Three Blue States on the Brink

[SOAD]

The difference is that noone is REQUIRED to be Catholic. If you don't want to be Catholic, then you don't be a Catholic. Who is trying to control whom? Catholic live their faith by voluntary submission, not because it is being forced upon us.

You capitulate to their control, then it is still their control. The difference is you are willing to be controlled.

One man's control is another man's way of life.

 

[ScottBot]

When your arm swings too far and hits that nose, who dictates your punishment if you are unwilling to admit your offense and offer compensation if applicable?

That is why societies establish governments, and retain the right to abolish said government when it becomes abusive.

 

[ScottBot]

You capitulate to their control, then it is still their control. The difference is you are willing to be controlled.

One man's control is another man's way of life.

And when I decide, through my own free will, to no longer submit to said dictums of faith, I am freely able to choose another modality of faith without fear of imprisonment, fines, or other forms of control. As such, it is not control, but rather guidance.

 

[callmeMurph]

You capitulate to their control, then it is still their control. The difference is you are willing to be controlled.

One man's control is another man's way of life.

Please define control.

 

[ScottBot]

Please define control.

This is how I differentiate guidance and control, using example:

Guidance: It is a broadly accepted scientifically-proven fact that smoking cigarettes causes lung disease, therefore you should not smoke cigarettes.

Control: It is a broadly-accepted, scientifically-proven fact that smoking cigarettes causes lung disease, therefore if you are caught smoking cigarettes, you will be prosecuted and subject to fines and imprisonment.

Guidance illustrates the natural connection between cause and effect and makes recommendations for one's benefit. Control goes a step further and imposes a further artificial consequence for participating in the cause.

 

[SOAD]

That is why societies establish governments,

So the government will exercise it's control on you if you are unwilling to freely provide proper restitution.

and retain the right to abolish said government when it becomes abusive.

Lady fined for recycling infraction, REVOLUTION

 

[blueapplepaste]

If that is true, doesn't the origin of that truth have to be failure of the Blue state's representatives to serve their constituent's best interests? If what you say is true Blueapplepaste, surely it is only true because Pelosi and crew are asleep at the wheel & letting their home states "get rolled" for the benefit of evil red states.

Can't say your take on the issue paints the blue state's elected in a prettier light.

It also shows that the red state representatives have absolutely no problem with federal spending in their home states. Quite hypocritical to decry federal spending and then take a larger share of the pie, no?

 

[ScottBot]

So the government will exercise it's control on you if you are unwilling to freely provide proper restitution.


Lady fined for recycling infraction, REVOLUTION

I agree. Let's roll.

 

[canukian]

You make a direct comparison between an organization that is established to clarify matters of faith and morality, and an organization that will try to make it illegal for me to eat butter or be prosecuted?

And you have problems with my Nuremburg comparison. However, the corpus of your posts paint a composite picture of you. You are a statist. You are a paradigmnatic control freak. You want groups of people controlling other people. Any you have the audacity to call me pompous? Pomposity is rooted in the notion that some people are simly better than others, which it typically an attribute of an elitist...who also desire to control others...you knnow, for their own good.

darn, i was just about to say that.

 

[Fantine]

Could it be that the blue states send more to the federal government in taxes than they receive back in the form of assistance because their governmental policies foster broader, wider prosperity among their residents?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Could it be that the blue states send more to the federal government in taxes than they receive back in the form of assistance because their governmental policies foster broader, wider prosperity among their residents?

No

 

[Macx]

It also shows that the red state representatives have absolutely no problem with federal spending in their home states. Quite hypocritical to decry federal spending and then take a larger share of the pie, no?

The pie is on the table, you can't unbake the crust, you can't seal the filling back in the can. No, in some cases it isn't hypocritical . . . in others it is a product of federal mandate . .. for example: Roughly 65% of Alaska is owned and managed by the Federal Government (89.22% if federal and state combined), 1/9 of the state is owned by native peoples. All together, about 1% of Alaska's land is owned by private interests. So, is it really outlandish that Alaska has the Federal spending that it does per tax dollar paid?

 

[questftbest]

Liberal pension plans are bankrupting NY, CA and IL. For years these states have robbed from the pension plans to pay their bills. These states are another Greece. It is time to declare bankruptcy and renegotiate all these pensions.

 

[ScottBot]

The pie is on the table, you can't unbake the crust, you can't seal the filling back in the can. No, in some cases it isn't hypocritical . . . in others it is a product of federal mandate . .. for example: Roughly 65% of Alaska is owned and managed by the Federal Government (89.22% if federal and state combined), 1/9 of the state is owned by native peoples. All together, about 1% of Alaska's land is owned by private interests. So, is it really outlandish that Alaska has the Federal spending that it does per tax dollar paid?

Well, they could always sell that land back to private investors....

 

[ScottBot]

Could it be that the blue states send more to the federal government in taxes than they receive back in the form of assistance because their governmental policies foster broader, wider prosperity among their residents?

Forced distribution of prosperity?

 

[Marootsoobutsu]

It is an interesting statistic, that the red states take in more money than the blue states. You would think if all of the Republicans and conservatives were so anti government spending they might start by setting an example. Guess not.

How, exactly, is that money being distributed? I know that several of those states have a very high military presence. Others have extremely low populations, but occupy areas where we still need highways: they get the "benefit", but the states surrounding them are literally dependent. Others are highly agriculturally subsidized which, while I grant is unpopular, is also basically misunderstood by all of American society (and which, by the by, benefits New York, Chicago, and LA far, far, far more than it does the local areas that money goes to). In all three of these cases-- military, highways, and food-- the benefit is immediate, and (in the last two cases), more beneficial to the areas not receiving the money than to those who receive it. It is much more difficult to make the claim that art programs, social welfare, or other such things immediately and greatly benefit everyone (the case can be made, and even persuasively so, but it is much more difficult), than food and transportation.

So... what's the break-down? If we are talking personal entitlement, and not infrastructural necessities, and the results stay the same, then shame-shame-shame on you, red states. If, though, most of that spending is functionally on national infrastructure, then everyone is benefiting immediately and intimately, whether they are in that state or not. If much of that spending in small states is on the military, then it's more a national issue than local, and the state in question simply lobbied better (or had some unique geographical resource that made its selection essential, as Washington or Hawaii enjoy).