NationStates Jolt Archive

You should check this out. A new strategy is essential. If the decadent and dependent rural "heartland" can lay claim to a mandate, we will have to form our own mandate. Never forget the lies, never submit to the leeches! :)

Article: The Urban Archipelago
http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature.html

Another topic---more controversial topic, purely for puerile amusement, however true the content may be.
http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature3.html

You should check this out. A new strategy is essential. If the decadent and dependent rural "heartland" can lay claim to a mandate, we will have to form our own mandate. Never forget the lies, never submit to the leeches! :)

Article: The Urban Archipelago
http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature.html

Another topic---more controversial topic, purely for puerile amusement, however true the content may be.
http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature3.html

Heh he he he..!

Reform the "democrat" party as the "urban" party,.. and see what happens.

What do cities do..?

They take the raw materials of the non-city and process it, give it added-value.

..but they are utterly dependant on the non-city.

What is the quickest way for a "city state" to fall? To piss off the farmers.

Look at any large city. You'll find the very poor and therefore "dependant", and the the very rich. Why do those two populations live together? Because the rich can pay off the poor, and the poor need the rich to survive.

The non-city population sees that state of affairs as perverse, dysfunctional, and borderline psychopathic.

If the farmers (the non-city folk) act "arrogant", they are quietly laughed at but essentially ignored by the urbanites because "farmer arrogance" is harmless unless it becomes actual farmer revolt.

If the urbanites act "arrogantly", they are quietly laughed at as irrelevent by the farmers, unless their lives are affected by policies of the urbanites.

When urbanites feel threatened, they bluster of their superiority and threaten to "enlighten" the farmers with (economic/cultural) "lifestyle changes".

When farmers feel threatened, cities starve.

You should check this out. A new strategy is essential. If the decadent and dependent rural "heartland" can lay claim to a mandate, we will have to form our own mandate. Never forget the lies, never submit to the leeches! :)

Article: The Urban Archipelago
http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature.html

Another topic---more controversial topic, purely for puerile amusement, however true the content may be.
http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature3.html

"Lies" and "leeches." What a great attitude on which to build! Amazing!

www.WhyYouLost.com

- A better idea

Herein lies the crux of the problem for Democrats and liberals:

( Quoting from the first article ) In cities all over America, distressed liberals are talking about fleeing to Canada or, better yet, seceding from the Union. We can't literally secede and, let's admit it, we don't really want to live in Canada. It's too cold up there and in our heart-of-hearts we hate hockey. We can secede emotionally, however, by turning our backs on the heartland. ( end quote )

Talk about "fleeing" to Canada. Talk about why "we don't really want to live in Canada" because "it's too cold and ... we hate hocky." Nothing at all about why liberals would want to remain US citizens. Nothing about any reasons to love their country.

Then, as if to compound the errors, the author suggests "turning our backs on the heartland." Just totally disregard most of the landmass and half of the population of the US?

This is the real problem liberals have ... they have no respect for either the population of the US or for its institutions. As I have been at pains to point out in numerous other posts, most liberals consider themselves to be the cultural elite, and anyone in their right minds would immediately vote for them to force us to live our lives by their standards.

Some of us would dare refer to this as elitist arrogance.

When farmers feel threatened, cities starve.

Farmers don't sell their crops; the banks take their land.....

Hmm...this article assumes that simply because one is not in a city, that they are not Liberal, Democrat, or Left-Leaning? I have never lived in a town with a population above 20,000, far from the populations needed to actually be called a "city", yet I'm fairly left-leaning...but I scorn to word Liberal.

If the "Islands" of Left-Leaning cities were to be charted, I would be on Gilligan's Island, apperantly.

The whole point of it is, simply because one is a "Farm Boy" doesn't mean they are locked in a steady sway to the right. But then again, merely because one is in the "Left-Leaning" areas, doesn't mean one can't lean towards the right. Hmm...

My head's hurting.

Farmers don't sell their crops; the banks take their land.....


Banks take their land ; Farmers have no land to make crops even if they wanted to...

This is the real problem liberals have ... they have no respect for either the population of the US or for its institutions. As I have been at pains to point out in numerous other posts, most liberals consider themselves to be the cultural elite, and anyone in their right minds would immediately vote for them to force us to live our lives by their standards.

Some of us would dare refer to this as elitist arrogance.

Hello pot meet kettle.

What you just argued is the same for the heartland. I can't count how many comments about being from that Liberal fag state or the land of Fruits and Nuts.

As to telling people how to live, where is the liberal version of the AFA?

Farmers don't sell their crops; the banks take their land.....

Indeed, they may have to sell, or forfeit their lands, but if they could keep a small parcel of the thousands of acres needed to make a profit from farming, they could cater to local people. Surely, it would cut down upon the profits, they may have to scale back their technology, but simply because city-dwellers stopped buying their goods, doesn't mean their entire lively-hood would be shattered. Dented, most certainly - but not shattered.

Edit: AFA? Ugh. The mere mention of them turns my stomach. I swear I go to their site just to be pissed off. It gets the blood a'pumping, though.

Heh he he he..!

Reform the "democrat" party as the "urban" party,.. and see what happens.

What do cities do..?

They take the raw materials of the non-city and process it, give it added-value.

..but they are utterly dependant on the non-city.

What is the quickest way for a "city state" to fall? To piss off the farmers.

Look at any large city. You'll find the very poor and therefore "dependant", and the the very rich. Why do those two populations live together? Because the rich can pay off the poor, and the poor need the rich to survive.

The non-city population sees that state of affairs as perverse, dysfunctional, and borderline psychopathic.

If the farmers (the non-city folk) act "arrogant", they are quietly laughed at but essentially ignored by the urbanites because "farmer arrogance" is harmless unless it becomes actual farmer revolt.

If the urbanites act "arrogantly", they are quietly laughed at as irrelevent by the farmers, unless their lives are affected by policies of the urbanites.

When urbanites feel threatened, they bluster of their superiority and threaten to "enlighten" the farmers with (economic/cultural) "lifestyle changes".

When farmers feel threatened, cities starve.

How about we fight to take all of those "welfare" farm subsidies and give the money to corporate farms based out of cities, and lets just see how long it takes that money to reach the private farmers in forms of buyouts.

Although small farmers make up a large portion of our food production, they would be nowhere without the liberals handing out welfare to them. We withdraw that, where do they sit.

Do you seriously think all of those raw materials you speak about are mined by small rural corporations? Try again.

I say we take this a step farther, follow Bush, and begin to support corporations like wal-mart more and just see how the rural areas fare when we actually support the president they chose.

I live in southern Illinois, grew up on a farm, and trust me if it weren't for liberal welfare programs that farm would have dried up immediately.

Then, as if to compound the errors, the author suggests "turning our backs on the heartland." Just totally disregard most of the landmass and half of the population of the US?

This is the real problem liberals have ... they have no respect for either the population of the US or for its institutions. As I have been at pains to point out in numerous other posts, most liberals consider themselves to be the cultural elite, and anyone in their right minds would immediately vote for them to force us to live our lives by their standards.

Some of us would dare refer to this as elitist arrogance.

Why shouldn't they consider themselves the cultural elite if they live in the cultural centers (cities) and are best educated.

Liberals have plenty of respect for our institutions, this article points out how they should use them. It is the voters in the rural areas that they have lost respect for and I don't blame them. Studies have shown they are misinformed, voting records have shown they are intolerant.

It doesn't go for all conservatives.

As someone once said, not all intelligent people are liberal, but all ignorant people are conservative. (Note: this doesn't refer to democrat/republican but to political idealogies)

Why shouldn't they consider themselves the cultural elite if they live in the cultural centers (cities) and are best educated.

Liberals have plenty of respect for our institutions, this article points out how they should use them. It is the voters in the rural areas that they have lost respect for and I don't blame them. Studies have shown they are misinformed, voting records have shown they are intolerant.

It doesn't go for all conservatives.

As someone once said, not all intelligent people are liberal, but all ignorant people are conservative. (Note: this doesn't refer to democrat/republican but to political idealogies)

Dose an Alcoholic Collage Student that is liberal, That votes solely based on the Prommesed aid qualify as ignorant

I agree with you on some aspects, Vittos. Many rural voters are misinformed, simply because there aren't as many sources of news to get information from. I live in Mississippi, moving to Oklahoma tomorrow, actually...and out here, the only thing you see of politics is "Vote for (Whoever)" signs on people's front yards, and the occasional ad on TV which slams the other canidate.

The only abundant news source is local, which is often partisan, and focuses on the political race of a single canidate. An even sadder thing is the fact that churches often play a part in the rural voter's mind. The church that I went to out of curiosity, was extremely partisan. They thought of Bush as more Christian the Kerry, therefor, more "Rightous" in his endevours. And, since religion plays a large part in rural communities, the voter listens.

Even then, those who are left-leaning and wish to vote democrat, they are often talked out of it by their friends, and there have even been acts of vandilism against people who voted for Kerry in my town.

But there is a way to bring "Culture" to rural areas, expose small towns to it. That is the simple reason why rural areas are less than tolerant, becuase many have not been exposed.

Makes me wonder how people in Oklahoma (my home state, admittedly) is going to react to my Death Metal, Dark Wave and Industrial. This'll be fun.

Dose an Alcoholic Collage Student that is liberal, That votes solely based on the Prommesed aid qualify as ignorant

If I am getting your point, yes he does count as ignorant. The thing is, he didn't vote.

I don't know what alcoholic college students have to do with this topic.

This topic is based on the fact that this nation is strong because of its cities, not its rural areas. This nation is strong because it has the strongest universities (urban), industry (urban), and economy (urban) in the world. Yet the urban population goes largely unrecognized by rural America. It goes both ways, but the urban societies have had no problem supporting the rural areas, the rural areas are almost entirely internally motivated.

I keep bringing up subsidies but look at it this way, it is quite alright to take away taxes from corporate farms and filter it to small time farms in the form of subsidies. In effect boosting one group at the expense of another more powerful group. But mention affirmative action, boosting one group at the expense of another more powerful group, rural America gets up in arms.

And don't even mention allowing all religions the same rights of worship.

I agree with you on some aspects, Vittos. Many rural voters are misinformed, simply because there aren't as many sources of news to get information from. I live in Mississippi, moving to Oklahoma tomorrow, actually...and out here, the only thing you see of politics is "Vote for (Whoever)" signs on people's front yards, and the occasional ad on TV which slams the other canidate.

The only abundant news source is local, which is often partisan, and focuses on the political race of a single canidate. An even sadder thing is the fact that churches often play a part in the rural voter's mind. The church that I went to out of curiosity, was extremely partisan. They thought of Bush as more Christian the Kerry, therefor, more "Rightous" in his endevours. And, since religion plays a large part in rural communities, the voter listens.

Even then, those who are left-leaning and wish to vote democrat, they are often talked out of it by their friends, and there have even been acts of vandilism against people who voted for Kerry in my town.

But there is a way to bring "Culture" to rural areas, expose small towns to it. That is the simple reason why rural areas are less than tolerant, becuase many have not been exposed.

Makes me wonder how people in Oklahoma (my home state, admittedly) is going to react to my Death Metal, Dark Wave and Industrial. This'll be fun.

I'm sure you will immediately be labeled, but I am also sure you can find a few who understand.

Man, if any moderate read that article they would think that liberals are intolerant, elitist, bigots...

Look at any large city. You'll find the very poor and therefore "dependant", and the the very rich. Why do those two populations live together? Because the rich can pay off the poor, and the poor need the rich to survive.

The non-city population sees that state of affairs as perverse, dysfunctional, and borderline psychopathic.

except that a huge percentage of the farmers themselves are among the very poor who work on land owned by the ridiculously rich. most of the production is concentrated in a relatively small number of very large corporate farms where the farmers are generally employees of the agribiz firm. most everybody else has to rent at least some of the land that they farm on from other large land owners in order to even attempt to make a living doing it. the remainder of farms are just waiting to die.

besides that, the vast majority of people doing farm work own no land at all - the desperately poor migrant workers.

the economic system outside the cities is at least as "perverse, dysfunctional, and borderline psychopathic", if not more.

What's really interesting is the strong resistance on the rural side of the ideological divide for allowing the self-determination of urban denizens to vote in their own rational self interests. There is a very strong intolerance for urban voters to express their values. Yes, urban voters *do* have values. They *are* important to us. And we do vote with our consciences and morals. They are different, but strangely enough, these values are those of a pluralistic society and are not exclusive. Those in urban areas, live in necessarily mroe diverse communities. As such there is a need to allow for a wider array of freedoms of thought and action than in less diverse settings. It certainly wouldn't be right to prescribe Christian values to a Buddhist or a Muslim. In fact, that would be down right offensive! Nor should any religious values be enforced for anyone who does not subscribe to a formal belief system. Yes, morals can and often are independent of a religious belief system. We vote w/ our morals, just like those in the "red" states and/or districts.

We should vote with our interests. Destroying farm subsidies will not destroy all agriculture. An overwhelming majority of all agricultural products are already produced by large corporations (feeding off of destitute migrant workers for cheap labor). The farm subsidies are not doign what they are intended to do--shore up family farms and preserve the rural small-town culture. In this instance, perhaps it would be better to let the market correct the excesses that have resulted in a welfare state for Agribusiness.

As someone once said, not all intelligent people are liberal, but all ignorant people are conservative. (Note: this doesn't refer to democrat/republican but to political idealogies)

Sharp as a tack, I tell ya. What a logician.

Hello pot meet kettle.

What you just argued is the same for the heartland. I can't count how many comments about being from that Liberal fag state or the land of Fruits and Nuts.

As to telling people how to live, where is the liberal version of the AFA?

Obviously, I can't control what other people post. There are "extremists" on both sides. As to the AFA ... I have no idea what it is.

.

Obviously, I can't control what other people post. There are "extremists" on both sides. As to the AFA ... I have no idea what it is.

Really?

You have never heard of that asshole Donald E. Wildmon?

You are lucky.

American Family Association

www.WhyYouLost.com

- A better idea


not really. the guy makes a few bad points. which, at least to me, are totally untrue
You have abandoned the very same principles that you once tried to get others to listen to. You have forgotten that conservatives are your brethren. They are your families. They are your friends, your teachers, your coworkers, your mentors, your lovers, your loves. They are the people who bleed the same color you do, who breathe the same air you do, who love and hurt just as you do, and who ultimately want the same things you do. You interact with them every single day no different than how you interact with anyone else. They are all around you, and yet you've made them invisible (as evidenced by all of the people who say that no one they knew voted for Bush). And what's worst about this is that once upon a time, these are the very same words you would have used for whatever marginalized group you were defending.

But he does make one good point on why we lost

And what did you get as a result of this unprecedented job search? Someone so uninspiring, so empty, so nearly identical to this supposed menace that one of the most popular web sites endorsing him was called "JohnKerryIsADouchebagButImVotingForHimAnyway.com." Four years of unparalleled soul-searching, and that's who you found to epitomize your movement. The best you could do was John Kerry.

It is sad that the democrats are the only significant leftie representation in the country. just like there is no room for real conservatives ( not neocons) anymore in the republican party.

Does anyone else associate Red vs. Blue with Halo and not politics?

Man, if any moderate read that article they would think that liberals are intolerant, elitist, bigots...

So what's your point? :)

Really?

You have never heard of that asshole Donald E. Wildmon?

You are lucky.

American Family Association

Nope. Sorry. I've heard of "Focus On The Family," but not the AFA.

Man, if any moderate read that article they would think that liberals are intolerant, elitist, bigots...
or just angry. now lets see an article by a neocon as angry as that guy

I find the tactic to frame liberalism as "elitism" very amusing. It's extraordinairily amusing to hear the partisan mantra declaring that all other worldviews other than those of the 'heartland' are amoral, and then to follow up with that statement that a liberal viewpoint is elitist. It's amusing that people think the "might makes right" bully foreign policy program of the administration and its supporters is not elitist, but all those who try to counter it are elitist.

There is a sort of blindness that such rabid partisanship seems to inspire. Best if those who feel that liberals are elitists remove the mote from their eyes and take a good long look in the mirror if they want to see an elitist. Liberals are simply angry with hypocrisy, bigotry, and amoral moralism.

Man, if any moderate read that article they would think that liberals are intolerant, elitist, bigots...

DUH!

i think the assertion that only cities are liberal is totally wrong. you can't just look at red states, blue states and assume that the liberal message has alienated the whole country. most of the red states were won by very narrow margians, as were the blue states. the divide isnt geographical, or at least not as much as all the pundits would have you believe. i think the liberals have alienated a good deal of church goers, or maybe the conservatives have just used the churches as a tool while the libs ignore them. either way, 8 years ago Clinton was winning all these "american, down-to-earth, blue-blooded" states, so it aint hopeless to win them back. What the liberals need to do is stop buying into the "us vs. them" and have a message that people who arent in mensa and enjoy watching tv and drinking beer can vote democrat too. for a more accurate map of where the party affiliation lies geographically, here's a good map.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7emejn/election/

http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7emejn/election/

nice. somebody made the maps i wanted to see. population skewed and shaded.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7emejn/election/countycartlinear.png

That is a VERY good site.

The maps serve to underline the fact that the "mandate" for the administration's radical extremist policies does not exist.

The maps serve to underline the fact that the "mandate" for the administration's radical extremist policies does not exist.
it also goes to show that most of the country is moderate. that there is no mandate and also most people would probably react badly to those who would throw around words like "radical" and "extremist." the side that stops trying to label the other and shows america what it can do for them first wins! im thinking a lot of people are getting sick of how polarized the nation is getting.

im thinking a lot of people are getting sick of how polarized the nation is getting.... or how polarized people say the nation is getting. Most people plain don't care, and if they do, they tend to repeat what they've heard other people say - whatever side that might be. It's just the mass news media and the pundits who make left v. right, red v. blue, progressive v. conservative camps out of us...

yeah, but both sides are playing into it. as soon as one side stops bashing the other and starts talking in terms of whats better for the people, we'll have a clear winner. instead of talking about how much bush screwed up, the democrats should have been talking about making the world safer by going after osama. instead of talking about how bad tax-cuts were, they should have been giving out a message that they would make the economy work for the common good. they shouldnt have let gay rights even become an issue. if the democrats keep trying to show how bad things are instead of how good they can make them, theyll lose every election from here on out.