receive disproportionately large sums in this category.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html

So it appears that there is little relationship between how a state voted and the money they receive. Except, of course, when a state has a representative who thinks all pork is bad except that which benefits his state. And we all know those types exist in both parties and have more to do with the character of the rep than the people who voted for him. You won’t see me defend those folks. There is also the obvious fact that, since most states went to Bush in the election anyway, chances were good that states that received the most money would be in that majority. There is really no relation between this data and personal responsibility.

http://electionresources.org/images/maps/us/house/2006.gif (No names which is annoying, but still usable.)

1: New Mexico R
2: Mississippi R
3: Alaska R
4: Louisiana R (I didn’t know they voted Republican, again?)
5: West Virginia B
6: North Dakota B
7: Alabama R
8: South Dakota B
9: Kentucky R
10: Virginia R

So, 7 out of 10 judging on the 2006 elections (Prior post was judged on the presidential elections. IE 2004) Still pretty damning for the rightwing here.

The Democrats took Colorado in 2006, Illinois was an error on my part in the first place (Democrat in 2004, and 2006, sorry Illinois.)

So, rather then looking better, the republicans went from having 4 states contributing to 3 states contribting.

Shows whose really responsible in the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege2004-Large.PNG

Electoral map from 2004, just so you know who I am talking about when I say red state, blue state (Though they invert the colours.)

Top ten states feeding at the federal trough, I’ve italicised the red states:

1: New Mexico
2: Mississippi
3: Alaska
4: Louisiana (I didn’t know they voted Bush in 2004. Oops)
5: West Virginia
6: North Dakota
7: Alabama
8: South Dakota
9: Kentucky
10: Virginia

All ten are Republican. All ten of them.

Now for all of the states that are actually paying more in federal funds then they are getting back (Same rule):

17: Florida
16: Texas
15: Oregon
14: Michigan
13: Washington (Who’da thunkit?)
12: Wisconsin
11: Massachusetts
10: Colorado
9: New York
8: California
7: Delaware
6: Illinois
5: Minnesota
4: New Hampshire
3: Connecticut
2: Nevada
1: New Jersey

A grand total of 5 red states on that list of seventeen. 5. Red. States.

For figures check: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22659.html

Oh, and here’s a link to back my prior claim:

Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 15, 2007 @ 3:33 pm

Now Bruce, you know that my post said MOST of the lib views mentioned involved removing personal responsibility, since you did paste it. I didn’t say inheriting money is hard work, now did I? What I said was, the people who earned the money have the right to leave it to their families if they want to since they did earn it and it was already taxed and rather heavily if they are wealthy. The libs want to take that money from the rightful heirs and use it to allow others to avoid personal responsibility. See, you knew it was in there all along, didn’t ya?

That’s an interesting report. I only had a minute to look at it. I’m sure you know you have to examine a thing like that closely to determine whether it’s used to prove something that it really doesn’t. I’ll look forward to further study of it this evening. Right off hand, I noticed that D.C. is first on the list, hardly a bastion of conservatism. So its use in proving that conservatives areas are a “drain” is doubtful already. I also noticed that Alaska and West Virginia are on the list, two states with senators who battle for the title of Pork King. So perhaps the study shows that states who have representatives who are willing to put self interest ahead of that of the country get the most money. And obviously, both major parties have such senators.
——

I take full responsibility for myself and my family, and then some. ;)

You talk a good game about personal responsibility when are you guys on the right going to take some?

Libs call for both taking money from those who should inherit it and for an equal pay for unequal work scale. So it’s you who is being dishonest and you blatantly refuse to admit that most of the lib views mentioned above are based upon removing personal responsibility. You don’t want anyone to suffer the consequences for their actions.

Yeah, you know, because being related to someone rich who just pegged is really hard work innit?

Oh, and here’s a link to back my prior claim:

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/11/red_states_feed.html

Heh, heh, heh, pretending to sound reasonable? Reread your statement to see how foolish that sounds. It really ticks you off that not everyone holds extreme views, eh bud? Makes it harder to defend your own extreme views.
——
I judge no one. If I were to become addicted to drugs, I would hope society would restrict my ability to hurt people until I could get it under control. I don’t happen to believe I have a right to hurt others because I have a problem in my life. Show me one time I’ve claimed perfection or that I’m better than anyone. You won’t find it, bud.
——
“Once again your false objectivity is simply an embarrassment. The “libs” you rail about as morally wanting…”

All I ask is that people accept the consequences for their actions and take responsibility for themselves. Yep, you’re right, that does sound quite reasonable. ;)
——
It’s easy for you now to sit back and go all mushmouth about how he should have done this or that, but the fact is that somehow the “personal responsibility” of this right wing darling did not include the jail time he advocated for others.

I’m saying the same thing now that I would have said then. You get one shot. You have a problem with drugs, deal with. If you don’t, next time you go to jail. If you can’t deal with the situation, we’ll remove your ability to hurt or negatively influence others. Simple enough. As far as the ‘”right wing darling” business, you’d have to ask someone who cares about Limbaugh. He’s too hateful for me to listen to him.
—–
“Refer to my previous statements about politicians and scandals. They should ALL be punished and removed from office, Republican and Democrat alike.”— You have ZERO credibility here, upright. NO ONE is fooled by your faux objectivity. We’ve all seen this kind of bullsh*t before.

You’ve been spending too much time with extreme libs, bud, as evidenced by the fact that you refuse to believe that anyone can actually be reasonable or objective. There is a whole country full of people that don’t hold the same views as either you or Rush Limbaugh. There are actually people who want help for those who are truly unable to provide for themselves or who get themselves into a bad situation, but don’t want the complete removal of personal responsibility for everyone in the country. Wake up, bud, that includes the majority of the people in this country.
——
A million people? Again, we’ll move on from that.”—”No, we won’t. It comes from the best, most rigorous scientific assessment of casualties in Iraq. Look it up.”

The best, most rigorous scientific assessment those with an agenda dared to create. That’s a ridiculous assessment. Think for yourself, bud.
——

“In fact this administration has again and again done EXACTLY THAT, through every scandal and disaster they visited on this nation, or have you forgotten the spectacle of Condi (and this is just one small example) stating with a straight face that no one could have imagined terrorists flying airplanes into buildings when only months before Bush had to be moved during the economic summit in Italy because of JUST THAT THREAT?”

Exactly how do the scandals prove that anyone disclaimed responsibility for 9/11? Keep it together, bud. As for believing the threat, libs on this site now discount any suggestion that we need to worry about attacks in the U.S. You know how you all acuse people of cowering in fear at the suggestion that the govt should be able to listen to phone calls of suspected terrorists. And that’s after 9/11. People who downplay the threat to us after 9/11 hardly have the right to slam those who did it before such an attack ever occurred. (Hypocrisy)
——
“Like hell you’re not. You’re pretending to occupy some reasonable middle ground, slandering your hated “libs” with the rank moral failings of the right-wing scumbags you pretend not to favor. Like I said, you are fooling NO ONE”

Like I said, I’m not pretending. Why does it make you so mad that someone can be a moderate? Why do you think everyone has to be extreme right or left. Is it because there is less to fight about when people are reasonable and you can’t stand that? ;)
——
“You weren’t “pointing out a question”. You were assassinating the character of a majority of the American people who would have done exactly the same thing would they have found themselves in the same situation.”

Go back and read all my comments, genuis, and then come back and tell me what I’m taking about. Had you read my comments from the beginning, you would have seen that I stated repeatedly, in response to another poster, that many people questioned whether the Frosts should have been using SCHIP for regular medical care, not the catastrophic care needed after the accident. I know, I know, I’m being reasonable again and you hate it, but that’s how most people are. I also realize how hard you are trying to make this be about the catastrophic care. If I opposed that, or if I would just come out and say the Frosts didn’t deserve to have SCHIP, it would make many of your arguments valid. Sorry, bud, I don’t believe that they shouldn’t have had the care, so I can’t help you out there. As for the issue of the house, I assume you would say that any wealthy family who suddenly lost all their money to bad investments or whatever would be eligible for SCHIP despite the fact that they own several homes, expensive cars, boats, jewelry etc. Since you refuse to consider the issue of whether one family has too many resources to be eligible, you have to apply that to all. ;)

“Fortunately, I don’t claim moral superiority. I just advocate folks accepting responsibility for their own actions.”— Again, yeah right.Of course you claim moral superiority; you’re judging people you’ve never met and arrogating to yourself the right to find them wanting. Have you walked a mile in their shoes? Lay open the truth of your life for the world to see and judge before you throw rocks at hard working families for their supposed irresponsibility. Anyone can take potshots at others from the bushes and tear people down without risk; you look like a master to me.

“You obviously don’t like folks pointing out the hypocrisy of libs. I’m just trying to keep libs honest. ;)”— Once again your false objectivity is simply an embarrassment. The “libs” you rail about as morally wanting are not the ones who have brought the planet to the brink of destruction; go after the real jackals if you’re so concerned about the motes in other people’s eyes.

“Was Limbaugh convicted more than once? Then he needs to go to jail. Did he hurt anyone? Rob anyone? Then he should have gone to jail the first time. Did he go to govt sponsored rehab? If he did, he should repay some of the costs or work it off if he can’t afford it just like anyone else should. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don’t advocate different treatment for the wealthy, not being “hard right.””— You didn’t answer the question and you sure as hell didn’t burst any bubbles. Rush Limbaugh defined personal responsibility as hard jail time in matters of drug abuse and the crimes that stem from such. It’s easy for you now to sit back and go all mushmouth about how he should have done this or that, but the fact is that somehow the “personal responsibility” of this right wing darling did not include the jail time he advocated for others.

“Refer to my previous statements about politicians and scandals. They should ALL be punished and removed from office, Republican and Democrat alike.”— You have ZERO credibility here, upright. NO ONE is fooled by your faux objectivity. We’ve all seen this kind of bullsh*t before.

“I haven’t heard any of them disclaim responsibility for their inaction.”—You have my award for the wormiest rebuttal of the month, upright. In fact this administration has again and again done EXACTLY THAT, through every scandal and disaster they visited on this nation, or have you forgotten the spectacle of Condi (and this is just one small example) stating with a straight face that no one could have imagined terrorists flying airplanes into buildings when only months before Bush had to be moved during the economic summit in Italy because of JUST THAT THREAT?

“A million people? Again, we’ll move on from that.”—No, we won’t. It comes from the best, most rigorous scientific assessment of casualties in Iraq. Look it up.

“Projection again? It’s over used and meaningless. I’m not failing to take responsibility for any of my actions, so I can’t be “projecting.”
—Like hell you’re not. You’re pretending to occupy some reasonable middle ground, slandering your hated “libs” with the rank moral failings of the right-wing scumbags you pretend not to favor. Like I said, you are fooling NO ONE.

I didn’t say the Frosts should not have had coverage, I didn’t say they were lazy or irresponsible, and I didn’t say they shouldn’t have sought care for their injured children. So never mind. The only thing I said about the Frosts was to point out to a “lib” that the issue that some people were talking about was the fact that they lived in a house POSSIBLY worth $400,000. I didn’t say it is worth that, I didn’t say they didn’t have a vaild reason for not selling it and buying something a little less expensive if their family is “struggling” as someone said. I just pointed out that that is a question that people have. So you wasted all that time and space railing about something that I didn’t even say. It’s really not that difficult to make sure you understand what has been said before you react. ;)—No, upright, it’s not going to work. You came on this site and started yelling about how the hated libs advocate for the “abandonment of personal responsibility”, the obvious inference being that the Frost’s situation was symptomatic of this supposed moral turpitude as were the positions of those advocating for them. You weren’t “pointing out a question”. You were assassinating the character of a majority of the American people who would have done exactly the same thing would they have found themselves in the same situation. Which is why I invited you to continue doing so. Do you want to have a little credibility with me? Take your rant on “personal responsibility” over to the other side, lay it out on their threads against their leaders and defend it for a couple of days like you have here. Then direct me to the thread. Like I said, it’s not the libs who set the killing machine in motion in our world, so your choice to come over here and rant and rave kind of leaves your pants flapping around your ankles as far your objectivity is concerned. And about the $400,000 house? So what? The condo my wife and I bought in ‘99 has more than tripled in value. SO HAS EVERY OTHER HOME IN OUR CITY, SO THE GAIN IN VALUE IS MEANINGLESS, UNLESS OF COURSE I WANT TO PULL UP STAKES, TAKE THE CHILDREN OUT OF THE SCHOOLS THEY WERE LUCKY ENOUGH TO GET INTO, THROW THE FAMILY INTO ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY, AND MOVE SOMEWHERE WHERE THE CARE WE NEEDED (assuming that Graeme was our child) MIGHT NOT BE AVAILABLE. Does that sound like a good plan to you? I don’t know where you live upright, but it doesn’t sound like the real world to me. ;) ;)

I’ve seen the Redstate site a few times. Seems ultra righties are as hateful as ultra lefties. I don’t know what LGF is, so haven’t seen that. You obviously don’t like folks pointing out the hypocrisy of libs. I’m just trying to keep libs honest. ;)
——
“My father-in-law used to drive around with a bumper sticker that said “Restore integrity, vote Republican”

The problem with that would be the suggestion that politicians of any party represent integrity. Those that do are in the minority of any party. Didn’t you learn anything from “Impeachment is off the table.” “We’ll fix FISA later.” and so on. Republicans have been in the majority of scandals lately because they have been the majority in Washington. Have you completely forgotten every scandal that occurred before GW? There have been quite few in the past.
——
“The time when wingers could spout moral superiority ended a long time ago, pal [ ;) ].”

Fortunately, I don’t claim moral superiority. I just advocate folks accepting responsibility for their own actions.
——

“People agreeing to help other people is not ” lack of personal responsibility”, it’s generosity, community, humanity, concepts that disappeared from the hard-right moral landscape decades ago, so that you can’t even recognize them today.”

Of course people helping others isn’t lack of personal responsibility. People getting into the postion of needing help because they chose not to prepare for what they could is the lack of responsibility. And I never said the Frosts should not have had SCHIP coverage, so try getting the facts before you start spouting off about things. ;)
I am also not the “hard right,” so we’ll move on from that statement as well.
——

“For years, Limbaugh railed on that hard jail time busting rocks in the quarry was the appropriate cure for drug abusers and addicts. Until, of course, he was caught illegally doctor-shopping and downing enough narcotics to put an entire platoon into a coma (you have to work long and hard to generate that kind of a tolerance). Yet when his turn came to walk the walk, suddenly breaking the law to feed an addiction to narcotics was a symptom of an ILLNESS, best treated medically in rehab than in state or federal prison. Rush’s lawyers worked triple overtime to keep him away from the societal retribution he advocated for everyone else. Funny, I never thought Rush was a “lib” who stood for the “abandonment of personal responsibility”.

Was Limbaugh convicted more than once? Then he needs to go to jail. Did he hurt anyone? Rob anyone? Then he should have gone to jail the first time. Did he go to govt sponsored rehab? If he did, he should repay some of the costs or work it off if he can’t afford it just like anyone else should. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don’t advocate different treatment for the wealthy, not being “hard right.”
——

“Who took “personal responsibility” for the YEARS that rep. Foley was allowed to work his homosexual pedophilia on the congressional pages? Foley himself? No, he squealed that alcohol was the problem and ran off to rehab. Hastert? No, he lied, claiming he knew nothing despite all the evidence demonstrating the Republican leadership was aware of Foley’s behavior and covered it up rather than do something about it. Did Larry Craig take responsibility for his pathetic closet behavior in the airport bathroom? No, “I wuz framed!”,”I’m not gay!” he yelled once knowledge of the affair stopped being a secret. Yeah, right. I LOVE to play tappy-toes with complete strangers when I’m in the public toilets.”

Refer to my previous statements about politicians and scandals. They should ALL be punished and removed from office, Republican and Democrat alike.
——

“Who in the Republican leadership took responsibility for the utter failure to protect the nation on 9-11? Bush? Cheney? Rummy? Condi? CIA? FBI? NSA? None of them. Richard Clarke did, even though his urgent warnings to the Bush cabinet went ignored, even though he did his job. But he was a Clinton holdover, so was capable still of demonstrating a sense of “personal responsibility”.

I haven’t heard any of them disclaim responsibility for their inaction. The result of their inaction was far greater than a couple not using protection and producing an unwanted child that they can’t afford to care for, or an addict stealing to feed his habit, or a family not maintaing health insurance and allowing the cost to fall to tax payers. But that doesn’t make it ok to be irresponsible.
——

“Who among Republicans, who conceived, planned and carried out the disaster of Iraq has taken personal responsibility for the fact that a million people have died in a country that never harmed us, never had WMD, nuclear programs, ties to al Qaeda or anything to even begin to justify the carnage that continues to take place there?
Did Ronald Reagan take responsibility for Iran-Contra? He claimed not to have known. Did George H.W.? “I wuz out of the loop” says the ex-director of the CIA. It goes on and on and on and on, Upright.”

A million people? Again, we’ll move on from that.
——

“Like every other winger who comes on here, you project your pathology.”

Projection again? It’s over used and meaningless. I’m not failing to take responsibility for any of my actions, so I can’t be “projecting.”
——

The story of the modern republican machine is the story of hits and assassinations followed by denials of responsibility and accusations of culpability of others. Your stupid wailing at the evils of “libs” fools NO ONE HERE AT ALL. But go ahead and thrash on an American family doing everything they can to get by in the face of an administration that could care less about what happens to them, whine about how lazy and irresponsible they are to have reached out when the life of their son was on the line, and see how much sympathy you generate. You’re a great guy, Upright, and a credit to your party.

Comment by marlow — October 14, 2007 @ 11:57 am

I didn’t say the Frosts should not have had coverage, I didn’t say they were lazy or irresponsible, and I didn’t say they shouldn’t have sought care for their injured children. So nevermind. The only thing I said about the Frosts was to point out to a “lib” that the issue that some people were talking about was the fact that they lived in a house POSSIBLY worth $400,000. I didn’t say it is worth that, I didn’t say they didn’t have a vaild reason for not selling it and buying something a little less expensive if their family is “struggling” as someone said. I just pointed out that that is a question that people have. So you wasted all that time and space railing about something that I didn’t even say. It’s really not that difficult to make sure you understand what has been said before you react. ;)

Comment by upright left — October 15, 2007 @ 12:20 am

Details?

Like I said — NO PROOF.

Dismissed.

Comment by Zooey — October 14, 2007 @ 1:45 pm

The proof is in your views. Either you agree with the lib views I mentioned or you don’t. If you do, then you advocate removing personal responsibility and you also need to have the courage of your convictions. ;)

1. I don’t oppose sex ed in schools. But I do want it to acknowledge to the students that not everyone thinks it’s ok to have sex with anyone who will have them and that being sexually active comes with consequences. I want all teen mothers to have childcare because they need to be in school or working. It doesn’t benefit the mother, the child or society for them to sit at home uneducated with no job skills and no knowledge of how to raise a child. I don’t, however, think we need to make it easy on them. They made a poor choice and they need to accept the consequences so they won’t continue to be irresponsible.

2. Keep the addicts addicted? Who wanted the drugs prohibited in the first place? I’d say your stance is more conducive to fostering addiction than mine. At least some people don’t do drugs because of the illegality. I don’t want to provide the drugs, provide the treatment for nothing and give leniency when they fail to take advantage of the treatment. At what point would you say they need to take responsibility? How many people do addicts get to hurt before it’s ok to send them away for a long time?

3. McDonald’s exists because there is a market for it. People make choices and their future unfolds accordingly. When people chose to quit school, they know the kinds of jobs that are available to those with little education. When people have children at a young age, they know those children will require care, which takes money. When people don’t suffer the consequences, they continue to make bad choices.

4. My comment regarding the use of Jesus by libs can hardly be called projection. I said they use Him when it suits them, but reject the attempt to talk about Him when His emphasis on avoiding sin and taking responsibility are mentioned. Since I never reject Him, no projection. That term is so over used and misused by libs on this site, it hadly has meaning anymore.
——

“Yeah actually nobody. What you just pointed out was liberals calling for people born rich, to have to make their own fortunes – not for an equal pay scale. So, so far, you have shown two cases of actual dishonesty, and a blatant attempt at changing the meaning of someone’s stance. Not very much in the way of values so far.”

Libs call for both taking money from those who should inherit it and for an equal pay for unequal work scale. So it’s you who is being dishonest and you blatantly refuse to admit that most of the lib views mentioned above are based upon removing personal responsibility. You don’t want anyone to suffer the consequences for their actions.
——
Oh, and while we are on it: Biggest contributors to America on a federal tax dollar basis? The blue states. The biggest drain on America on a federal tax dollar basis? The red states. Until you guys start contributing to America, maybe you should keep your yaps shut about who has a sense of personal responsibility.

Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 14, 2007 @ 4:29 am

I’m sure you’ll post the verification of these statements. And while we are on it, who was it that pushed so many people out of the Dem party back in the Reagan years? Lefties. I, and the majority of my family, friends and colleagues have grudgingly voted Republican in the last several elections because of libs pushing their radical agenda and insisting on removing morality from all the decisions that govern our daily lives. So, if you insist on removing personal responsibility, at least stop trying to weasel out of the admission and have the courage of your convictions. ;)

When McConnell’s big SUV pulled up to his garage and he got out, we yelled, “Mitch — You Have Blood on Your Hands.”

It felt great to yell at the corrupt spineless warmonger.

Fantastic! :-)