Started By
Message
re: UCLA/VOLS Hoops Series in jeopardy due to LGBT Law
Posted on 2/7/17 at 7:36 am to johnfredlsu
Posted on 2/7/17 at 7:36 am to johnfredlsu
My guess is that the poster who called Tennessee and other Southern states welfare states was referring to numbers on the amount of federal taxes paid out by a state compared to the amount in federal taxes the state receives. In most cases, Southern states benefit from an inward flow of federal tax money, while states like New York (and to a smaller degree California) pay more to the federal government than they receive in return. LINK
I've seen this kind of thing before. And it is always true - as the writer of whatever wants to frame it.
Thing is that they never go whole hog and analyze where the money is going and why.
There are also a number of other things going on that aren't mentioned when someone does these kinds of things.
Namely that some of the states in the Union are going to do badly regardless of just about anything.
There are a lot of states on the plains that just don't have viable prospects for much of anything if you look at them from a standpoint of climate, transportation networks, what kind of businesses that find prairie in wintertime useful, when the cold comes down from Canada (not many).
And technology has changed lots of stuff. A century ago Kansas produced much less agriculturally, but employed a heck of a lot more people doing it.
Does anyone really think that if everyone were gay, and the trannies were farting in the ladies room, as Cali-God intended, it would change much of anything? Economically that is?
I'm a big Trump fan, and some things are very much worth doing. But we aren't going to be able to replicate the days where there were assloads of big single manufacturing employers in podunks all across this nation keeping everyone gainfully employed.
But hey, no reason to do this free trade BS that none of the asian nations buy into (for good reasons), that only serves to put money into the pockets of FIRE sector people in good old Connecticut.
And I think you might ought to take another gander at California. You do realize that poverty is pretty bad in that state. Cut out the metros that are hooked into the money streams in this country, and the numbers look pretty much the same for the flyover country you are mocking.
I'd wager a bet that if you took SF/Marin County and that hub in the North, and the huge LA area in the south away, the numbers look a lot more like Mississippi than what you are intimating.
Oh yeah. wanted to add as a southerner. Pick just one of our states. Really doesn't matter which one.
Go on a long drive into our rural areas. And ask yourself how viable those places are, how people could afford to live there, without transfer payments like Social Security, Veteran's Benefits, the various Medi's, SSDI...
I don't like what I think I see. The way things have turned out with technology and trends, you eliminate those programs and you wind up with Brazilian style Favelas in a hurry in select metro areas in old Dixie.
And no, whatever the work ethic, the callers to the Feinbaum show aren't going to duplicate what Singapore has done.
I've seen this kind of thing before. And it is always true - as the writer of whatever wants to frame it.
Thing is that they never go whole hog and analyze where the money is going and why.
There are also a number of other things going on that aren't mentioned when someone does these kinds of things.
Namely that some of the states in the Union are going to do badly regardless of just about anything.
There are a lot of states on the plains that just don't have viable prospects for much of anything if you look at them from a standpoint of climate, transportation networks, what kind of businesses that find prairie in wintertime useful, when the cold comes down from Canada (not many).
And technology has changed lots of stuff. A century ago Kansas produced much less agriculturally, but employed a heck of a lot more people doing it.
Does anyone really think that if everyone were gay, and the trannies were farting in the ladies room, as Cali-God intended, it would change much of anything? Economically that is?
I'm a big Trump fan, and some things are very much worth doing. But we aren't going to be able to replicate the days where there were assloads of big single manufacturing employers in podunks all across this nation keeping everyone gainfully employed.
But hey, no reason to do this free trade BS that none of the asian nations buy into (for good reasons), that only serves to put money into the pockets of FIRE sector people in good old Connecticut.
And I think you might ought to take another gander at California. You do realize that poverty is pretty bad in that state. Cut out the metros that are hooked into the money streams in this country, and the numbers look pretty much the same for the flyover country you are mocking.
I'd wager a bet that if you took SF/Marin County and that hub in the North, and the huge LA area in the south away, the numbers look a lot more like Mississippi than what you are intimating.
Oh yeah. wanted to add as a southerner. Pick just one of our states. Really doesn't matter which one.
Go on a long drive into our rural areas. And ask yourself how viable those places are, how people could afford to live there, without transfer payments like Social Security, Veteran's Benefits, the various Medi's, SSDI...
I don't like what I think I see. The way things have turned out with technology and trends, you eliminate those programs and you wind up with Brazilian style Favelas in a hurry in select metro areas in old Dixie.
And no, whatever the work ethic, the callers to the Feinbaum show aren't going to duplicate what Singapore has done.
This post was edited on 2/7/17 at 7:44 am
1
Posted on 2/7/17 at 7:44 am to volfan30
So could some of you lawyer types explain how and why the Cali law doesn't violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (specifically interstate commerce)?
This post was edited on 2/7/17 at 7:45 am
Posted on 2/7/17 at 7:59 am to ColoBama
No thanks. I'm not a quivering puss that turns tail and runs in th3 face of adversity. I'd rather stick around and help fix shite.
Posted on 2/7/17 at 9:31 am to Sunbeam
I appreciate the engagement on the point I raised (even if you dismiss it as "this kind of thing"). I have a full day; so, I'm not sure that I can respond to every point you raise. Nor is it really necessary to pick everything apart each point or argue for the sake of arguing. I imagine I won't convince you of much here. And I want to be open to being convinced of new things myself. So, I offer a single, focused set of points.
I agree that there is much more to the story than the one link I posted offers. My point, in response to a poster who accused another poster of not reading enough, was that the poster should read a little more themselves. Indeed, I'd argue that the general citizen doesn't seek out enough information that is surprising, that offers narratives counter to the ones they tell themselves. With that in mind, I appreciate and embrace your point that the "welfare state" narrative is problematic.
That said, there is an unmistakable contradiction that emerges when some states welcome aid from the federal government--partially out of the acknowledgement that you raise about the inequality of resources/opportunities and structural/global forces that maintain classes of haves and have-nots among states--but (conservative) citizens of those states deny that these same forces play out on individual levels and require a similar system of aid for families and individuals.
I want to be careful here not to conflate states with families. It's possible that the two levels can't be compared. That said, the underlying argument for aid, both at the state and individual levels, seems to play out similarly. The intended result is a necessary redistribution of capital in response to a system that concentrates capital problematically. (This relates to the later point you raise about poverty in California.)
I think this contradiction is where the "welfare state" (i.e., some states receiving a disproportionate redistribution of federal tax dollars) critique comes from. The critique attempts to point out what appears to be a certain level of hypocrisy. Is it a fair critique? I think it's worth considering because it might challenge assumptions we have. Does it capture the full picture? Absolutely not. So, additional critiques need to be offered. That said, we can't dismiss it so easily and instead should reflect on it.
But hey, I don't want to get too bogged down here in state and family welfare, since this thread was about LGTQ rights and playing basketball. As a gay kid growing up in Alabama, I've been called a f*ggot more times than I can count. Those experiences (and reading some of the posts on this thread) help me realize the real snowflakes are people who are so fragile that my existence is a threat to them.
TLDR: Liberal rant. Downvote.
I agree that there is much more to the story than the one link I posted offers. My point, in response to a poster who accused another poster of not reading enough, was that the poster should read a little more themselves. Indeed, I'd argue that the general citizen doesn't seek out enough information that is surprising, that offers narratives counter to the ones they tell themselves. With that in mind, I appreciate and embrace your point that the "welfare state" narrative is problematic.
That said, there is an unmistakable contradiction that emerges when some states welcome aid from the federal government--partially out of the acknowledgement that you raise about the inequality of resources/opportunities and structural/global forces that maintain classes of haves and have-nots among states--but (conservative) citizens of those states deny that these same forces play out on individual levels and require a similar system of aid for families and individuals.
I want to be careful here not to conflate states with families. It's possible that the two levels can't be compared. That said, the underlying argument for aid, both at the state and individual levels, seems to play out similarly. The intended result is a necessary redistribution of capital in response to a system that concentrates capital problematically. (This relates to the later point you raise about poverty in California.)
I think this contradiction is where the "welfare state" (i.e., some states receiving a disproportionate redistribution of federal tax dollars) critique comes from. The critique attempts to point out what appears to be a certain level of hypocrisy. Is it a fair critique? I think it's worth considering because it might challenge assumptions we have. Does it capture the full picture? Absolutely not. So, additional critiques need to be offered. That said, we can't dismiss it so easily and instead should reflect on it.
But hey, I don't want to get too bogged down here in state and family welfare, since this thread was about LGTQ rights and playing basketball. As a gay kid growing up in Alabama, I've been called a f*ggot more times than I can count. Those experiences (and reading some of the posts on this thread) help me realize the real snowflakes are people who are so fragile that my existence is a threat to them.
TLDR: Liberal rant. Downvote.
This post was edited on 2/7/17 at 9:50 am
Posted on 2/7/17 at 9:33 am to volfan30
quote:
All scheduling events that were signed before January 1st will not be affected
I'm still not seeing anyone address this point.
Posted on 2/7/17 at 10:29 am to johnfredlsu
quote:
I think this contradiction is where the "welfare state" (i.e., some states receiving a disproportionate redistribution of federal tax dollars) critique comes from. The critique attempts to point out what appears to be a certain level of hypocrisy. Is it a fair critique? I think it's worth considering because it might challenge assumptions we have. Does it capture the full picture? Absolutely not. So, additional critiques need to be offered. That said, we can't dismiss it so easily and instead should reflect on it.
If it makes you feel any better, personally I don't have any strong feelings about gays one way or the other.
I don't particularly want to offend you, but I've always thought there was something very odd about homosexuality. And not in the way most people take it.
If it's genetic that particular mutation should not have survived, let alone become widespread, and found in cultures throughout the world.
And that is not considering observed homosexual behavior in animals. Or "practical homosexuality" in prisons and the Navy of old. ("The only traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy and the lash,")
If it is a disease of some sort (and don't pooh pooh that notion, it fits the facts as much as anything else), it's still sort of problematic.
Or another theory I've personally considered that it's just that some people realized:
"Hey I'm a junkie after all. I want that hit of endorphins when I orgasm. And you know, homosexuality is convenient. Don't have to jump through the hoops to get laid. Just go to the local meat market and hook up with someone else who wants the same thing. And none of this 'I'll call you crap.' No strings attached."
Of course if that were correct, you could also extend it to what some might call "normal" heterosexuals. See they're junkies too. They are just too stupid, or stuck in their ways, to realize if you want to bust a nut you can bust a helluva lot more, at a better price, than chasing poontang that has it's own agenda.
Where was I? Oh yeah.
You sure you want to play the hypocrisy card? The part of myself I consider to be dispassionate and reasoning, tells me that SJW types are this personified.
Posted on 2/7/17 at 10:36 am to Killean
quote:
Why is it that the Southern welfare states are always the most repressed?
Demographics...
Posted on 2/7/17 at 10:44 am to Tdot_RiverDawg
That's another thing.
See both sides of this are hypocritical, or at least not willing to admit to themselves what they are.
People on the West Coast? Don't have much experience with Mexicans in their native habitat.
But your basically elite type? Talk 60's, live 50's.
You want extramarital affairs, substance abuse, someone really letting the freak flag fly in an uninhibited manner?
Well sorry dudes. SF has to work at being freaky. New Orleans just does it naturally.
I'm pretty sure this chick and the whole thing are some kind of performance art thing.
LINK
But the scary thing is, I feel like I know this woman and have seen her all my life, act or no.
See both sides of this are hypocritical, or at least not willing to admit to themselves what they are.
People on the West Coast? Don't have much experience with Mexicans in their native habitat.
But your basically elite type? Talk 60's, live 50's.
You want extramarital affairs, substance abuse, someone really letting the freak flag fly in an uninhibited manner?
Well sorry dudes. SF has to work at being freaky. New Orleans just does it naturally.
I'm pretty sure this chick and the whole thing are some kind of performance art thing.
LINK
But the scary thing is, I feel like I know this woman and have seen her all my life, act or no.
Posted on 2/7/17 at 11:38 am to volfan30
quote:
LGBT patients that suffer from mental health problems.
That would be all of them.
No one cares what you do in your bedroom. Whatever you do doesn't make you a hero or courageous, and you aren't getting a medal, a parade to glorify your ability to bend over, and you damn sure aren't going to be around my kids. If Cali wants to engage in virtue signaling, them screw em.
Vols would beat that arse anyway.
Posted on 2/7/17 at 4:35 pm to johnfredlsu
quote:
Those experiences (and reading some of the posts on this thread) help me realize the real snowflakes are people who are so fragile that my existence is a threat to them.
Lol, no one gives a shite who or what you're having sex with. Thanks for proving the point of the thread.
Posted on 2/7/17 at 6:31 pm to Chuck Barris
quote:
It's an easy way to score points with a culturally conservative voting base without having to take action on any of the difficult to solve problems that actually affect their lives.
Yep. The GOP took the state for the first time since Reconstruction a few years ago and all they've done is pass shite laws for exactly those reasons.
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News