MOAR HATEFollow

Kav,

If you truly do not have a side or do not wish to state it, I am forced to conclude that your comments are mere trolling. Further communication from you will be ignored.



----------------

Moving on.

gbaji is making a lot of great arguments here and articulating what I think is the general "conservative" position quite well.

In retrospect, my own points were, perhaps, too extreme? I blame this on learning my argument skills from "right-wing" talk radio (Rush, et. al., most of whom I do not entirely agree with, especially with the kooky consipiricy theories).

So let me just make a few remarks to clarify some things:

1. In regards to the OP, I will state once again, that I in no way condone or support the murder of this census worker. Anyone who would is quite sick.

2. In regards to Ms. Bachmann's statement - I got quite carried away here. My basic idea was that "it" happening again was, not specifically interment of citizens, but rather the federal government's abuse of power in particular with regard to the excessive data collected by the federal census. The whole thing about the soldiers coming and defending your family was quite over the top, and I wish to formally retract that whole mess. I don't think anyone is coming to inter anyone, anymore than I think the health care stuff means "kill granny". The whole fearmongering thing I really don't like and I'm sorry I let myself slip into it.

Anyway, just wanted to clarify that.

No, I sincerely think you're a stupid cunt.

Edited, Oct 1st 2009 2:00pm by Kavekk

It's always funny watching a Conservative go on about creating a class blind society. We're the ones who keep fighting to keep classes.

Well, clearly we need to know raw numbers and some type of filtered numbers - how many of those 100,000 people are of voting age? We need to know that for the original purpose of the census - to redistrict. What are their ages? What is their economic status? Knowing how many of your constituents are retired, in grade school or living below the poverty line is all relevant.

Race and ethnicity, I'm with you on those. It's handy to know for a variety of social sciences, but I'm not comfortable with the government taking so much of an interest, personally. And within a few generations everyone is going to be able to claim "multiracial" anyway.

No because we need to build infrastructure, plan for emergencies, insure resource sustainability, etc, etc. Or maybe we don't??




Edited, Oct 1st 2009 4:42pm by Elinda

Which is why they used to have to get warrants for that **** before they tapped. If you can't convince a judge, why should I trust you?

And re: the whole "conservative doesn't mean Republican" thing. Okay, fine. It's a handy shorthand, that's all.

There's a huge variance in the liberalism among Democrats and those farther left; I don't see many Republicans, conservatives, Libertarians and/or neocons noting those nuances.

I'm multiwhite.

Thank you, you've a great audience. Remember folks, he'll be here all week, and don't forget to tip you waitress.

Edited, Oct 1st 2009 9:00am by Tarub

Fine, but before I listen to someone get irate over census boxes, I'd like justification for why they're handwaving off real potential threats to our liberties and trying to get me worked up about the census instead. Otherwise, they're just blowing partisan smoke.

Like I said above, the notion that the GOP doesn't consume census data like candy on a constant basis is ridiculous. I suppose you might see some lip service about it to appease the naive believers now and then but the GOP will never, ever do anything on an official basis to try to curtail it. They frankly don't give a shit about it unless it's in the form of an anti-Democratic talking point.

Wealthier people drive more (per capita), poorer people are (per capita) more dependent on mass transit.


Areas of lower income value are less likely to have fully capable local fire, police and rescue departments (since those are primarily funded through local taxes) and may require greater federal level assistance in the event of a major disaster. Or even just be more likely to get federal grant money to improve their services since they're more likely to need it.


I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.

You don't see where socioeconomic status might differentiate one area from another in terms of providing for the common defense, for example? I think even the sacred Founding Fathers could have foreseen the missteps that led up to the levee breaking during Katrina, and the necessity of Federal aid coming in quickly and decisively when it did.

Why Federal aid? for the same reason the military is Federal instead of each state having and controlling its own regiments: centralized control works better for large, complex projects.

As for promoting the general welfare, well, I won't insult your intelligence. You can surely figure that one out on your own.