Thumpin'

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Hey Danzig,
Since you speak "southern", could ya translate "ewe Knight her" for me?
Does it have anything to making lady sheep into subroyalty after sunset?
I love sheep. They go nicely with mint jelly, and their fleece makes nice sweaters. They also provide good milk (hind tit) that can be made into tastey cheese...it goes good with whine.
Thanks for your anticipated translation. (U ni ter).
DTS

according to most shepherds, sheep lie. as for speaking southern, i don't and can't explain much in that regard.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

according to most shepherds, sheep lie. as for speaking southern, i don't and can't explain much in that regard.

Well, thanks.
I didn't know that sheep lie (except when they're tired).
I do know of something else that does...dub, bah -bah -bah, ya.

Tonight's menu: Crackers, plain and simple. Served up with Rummy an' coke on a big platter. Hold the "freedom fries".

[Downthestretch55]

Such a busy day! So many drapes to measure, so many boxes to pack so that the offices can now be taken by the winners.
Lots of drapes being made.
The sewing machines are going.."thumpin',thumpin',thumpin' "

[Downthestretch55]

News flash!!!
I found who Vilsack is!
The fearless leader of Iowa!!!
Heck, I never even knew they'd been invaded by Indiana.
Lucky THAT war is finally over.
Are there resources that can be turned into ethanol there?
What's with all the hogs?
Does Vilsack breed to own or breed to race?

On a side note, who is that guy (initials D.R.) making the rounds of the west wing giving blumkins to all cummers?
Anybody know?
I must be really confused.
I DO know that the prefix "re" means "again".
Do "reblumkins" do it again?

Where's the chap-stick?

[timmgirvan]

Classy,DTS,classy!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

and then you read stuff like this:

"Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?" charles rangel said that, and of course apologies are being called for. new york itself gained clout in the elections, and rangel is on the ways and mean committee and may become it's next chair. so of course he can direct a lot more fed funding to his state. looks like southern states may be sucking hind tit.

It was a stupid thing for Rangel to say, but he was alluding to something that I think is on a lot of bluestaters' minds-- namely, we pay far more taxes into the government than we get back, while a lot of the poorer red states get much more back than they pay in. Now, as a Democrat who believes the poorer should get a helping hand from the wealthier, that doesn't bother me in theory. In fact, it seems quite reasonable. What bothers me is that many residents of these states that depend on the largess of the blue states make a lot of noise about how the poor need to stand on their own two feet so they don't support any social programs for them, because hey, they themselves don't take anything from anyone; they pay their own way-- when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort. And then they call us elitists, and communists, and terrorist sympathizers, and all this time, we're paying their way through life.

Seems awfully rude and ungrateful, doesn't it?

By the way, Danzig, I'm certainly not singling you out, because you certainly don't say anything like this and have never attacked me-- I'm just taking this opportunity to point out that a lot of "red" states get more from the government than they pay in. And I feel like they use it as an opportunity to not fairly tax their own wealthier citizens (Tennessee doesn't even have a state income tax)-- why bother, when they can count on the blue states to support them. And then when blue-staters get bashed as elitists by people they are essentially supporting-- can you see why this blue-stater gets really annoyed?

Here's an interesting op-ed on the pros and cons of the goverment's wealth redistribution process:

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1677

And, of course, I'd never in a million years think Southerners were stupid. Bill Clinton, after all, was born and raised in the South.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It was a stupid thing for Rangel to say, but he was alluding to something that I think is on a lot of bluestaters' minds-- namely, we pay far more taxes into the government than we get back, while a lot of the poorer red states get much more back than they pay in. Now, as a Democrat who believes the poorer should get a helping hand from the wealthier, that doesn't bother me in theory. In fact, it seems quite reasonable. What bothers me is that many residents of these states that depend on the largess of the blue states make a lot of noise about how the poor need to stand on their own two feet so they don't support any social programs for them, because hey, they themselves don't take anything from anyone; they pay their own way-- when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort. And then they call us elitists, and communists, and terrorist sympathizers, and all this time, we're paying their way through life.

Seems awfully rude and ungrateful, doesn't it?

By the way, Danzig, I'm certainly not singling you out, because you certainly don't say anything like this and have never attacked me-- I'm just taking this opportunity to point out that a lot of "red" states get more from the government than they pay in. And I feel like they use it as an opportunity to not fairly tax their own wealthier citizens (Tennessee doesn't even have a state income tax)-- why bother, when they can count on the blue states to support them. And then when blue-staters get bashed as elitists by people they are essentially supporting-- can you see why this blue-stater gets really annoyed?

Here's an interesting op-ed on the pros and cons of the goverment's wealth redistribution process:

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1677

And, of course, I'd never in a million years think Southerners were stupid. Bill Clinton, after all, was born and raised in the South.

Genuine Risk,
Thanks for the article.
I also agree that southerners aren't dumb, no way, no how.
At this point in our great country's evolvement, as I've already stated, I hope there is unity. Not only between the "reds" and the "blues", the "haves" and the "have-nots".
We all will need to find a way to work together to undo the damage of betrayal that we've endured for the past six years. I even hope the emporer's daddy's buddies can find a way to bail him out like they did when they bought him baseball team after all the dusters he found during the "wild cat" days in west Texas. I really do hope they find a way to bring him "success". It's been something that he has a problem finding...at our expense.
As Obama stated today at the dedication of the MLK memorial, it is easier to use our strength to wage war than to find ways to forge peace.
So, with the "gloating" behind, as the people have indeed spoken, let us unify to find that noble goal.
Peace.
DTS

[Downthestretch55]

From one of my favorites...Paul Conrad.
Done with humor.
Guess this makes the need for "talking" even more urgent.
http://www.gocomics.com/paulconrad/

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It was a stupid thing for Rangel to say, but he was alluding to something that I think is on a lot of bluestaters' minds-- namely, we pay far more taxes into the government than we get back, while a lot of the poorer red states get much more back than they pay in. Now, as a Democrat who believes the poorer should get a helping hand from the wealthier, that doesn't bother me in theory. In fact, it seems quite reasonable. What bothers me is that many residents of these states that depend on the largess of the blue states make a lot of noise about how the poor need to stand on their own two feet so they don't support any social programs for them, because hey, they themselves don't take anything from anyone; they pay their own way-- when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort. And then they call us elitists, and communists, and terrorist sympathizers, and all this time, we're paying their way through life.

Seems awfully rude and ungrateful, doesn't it?

By the way, Danzig, I'm certainly not singling you out, because you certainly don't say anything like this and have never attacked me-- I'm just taking this opportunity to point out that a lot of "red" states get more from the government than they pay in. And I feel like they use it as an opportunity to not fairly tax their own wealthier citizens (Tennessee doesn't even have a state income tax)-- why bother, when they can count on the blue states to support them. And then when blue-staters get bashed as elitists by people they are essentially supporting-- can you see why this blue-stater gets really annoyed?

Here's an interesting op-ed on the pros and cons of the goverment's wealth redistribution process:

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1677

And, of course, I'd never in a million years think Southerners were stupid. Bill Clinton, after all, was born and raised in the South.

speaking of unfair tax and re-distribution....

i live in a 'dry' county, which i personally think stinks. have to drive 45 minutes, regardless of direction taken, to buy a legal product. and there are many dry counties in the state. BUT liquor tax revenue is distributed to ALL counties. WHY?! if this, and other counties, feel it's sinful or immoral to sell the stuff, wouldn't it be just as evil to reap the profits of same?!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

speaking of unfair tax and re-distribution....

i live in a 'dry' county, which i personally think stinks. have to drive 45 minutes, regardless of direction taken, to buy a legal product. and there are many dry counties in the state. BUT liquor tax revenue is distributed to ALL counties. WHY?! if this, and other counties, feel it's sinful or immoral to sell the stuff, wouldn't it be just as evil to reap the profits of same?!

That's really interesting! And an excellent point-- well, we don't sell it, therefore we're not eeeeeevil, even though we profit from it. One of the counties near where I grew up was dry, too-- I wonder if it also took liquor tax revenue. I imagine it did.

I'm surprised the liquor establishment doesn't publicize this inequality-- if the dry counties won't sell the liquor, they shouldn't get the tax dollars from it. I bet the dry counties would get wet very quickly!

And that bites about you having to drive so far to get spirits!