You're not wrong. I'm actually glad I live in Nebraska, it's right wing obviously, but it's not total nutbag like the south. The Republicans in Nebraska did lose their shit in 2008 when the Omaha district voted for Obama and they tried to go back to winner take all. But I think cooler heads prevailed as if trends continue, urban populations will outstrip the rural areas and more traditionally red States start turning blue. At least in a split vote system, even if the state goes blue, the right still retains a minority voice instead of no voice. I had been following wolf pac but hearing about this makes me want to be a member now

Liberalism....In an obvious red state. Yes this is obviously the laws established by the liberal elite, because we know the are abundant it Tennessee.

Sebelius was a pretty popular Democrat governor in Kansas, which is a bit of an oxymoron considering how solidly Red-State KS is. It is all just political grandstanding, but being from KS originally it makes me happy to see her do the very (IMHO) Kansas-type thing and refuse to pass the buck for the website snafus in her opening statement.

Especially when it becomes very clear that all the Republican questions were expecting her to fit their stereotype of what they think of as an "East-Coast Liberal" and spin, pass the buck, and shift blame at every opportunity.

Kansas has a track record with a lot of political epic fails (evolution in schools comes to mind), but one thing your average Kansan is usually pretty proud of is personal integrity and owning up to one's mistakes. Seems like Sebelius is a good representative of that quality that most Kansans would claim to hold dear.

What a moronic (related) video. Gun nuts unable to separate fantasy from reality. Red herring. It's like a FOX News dealie. Attack Carrey because he's acted in films with gun violence, as if it has anything to do with his argument, as it is, in his FoD video. Hell, I'll even GIVE you "hypocrite", because it doesn't negate what he is saying, and now you have nothing left to 'waaa' about except the issue he's addressing.

Red states need more lions.

I live in North Carolina, yet another red state that think's its the "Real America".

Fuck Texas. I hope they do secede, and hopefully @quantumushroom would go with them. If all the red-state "takers" seceded, the rest of us "makers" would be better off.

Have they bothered to compare the size of Texas' military vs. Mexico? It would be hilarious to see Texas immediately invaded and absorbed by our friends to the south.

I'd also like to point out that the sour-grapes from conservatives is just as delicious as the day after the election.

WINNING

Laughing at the Rombots, still regurgitating bullet points and other foolishness. So sad, bitter, angry, and ignorant. Four more years of listening to them whine and parrot shit they saw on FOX.

An outside driver came into work last week, the day after the election, and told me about the Republican "stars" that are just waiting for a chance (Rubio and someone else). It says a lot about these nutters. All they need is some Cuban "star" (who lied about his family's reasons for coming here so he would look more pitiable(?) to Cubans in Florida, btw, but lying doesn't bother these idiots) to get some of the latino vote away from the Dems (apparently). He went on about Obama's offshore accounts and other nonsense and just got louder and more shrill with every jab I gave him. It was wonderful. When I suggested he change the channel once in a while, he started screaming (seriously) that he watched FOX (I didn't mention FOX) because it was the only station that gave both sides of an issue. LOL! He even used Alan Colmes as an example! LOL!

I'm telling you, their brains just don't work the same. It's like there is some latent Neanderthal gene at work or something, or, as Jeff Foxworthy once said, a family tree that doesn't fork.

Red states need more lions. Win for lions. Win for the world.

Bad Idea, for some reason our most gullible Americans are the ones with the most guns.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^deathcow:
I really dont get why so many working class friends of mine support this guy.

I don't understand why any working stiff in this country is Republican. You have to be an incredibly gullible sap to vote against your own interests time after time. It like evolution in reverse.
Again, I profer by my earlier idea of introducing lions and other large predators to red states. So much easy prey there.

>> ^deathcow:

I really dont get why so many working class friends of mine support this guy.


I don't understand why any working stiff in this country is Republican. You have to be an incredibly gullible sap to vote against your own interests time after time. It like evolution in reverse.

Again, I profer by my earlier idea of introducing lions and other large predators to red states. So much easy prey there.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I don't think the Republican Party can easily divorce its lunatic fringe. There are a hell of a lot of them in Southern red states - and they need their votes.

Red states need more lions.

As bad as this is for republicans, what is worse is that their voting block continues to shrink. If they lose this one, four years from now the number of people willing to vote for them will be even less, unless they do a complete 180 and start supporting younger people, women, African Americans, gays and especially Latinos. Trying to prevent these people from voting isn't going to work (as shown by all the state courts who have shut such efforts down, or are in the process of doing so). And the amount of money they can throw around won't matter if they cant get more than 1/3 of the country to vote for them. As the years roll on even their solid red states will begin to switch. We've already started seeing this with states like Virginia, Illinois and others who were very red until the last election.

Apparently reading into this "47 percent" that Mr. Romney is referring to, most are living in red states, pay payroll taxes, are retired, elderly, or work for less than $20,000 a year.

Only a mere 6 percent could be possibly considered "entitlement" moochers, and I doubt all of them are.

I like pie.

>> ^NetRunner:

But what about blue people living in red states, and red people living in blue states being "stuck" with a system they don't like?
I guess my problem with that whole framing is that it makes it sound like there's some moral equivalency at work between red & blue people's preferences.

It may take a long time but if you've got a good mix of with and without states, people will gradually migrate to their preferred environment.

If the programs are successful, over time I suspect purple and even some red states would change their tune.

My point was not, "fuck you if you're in the wrong state", it was "why should I, as a NYer, have to wait for TX to get on board if I want reform?"

I do not see this as a moral issue and I do not think government should enforce good behavior anyway, only punish the harming of others.

That last statement is ripe for taking out of context; please try to resist doing so.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I'd have been just as happy with a bunch of Romneycare clones popping up at the state level, too, though. I don't see why the blue states should be stuck with a broken system just because the red states don't want it (and conversely, if the red states want to keep their broken system, I don't see why they should have to get something better).

But what about blue people living in red states, and red people living in blue states being "stuck" with a system they don't like?

I guess my problem with that whole framing is that it makes it sound like there's some moral equivalency at work between red & blue people's preferences. Blue people stuck in red states are upset that some people can't afford the treatment they need, while red people stuck in blue states mostly are just bellyaching because they think someone got helped by a doctor, and that maybe some of their precious dollars were used to commit that horrifying act of decency.

Hence the video.

I'd be fine with a federalist approach if what we were talking about was differing ideas of how to achieve universal coverage at a basic quality level (and incidentally, the ACA allows for states to do their own thing as long as it covers as many people as well as ACA's system would). Instead we seem to have differing ideas about what our moral obligations to our fellow citizens are: keeping taxes low, or making sure everyone can afford the healthcare they need?