Senators and Congresscritters Deserve to Suffer. But Their Constituents Don’t.

[riqster]

A reply to those who advocate withholding aid to OK because of their representatives' votes against Sandy funding: http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/the-senators-and-congresscritters-deserve-to-suffer-but-their-constituents-dont/

[BlueCaliDem]

1. To be fair, it's be*cause* of their constituents that those Senators and Congresscritters are in

those positions of power to begin with . . . again and again and again. So I disagree with you here.

I've said many times over, that states that stubbornly elect Republicans because they're against Big Gubment, should live under their chosen political party's policies. If there was a way to make this happen, you'd see barely anyone voting for Republicans again.

Oklahomans bear responsibility for sending these clowns to the U.S. government, and they should live with it.

[riqster]

2. So any Oklahoma Democrats should be left to live in a ditch?

Or, I suppose you'd say that German Jews should have had to "live with it" because Hitler was in power?

Your statement takes individual culpability and unjustly shifts it to those who were not to blame.

The only people we could even begin to consider denying help to would be those who actually cast ballots for these poltroons. But their kids? Those who voted against them? You advocate punishing the innocent along with the guilty.

Such an attitude is truly disgusting.

[BlueCaliDem]

3. It's apparent that being a Democrat in Oklahoma is a lost cause.

When was the last time they had a Democratic governor? When was the last time they sent Democrats to the U.S. Senate and U.S. House?

I'm sorry, but that's how it works in a democracy. The majority wins, and this is their prize. Let them live with it.

[Jennicut]

4. Their kids didn't though.

Maybe it is better to show the children there that govt does help you when you need it. Of course, we are fighting generations of ignorance there. I just have to be the bigger person in this situation. My state was hit by Hurricane Sandy as well (I live in CT). I don't feel well about letting the kids of dumb adults suffer because they vote against their interests.

[BlueCaliDem]

13. CT votes Democratic because they believe that Government has a role to play -

and important role to play - in our lives. Oklahomans vote Republicans because they are fundamentally against government. They've been consistently voting for Republicans since 1964, and the children of then are Republican voters today. No change at all and I see no sign there ever will be.

In order to break that vicious cycle, some hard measures need to work as a wake-up call, otherwise, why should the residents even consider changing? Republicans are for states rights. So let the state deal with it and see how far that gets them.

As I've always contended, if Americans were forced to live under the policies of their chosen political parties, they'd all vote Democratic in a heart beat. But as long as they can get the milk for free, why should they buy the cow?

[riqster]

6. You would make children suffer for the deeds of adults.

Good god. They are the innocent 'prize' recipients, and you advocate standing idly by, smirking from the standpoint of a smug "liberal", as the innocent suffer and die.

[BlueCaliDem]

15. These same clowns voted against Sandy funding and didn't give a shit about the children

and families devastated by that hurricane. Now you want me to forget all of that and coddle theirs so that their parents' chosen Senators and Reps get off scott-free?

Let them use those generous oil subsidies - which includes taxpayer dollars from donor states - to aid the people there so that the true constituents of those OK senators and reps finally give back a little to those unfortunate families and their children who made their wealth possible.

No wonder we still have Republicans in our government, Capitol corruption, a growing oligarchy, and people still thinking government is evil. The American people are loathed to take a hard stance. The Kumbaya strategy hasn't been working in Oklahoma since 1964, and after they get billions of taxpayer money in hurricane help, those same people will turn around and send Senators and U.S. Reps to the Capitol to obstruct help and policies that would benefit the rest of us.

[riqster]

20. The innocent children did NOT vote against that aid.

Once again, you advocate harming the innocent instead of punishing the guilty.

[BlueCaliDem]

23. No. But their parents consistently do.

I'm not advocating harming the innocent. That was already done when their parents staunchly voted Republican over and over and over again.

I'm advocating taking responsibility for the votes you cast so your children never have to suffer in order to enrich the already obscenely rich in this country.

[riqster]

29. No, you're not.

Your "solution" does not target those who cast votes for Repubs. It punishes everyone in that stat.

[BlueCaliDem]

57. Yes, I am because I believe in a democracy, i.e., the majority rules.

"My" solution targets the problem - Republicans in power - and why this country is so fucked up. Your kumbaya solution has failed. Time to try something new.

[riqster]

72. No, your "solution" deliberately kills innocent kids.

That is not a solution I want any part of.

[BlueCaliDem]

78. Bullshit.

That's what you want to see into it. Have at it, but it's not the truth.

Take a breather. You're too hyperbolic.

[riqster]

125. If the action you propose taking is one that would harm the innocent, then you're harming them

That is not hyperbole, nor am I "seeing" anything into it.

A: Withholding aid will directly harm the most vulnerable of our citizens.
B: You strenuously advocate withholding aid.
Conclusion: You advocate harming the most vulnerable of our citizens.

QED

Ain't no other meaning to it.

[LanternWaste]

121. plicitly advocating maintaining same level of harm, denying aid, and rationalizing that spite...

"I'm not advocating harming the innocent. That was already done ..."

You are however, implicitly advocating maintaining the same level of harm, and rationalizing that spite as "taking responsibility". Regardless of how you justify it...

[treestar]

101. the parents of the children would not accept any aid, would they

They are too proud. They don't need gubmint. You're acting like these a liberals needing help being turned down because of their fellow voters. These are the very people who think you and your children should do the same.

[riqster]

104. LOL!

I assume you omitted the sarcasm icon.

No, these people would be first in line, with their hands out. Both hands.

[fishwax]

55. the last time they had a democratic governor was about two years ago

Brad Henry finished his second term in 2011. So did the most recent democratic U.S. Representative. It's been a while longer since they've had a senator (David Boren stepped down in 1994 to take the helm at the University of Oklahoma).

[BlueCaliDem]

60. Yes, I read where Oklahomans vote statewide for conservative Democrats, but

they send TeaBagger senators and reps (the majority of U.S. Reps) to DC - in the very halls of power that can actually affect us here in California, and to the body of government they are now going to turn to for disaster relief.

Still, there's no doubting that Oklahoma is a staunch conservative state.

[fishwax]

64. it's definitely a conservative state, but dems there aren't a lost cause

I don't live there now, but I was there when Brad Henry won his first term in 2002. Quite a victory, after a rather long dry spell.

[BlueCaliDem]

66. In state politics, maybe not, but it appears they are on the Fed level.

On the Federal level, the level that interests me the most and what affects us in other states, it appears that the Democratic Party is losing ground. Of course, that would all change the moment a Democrat wins Coburn's senate seat, but I don't see that happening.

[AndyA]

105. That attitude will certainly help!

Not.

You want to be a real Democrat? Try being one in a red state. It isn't easy, and attitudes like yours will make sure nothing changes. Be thankful you live in a more progressive state, being a Democrat under those circumstances doesn't take much effort.

Oklahoma's last Democratic Governor was Brad Henry, and he held two consecutive terms, the limit under state law. His second term ended in 2011.

Here's a little Oklahoma history for you:

Until 1994, the Democratic Party has dominated local politics in Oklahoma almost since the days of early statehood in 1907. In national politics, the party became a dominant force beginning with the presidential election of 1932 and the Franklin D. Roosevelt political re-alignment. Since 1932, the majority of members of Congress from Oklahoma have been Democrats, and of the 26 men who have been elected to the office of Governor of Oklahoma, 22 have been Democrats.

Thanks so much for your support.

[BlueCaliDem]

134. Cherry-picking your information doesn't help Democrats, either.

Nor does ignoring the alarming change in today's Oklahoma politics that's trending TeaBagger.

From the same Wikipedia page you've derived your information from, the article continues:

However, the party has fared poorly since 1994. Democrats lost all six Congressional races that year and since then have only won a single seat back, only to lose it again in the 2012 election. In response, the traditionally disorganized Oklahoma Democrats have taken steps to create a more organized state party, hiring a professional executive director in 1995.[3] Even so, Democrats continued to lose ground in the 2000s, losing control of both the Oklahoma House of Representatives and the Oklahoma Senate. In 2008, Oklahoma gave the lowest percentage of any state's vote to national Democrat Barack Obama in the presidential election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_Democratic_Party

Thanks so much for your support.

You're welcome.

[AndyA]

144. I'm not ignoring the changes in Oklahoma politics--I live here and see it happening

You're the one that suggested Democrats just give up on the state. There are changes happening, however, that could make it more difficult for the Tea Party to grow in Oklahoma.

If this can happen to Oklahoma, which has a long history of Democratic Party control, it can happen anywhere. Perhaps even in your state. Perhaps instead of writing off the state, Democrats should try to learn something from it to prevent it happening in other places.

I think you need an attitude adjustment.

[treestar]

99. No, and the Nazis have nothing to do with this

They say they can take care of it themselves. I've already heard the claims they are making in the media, this is OK, we are all neighbors and friends and we take care of each other without the federal government's help. They put themselves as superior to us city slickers, who wouldn't do that for each other and need the government to make a program to help. They are in a small town and will take their neighbors in.

You're making them out as if they were liberals all along and adding that they bear no responsibility for those they elect to office! Those who are putting forth the very policies these people want (of course there are a few liberals living in OK, and fortunately, the federal government will step in and help. They may put up with some scorn from their majority who look down on anyone needing help from government.

This is a very misplaced attempt to put oneself on a high horse. Yes we feel bad for the liberals there, but the golden rule applies. You're talking about people who mostly would think you deserved it if you end up in a ditch. Some Ayn Randian types would point out that people who live in risk areas should have insurance to cover their living expenses from the "free market" and thus it's their own fault if they end up in a ditch.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

5. Seriously?

I mean, really?

[BlueCaliDem]

8. Yes. Really.

You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

9. How thoroughly enlightened of you. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

16. Thank you Tommy. eom

[Tommy_Carcetti]

17. Psst.....

You're not actually enlightened.

Not on this issue, at least.

[BlueCaliDem]

25. Psst...

I could care less of your opinion of me. I know that the hard truth is difficult to swallow, but those are the facts.

You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You can't deny that.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

30. Might want to swallow this truth....

Collective punishment is wrong, plain and simple.

[riqster]

33. +1 nt

[BlueCaliDem]

45. Tell that to the Republicans. Not me.

They're the ones promoting that kind of punishment against this country and they do so with impunity, thanks to the kid gloves you want to handle them with. My state, a donor state, is helping to fund Oklahoma, a ward state, while CA needs every dollar we can earn. And yet it's their senators and reps who are blocking the jobs bill that could help my state immensely.

But in the end, I know nothing will change. Oklahoma will go more conservative after Coburn retires because the people in Oklahoma still won't have to buy the cow. In the end they'll still get their milk for free and continue to happily send more Coburns (or worse) to our Senate to block life-saving policies for the rest of the people in this country.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

47. Your attitude towards your fellow countrymen is very Republican.

The fact that you lump people together as "states" aside.

Why should the millionaire CEO pay taxes to help the welfare recipient? That's the same exact argument dressed up a little differently. It's wrong argument then, and the wrong argument now.

[BlueCaliDem]

52. No. I'm tired of being an enabler something you still want to be with all your compassionate heart.

Why should the millionaire CEO pay taxes to help the welfare recipient? That's the same exact argument dressed up a little differently.

That's a bullshit comparison. Apples and oranges. Millionaires don't become millionaires without welfare recipients buying their products, their gasoline, their i-gadgets, their paper towels, their baby formula, or paying their taxes through property taxes (yes, even renters pay property taxes through their rents). If any argument is wrong, that one you've presented takes the crown.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

53. You're lumping millions of people in as a single unit and collectively calling them deadbeats.

That's absolutely ludicrous.

And I'm sure no one from Oklahoma or Alabama or Mississippi ever went to California and stayed in a hotel there, ate in a restaurant there or otherwise contributed to the Californian economy. Ever.

[BlueCaliDem]

63. Where in any of my posts did I call those "millions of people" deadbeats??

That's what YOU'RE making out of it.

If anything is ludicrous, again, your post takes the crown.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

65. You called Oklahoma a "ward" state.

In the end, Oklahoma is nothing more than a collection of 3.8 individual human beings who happen to live within randomly assigned geographic boundaries.

[BlueCaliDem]

69. It IS a ward state - a state that takes in more Fed dollars than it sends.

But how on god's green earth did you go from ward to deadbeat?? There's a huge difference between the two, and I know you know it.

In the end, Oklahoma is nothing more than a collection of 3.8 individual human beings who happen to live within randomly assigned geographic boundaries.

Of which the majority voted for the likes of Inhofe and Coburn. It takes the majority of of those 3.8 million human beings in that state to make that happen since Senators are elected based on the majority of the state's citizens. Even Republican Reps outnumber Democratic Reps in that state, so districts are also predominantly Republican. That means that the majority of those 3.8 million people believe in the Republican platform: states rights and Big Gubment should butt out.

Well, all I'm saying is, Big Gubment should do as the citizens of Oklahoma have told it to through their votes.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

76. You drew a clear distinction:

California, presumably (by your name) your home state, as a "donor" state, and Oklahoma as a "ward" state. Despite your "I'm shocked, shocked!" response to me, it's pretty easy to read between the lines what you are insinuating here, based on your responses in this very post.

(And for the record, I have no bone in this fight--I've never set foot in either California or Oklahoma in my entire life.)

But your rhetoric--the rich shouldn't be obligated to help the poor and indebted--is all too familiar. I've heard it from Republicans before. It's just sad that I have to read it on a Democratic website.

[BlueCaliDem]

90. Maybe, but I didn't call Oklahomans "deadbeats". That's *your* hyperbolic response.

Don't try to pin that hysterical word on me. It's yours. Own up to it.

But your rhetoric--the rich shouldn't be obligated to help the poor and indebted--is all too familiar. I've heard it from Republicans before. It's just sad that I have to read it on a Democratic website.

Again, it's not my rhetoric that the rich shouldn't be obligated to help the poor. It's yours.

The point I was clearly making was, California is prospering because we are Democratic. There are a lot of minorities in this state; Blacks, Latinos, and Asians. And being in the minority has given us an understanding of our socioeconomic limitations as a minority in a predominantly White America, so we choose to support the politics of the party that works in our best interest.

Unlike Oklahomans, Californians accept that we're not an island. We accept that we're not a country in a nation of states. We accept we'll need help from time to time. We believe in the "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" paradigm and that government has an important role to play against our wealthier enemies who can make or break us through Federal laws if those laws are turned against us and the nation. In summary, we don't bite the hand that feeds us so we don't believe government is the evil entity just rich fat cats spend tens of millions telling us it is, therefore we don't believe in the GOP.

I wish Oklahomans could see the same things we minorities see, and act accordingly. Big Government isn't the enemy. Liberals aren't the enemy. Progressive policies aren't the enemy. Republicans in Government are, and they're hurting the country using those powers against us. The solution is to remove the GOP out of positions of power, but Oklahomans don't appear to want to do that, and that's costing the rest of the country immensely.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

139. Again, you've made every insinuation to that extent.

And you continue to do so in your "Us versus Them" self-righteous response based on something as trivial as geographic boundaries.

But yes, "Californians" recognize that "big government" isn't the enemy. That's why they totally rejected that guy, what's-his-name, who once mocked the government by claiming ,"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Nope, he had no support in California. No basis in California. No one liked him in California. No one cast a single vote for him in California. None at all.

You see, that's fun! Associating an entire state by the words of its politicians! I'm sure you'd agree!

Or you can cut the crap and stop pretending that citizens of a state should be judged by the very worst of their elected officials, and should suffer accordingly.

[BlueCaliDem]

150. It's your perceived insinuation, and that's sad.

But let me make this simple for you.

Your state (whatever that may be) should live under the policies of the political party that the majority elects. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. This is a democracy and the majority rules.

Currently, Oklahoma is trending TeaBagger when it comes to national elections, but they're clever enough to vote for Democrats for statewide, for themselves. This appears to me to be a case of "I've got mine, FU America" attitude. That's not good for the country, but apparently it's okay by you. If it's okay by you, that makes you a Republican enabler, whether you do so consciously or not. The result is the same because if you don't support making the people of Oklahoma understand that the Republican Party is failing them and this country by using methods that will force them to see it, you are enabling them.

As for Raygun, yes, California was wrong to put their trust in him, and we've paid for it. But we've learned the error of our ways and trended Democratic. That should happen to Oklahomans, too, don't you agree?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

151. What's sad is that you are openly advocating denying suffering people disaster relief aid.

On a progressive/liberal/Democratic message board.

That's not just sad. That's downright tragic.

[BlueCaliDem]

155. Being a Republican enabler is what's tragic.

And that's what you're advocating.

Okies want nothing to do with Big Gubmint. So Big Gubmint should stay the hell out of Oklahoma. Sorry, but that's what they want - although I'm pretty sure it's easier to espouse such faux independent bull when one knows that they'll get help no matter what. And that's what irks me the most. They KNOW they'll get all the help they need while still voting for pols who obstruct this country's progress so the rest of the nation won't get what we need. A win-win for Okies! A loss for the rest of us.

People are suffering all across the nation. Children are being removed from pre-K. Teachers are being fired. Jobs are slow in coming. Minimum wage is the new slave-wage. Food stamps are being cut. This is a national disaster of Republican making. So I don't see why Oklahomans should get preferential treatment especially when they whine against Big Gubmint and "libruls" all the time. They need to see the error of their ways, and this is as good a time as any.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

158. How the hell is not wanting to play politics with disaster relief aid "enabling"?

In what universe--or alternate universe--is that considered enabling?

How is giving money for people to rebuild their storm ravaged homes considered "preferential treatment"?

Are your rantings today some sort of social experiment? Because I'm telling you now, right now you are coming off sounding like a sanctimonious, unsympathetic, horrible human being.

[treestar]

102. Ridiculous! It is not collective punishment! It is the law!

States have actual power under our system.

They will get aid anyway. But if their state doesn't provide aid on the ground that you should do it yourself, the state doesn't provide aid. It will go to them as under the law.

But they are the ones whose majority says it should not happen because they are so individualistic. They think the result should differ with each individual according to each individual's foresight, prior wealth and planning. They are the ones who don't want collective solutions.

[riqster]

32. Yes, but these "eggs" are innocent children

You suggest breaking those "eggs" deliberately to achieve your "omelet".

[atreides1]

39. And what has being enlightened ever done?

Seriously...what has it ever done when it comes to the Republican party and its supporters?

We can all sing Kumbaya and be as enlightened as Buddha, but you know what that will get us from all Republicans...SQUAT!!!

Do the children deserve to be punished for what their parents and grand parents have been doing since 1964, probably not...but what do you do?

This happened in 1999 and the parents today were the children then...they seem to have forgotten that it was the federal government that came to their aid...just like the children of today will also forget...

But they will get that aid and they'll forget it...and this new generation will be taught to hate and distrust the federal government...just as the previous one was.


It's a vicious circle...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

42. What do you do?

You act like decent human beings, that's what you do.

You help them because it's the right thing to do, not because you expect anything political out of it.

[Occulus]

152. No you do not.

You leave them to live with the consequences of their own actions.

You leave them to take "personal responsibility" for their own lives and their own families.

You leave them to be the "rugged individuals" they claim they are.

You leave them to "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps."

In other words, you let them choke on their own words, their own actions, and their own positions.

Why?

Because these kinds of people are like children being told the stove is hot. You can tell them a thousand times they are wrong to touch it and will be burned if they do, but in the end, people like this never ever learn until it's their own fat that's in the fire, and if you rescue them yet again, they will learn nothing.

Let them lie in the bed they have made (and no, "think of the children" loses your argument for you as far as I'm concerned). Let them lie there until they cry. Then, let them lie there a couple years more to make the point.

I'm done being nice to these people. They do not deserve nice.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

154. Bull to the Fucking Shit.

Peoples' homes were destroyed. Republican people, Democratic people, black people, white people, Hispanic people.

People people.

This ain't no teachable moment.

Sleep well tonight. Sleep really, really well tonight.

[BlueCaliDem]

95. And this is why it's so frustrating to me. How can they not see that the political party

they continue to support has been lying to them and is hurting the country?

What will it take for Oklahomans to finally concede that the Republican Party has failed them, and that Big Government isn't an evil entity (unless you're an unscrupulous corporation), and that we as a people have to stand united against corporate lackeys like Coburn and Inhofe who only work for their moneyed masters?

I can only hope that this time, when they receive the Federal aid that's undoubtedly coming to them, something in their hearts and minds will click and they'll see, firsthand, that Big Gubment isn't the anti-Christ that they've been told it was by their misleaders, and hopefully they'll begin to vote Democratic Party on the Federal level.

The country will come to their rescue in their time of need. Will Oklahomans do the same for the country come election time? I hope so.

[riqster]

14. Neither logical nor humane

On the logic side, your opinion (which I have encountered before) rests upon the premise that people are completely free to leave their red or purple states and move to a blue state: therefore, anyone who stays in a red or purple state deserves what happens to them. As with any logical construct , the best way to determine validity is to examine the premise, and your fails to pass muster.

We could also argue by analogy: using your 'logic', women who get raped deserve what they get, because they shouldn't live near rapists: since they choose to live hear rapists, you'd say, they should get raped so as to learn a lesson. This pretty obviously fails as well.

But since anyone from anywhere who advocates the killing of children for political gain is an illogical, inhumane monster, I don't expect to reach you. Keep in mind that Stalin and Hitler also advocated the killing of innocents in order to achieve their political ends.

The only differences between you and those two figures are labels and degrees.

[BlueCaliDem]

21. In your zeal to play Ghandi, you're overlooking the premise of my post.

States should live under the policies of their chosen political party. Period. The majority wins. For better or for worse, that's what happens in a democracy.

If that has a negative effect on their lives, the "voting against their financial interest" then the people should change it or accept it (free choice and all that). If you're suffering because of your political party's ideology, then change your political party. Were Okies forced to live under the policies of their chosen political party, you can be sure they would vote Democratic within a few election cycles.

The rest of your post is a bunch of condescending bullshit hyperbole, so I won't even lower myself to your level to address it.

[riqster]

38. No, I already debunked the underlying premise of your post.

It's BS. Not everyone can choose where they live. For economic reasons (sometimes others), not everyone can just pack up and leave a state if they get outvoted by the Reeps.

And since that underlying premise fails, the house of cards you built atop it fails as well.

That's the second time on this thread I have pointed this out.

[BlueCaliDem]

70. Well, maybe in your head, but not in this discussion.

The underlying premise is, if you want to stop living in a state where you're out-voted by Republicans, then you only have two options. Move or get the majority of the people in that state to vote Democratic with you. How do you do that when they can happily continue voting for Republicans as they rant against "libruls" all the while having the security of Democratic policies and compassion?

The, "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free" was the premise of my posts. You're the one who decided to change it and then announce a self-proclaimed victory. Now that's what Republicans do.

[riqster]

79. No, I addressed your premise quite directly.

And your promise is still faulty: "Move or get the majority of the people in that state to vote Democratic with you" is not something everyone can do.

I already pointed out the flaw in the "move" part.

As to the "get the majority of the people in that state to vote Democratic with you" part, that is not always possible either.

Your premise is flawed.

And that little ad hominem attack at the end there fails to hold water: "You're the one who decided to change it and then announce a self-proclaimed victory. Now that's what Republicans do."

I could easily counter by saying "letting kids starve and die in order to gain a political goal is what Republicans do", but that would be just as bullshit as what you threw at me.

Either make a logically consistent case that can be applied in the real world, or admit you're just trolling for flame wars.

[11 Bravo]

31. Congratulations, you helped make DU suck a little bit today. Nice work!

[cherokeeprogressive]

37. This

[BlueCaliDem]

71. Don't worry. Your opinion won't have me lose sleep. eom

[11 Bravo]

75. I neither thought it would nor care if it does. But trust me, Sparky ...

it ain't just my opinion.

[BlueCaliDem]

93. Then you know how I feel about your opinion. Good!

Being enablers of Republicanism is weak, and trust me, Skippy, that's what you and those who agree with your opinion, are. Republican enablers.

[Lurker Dave]

131. Interestingly enough,

the phrase "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" is commonly attributed to one of two people: either Walter Duranty, in the course of his apologia for the Holodomor, or to Joseph Stalin himself. These attributions, of course, may be entirely apocryphal.

[Doctor_J]

164. what might work is if the California delegation block the relief vote until

The Oklahoma psychopaths pass the jobs bill. They can either get on board or explain their principled stance to the parents of the injured children.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

12. So punish children, punish the elderly, punish the disabled , etc.

That's not right.

[BlueCaliDem]

28. No. It's not right. That's why I don't vote Republican

unlike Oklahomans.

Shooting the messenger isn't going to change Oklahoman politics and ideology as they send more Republicans to the Capitol to disadvantage the rest of us. Don't crucify me for the misdeeds of the Republican Party which is the preferred political party of the majority of Oklahomans who now believe that Big Gubment isn't all that bad after all.

Dollars to donuts, though, that they'll vote for another Republican to replace Coburn because, well, why buy the cow if you can get its milk for free?

[cynatnite]

22. So, I guess if we opened up your chest, there would be no heart in it....

It's a piss poor reason to let people suffer...especially the innocent.

It's also inexcusable and you are a sad commentary on what being a progressive is all about.

I think you should just walk onto the other side to the repuke politicians. You'd be more comfortable there.

[BlueCaliDem]

35. Of course there is! I'm a Progressive after all.

But I'm not Ghandi and I'm not Mother Theresa.

When I see the suffering of the poor in my state, the undocumented, the low-wage families that have to scratch together just to provide a hot meal for their children, the tax exemptions that millionaires and billionaires enjoy while we get zilch, the decrepit state of our public schools, the unfunded wars, the impoverished children all across the country not limited to Oklahoma, the dismantling of EPA standards - just to name a few - it infuriates me that a country that's so wealthy can't even pass a decent jobs bill because of filibustering Republicans in the Senate and anti-Big Gubment Republicans in the House. How did they get there? They had to be elected, right? The next question is, who voted for them and why would they unless their of that privileged elite?

My compassion for my fellow American doesn't only rear its head when there's a natural disaster. It's there all the time and every day, and that heart you believe I don't have, breaks every time I see Republicans voting against common sense policies that would have helped millions of vulnerable Americans, the elderly, the young children.

Republicans are the problem, but they wouldn't get to their positions of power were it not for the people who don't have millions in their bank accounts, stupidly voting for them.

[cynatnite]

40. Their vote doesn't determine how far my compassion goes. n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

119. No, but their vote should determine how they want to live.

And, apparently, they want to live under Republican policies. So let them.

[CBGLuthier]

126. I am quite certain you have no idea what the word progressive means

the word compassion is another one I doubt you are familiar with.

[BlueCaliDem]

159. And you'd be wrong. eom

[byeya]

7. Did the elected Oklahoma senators and representatives vote against Sandy aid? I don't

know but would be interested to learn.

[riqster]

10. Both Senators did.

Not all their Congresscritters did, though: Cole voted for the aid. Here's the complete list: http://gawker.com/5973255/here-are-the-republicans-who-voted-no-on-hurricane-sandy-relief-funds

[NCTraveler]

11. There are people on the left and right....

who can justify pretty brutal behavior in the name of politics. Most of it on the left are internet warriors trying to act tough. Thankfully Democrats in congress are more compassionate. The really bad part is that there are those on the right, in congress, willing to vote in such a callous manner. Just another reason to support Democrats.

[Jennicut]

18. We as liberals should not follow their behavior

We should be above using politics to punish the innocent.

[NCTraveler]

26. I am fully with you on that.

Even as centrist as a lot of our elected officials are on the Democratic side, they do not vote to punish in situations like this. That can't be said for the right. I was trying to say that on the left, it seems to be a very small yet vocal anonymous group, willing to make others suffer in the name of politics. It is easier for them when they can hide behind a keyboard.

I agree with you.

[geek tragedy]

19. The question is whether one buys into the "we're all Americans

and we need to pull together in times of tragedy" idea.

The Red States lining up to oppose Sandy aid shattered that idea for many of us. They're more than happy to live off our tax dollars, but when our people needed help, they were content to let us drown.

Let them make their case for aid. Let them grovel for it the way we had to.

Eventually they'll get their money, but a little humble pie is also due.

And they love people like Inhofe because he exemplifies their values, so the distinction goes only so far.

[riqster]

24. Define "they"

The innocent suffer along with the guilty.

[geek tragedy]

27. The people of Oklahoma overwhelmingly support cruelty

and heartlessness as their preferred public policy values.

To the point they wanted to let us drown after Sandy. That's what the overwhelming majority of Oklahomans voted for. Ditto Kansas, Alabama, Texas etc.

If they want our help, they need to ask for it with sugar on top.

[riqster]

34. Yes, but they should get it in the end.

Some folks on here, like BlueCaliDem, think they should get nothing at all.

[geek tragedy]

36. They should get it, but only after humbling themselves, nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

41. How exactly do storm victims "humble themselves"?

Does losing one's home count as humbling themselves? Or, God forbid, a loved one?

Or perhaps do they need to roll around in the dust for good measure?

[geek tragedy]

43. Their elected representatives need to do it on their behalf.

They made us beg and jump through hoops.

Their turn now.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

44. On this particular issue, elected representatives are irrelevant to me.

As they should be to you.

I care about the ordinary people.

[geek tragedy]

46. Inhofe/Coburn=typical Oklahomans.

They can get their aid, but they don't get to maintain this attitude of screw everyone else until it's our time of need.

Had ordinary Oklahomans exhibited a little more compassion, I'd be more inclined to make aid available unconditionally.

Sandy changed a lot.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

48. Neither Senator Inhofe nor Senator Coburn were personally impacted by the storm as far as I know.

They didn't lose a house, nor did they lose a loved one.

Had one of their houses been flattened and they wanted federal aid to rebuild, then perhaps I'd think differently.

But they are not "typical".

[geek tragedy]

49. They exemplify the values of Oklahomans, nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

51. That's one hell of a broad brush. nt

[geek tragedy]

58. .

http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Poll_shows_majority_of_Oklahomans_have_unfavorable/20101114_16_a1_amajor555807

A majority of Oklahomans believe Islam is a violent religion that is far removed from Christianity, the most recent Oklahoma Poll found.

...

Upon hearing the poll results, Luanne Butler of Tulsa said, "In a way it's not surprising, but in a way it is disheartening to make sweeping generalizations about people called Muslim."

Butler said there is "a lack of openness and also a pervasive element whispering (in) our ear that (Muslims) don't have good intentions, that they want to take over, invade."

She said the vote on State Question 755, banning the use of Shariah law in state courts, represented Oklahomans, saying, "So there. We don't want interference from outside."

...

Lloyd acknowledged that Shariah law has never entered into an Oklahoma court case and appears to have affected only one decision - a decision quickly overturned - in the entire country.

But, she said, she thinks the state question was a good idea.

"Look what's going on in Europe," she said. "They're trying to dig themselves out of those people taking over."

...

Oklahomans' opinion of President Barack Obama also found expression in the poll questions about Islam. Fully one-third said they believe Obama is Muslim. Half said he is not.

"I don't think he's a Muslim," said Marilyn Allen of Broken Arrow. She suspects Obama is "mixed up" because of his unusual childhood and "wants to please everyone," including Muslim nations.

"I really don't like the way he kowtows to them," she said.

"But I'm more worried about the communist part than the Muslim part."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Oklahomans_dont_like_President_Barack_Obama/20100801_16_a10_oklaho658879

Oklahomans don't like President Barack Obama.

A lot.

Obama's Oklahoma Poll approval rating fell to 27 percent in July, the lowest for any elected official in the 17-year history of the survey

...

"I don't know if it's totally inexperience," said poll respondent Etta Martin of Glenpool. "It could be ignorance. But he has said and done so many things, I don't believe he's a loyal American. Unless (Obama) changes his attitude or he is voted out of office, we are in for a very bad time in this country."

Martin said she believes Obama is trying to start a "civil war."

"He came into office with a chip on his shoulder and hatred in his heart for this country," she said.

"I think he's lousy. He ought to be impeached," said Terry Hurst, who described herself as a conservative Democrat. "He's un-American. He's against Israel, and the Bible promises that who's against Israel, he's against.

"I think Obama's a Muslim, not a Christian, and he's backing his Muslim brothers."

More people think Obama's a Muslim than voted for him in Oklahoma.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

61. I. Don't. Care.

I don't care about either of those stories right now. Not one bit.

Maybe that little old lady who lost her dog and then found it on TV voted for Inhofe. There's at least a 50% chance she did, maybe even greater.

Maybe this guy's a Republican:



Maybe these people are birthers:



I couldn't honestly give a single shit, though. All I see are human beings.

[geek tragedy]

67. Yes, and when there were scenes like this:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1196380!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/funds-1.jpg

and this



http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1216506!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/gst10k-1-web.jpg

we were told "drop dead" by the clowns that Oklahomans have decided best represent their values and priorities.

What goes around, comes around.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

68. Who told you to "drop dead"?

Did someone in Moore, Oklahoma tell you to "drop dead"?

What was his or her name, this person who told you to "drop dead"?

Because that would be one hell of a coincidence, my friend.

[geek tragedy]

73. Inhofe and Coburn, who enjoy overwhelming support in OK.

Also never mind the fact that people in OK favor polluting the environment and increasing carbon totals because global warming isn't their problem, never mind what happens to those of us on the coast.

http://soonerpoll.com/drill-then-protect-oklahomans-place-energy-priorities-over-environmental-protection-2/

If they had to make a choice, most Oklahomans believe the development of U.S. energy supplies should take precedence over environmental protection. Recent SoonerPoll results show 65 percent of Oklahomans believe energy takes precedence, while 25.9 percent place environmental protection above the development of energy supplies.

...

These results come from a state electorate that is generally conservative on environmental issues. Survey results also found that 53.6 percent of Oklahomans do not believe that human activity significantly affects climate change. Of the 37.8 percent of Oklahomans who believe that human activity does play a role in climate change, 50 percent said they would choose the development of U.S. energy supplies over environmental protection.

If they weren't so eager to fuck the rest of us on a national level . . .

[Tommy_Carcetti]

77. Well take it up with them individually. Send them an email, a letter, a phone call.

Not some poor guy whose house just got flattened.

You want to condition the help he gets based on who his senators are, well that's just a sad reflection on your character.

[geek tragedy]

81. No, I'm saying they have to play by the same rules

that we have to play by.

Disaster aid is now a political issue, thanks to the Republican base.

They politicized it--for the first time in American history.

Well, now, they have to make the political case for it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

82. WELL DE-POLITICIZE IT!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, I'm sick as hell of the childish, "But look what they did....." that goes on in political debate.

[geek tragedy]

83. too fucking late. It's political when blue state voters need it. that's

their rules of engagement.

Maybe a little humble pie will cause them to reconsider their approach.

But, giving them a free ride so that it's only political when it happens to us is not acceptable.

Either it's political for everyone or no one.

Their choice.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

87. Sure.

And next time there's a Republican in the Oval Office, maybe we can go ahead and waste a year of the nation's time and money and impeach him over an affair.

After all, they did it. It's only fair, right?

[geek tragedy]

88. They have an opportunity to recant their previous attempt to politicize disaster aid.

They must do so explicitly.

Red states must not get special treatment.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

136. "They" as in who? Coburn/Inhofe, or ordinary Oklahomans?

Listen, there's two things that are pretty much a given in this situation:

1) Oklahoma will receive federal disaster relief aid, as it should. The President will not stand for anything otherwise.

2) Notwithstanding Oklahoma's receipt of federal disaster relief aid, Inhofe and Coburn will continue to rail against the "evils" of the federal government.

You're wasting your time if you think we, as Democrats and liberals and progressives, should be settling scores with Republicans who were hesitant to support aid for Hurricane Sandy by denying federal aid to a disaster ridden state simply because its elected representatives just happened to be said Republicans. It's stupid, it's petty, and it makes us look like total assholes. People are hurting, they need help, and the government should help them. Period. Not doing so because of petty political matters would confirm every single negative stereotype people harbor against the federal government. Cutting off your nose to spite your face just isn't a wise choice in any respect.

So then what to do with Inhofe or Coburn? Simple. Next election cycle, during the debates or what have you, when Inhofe/Coburn go on a rant against the federal government, the Democratic challenger can bring up how important the federal government was to the people of Oklahoma after the May 2013 tornado, and note that even Inhofe/Coburn knew how vital that aid was. And hopefully that will help exposes those two individual's gross hypocrisy to the electorate?

Will it change every Oklahoman's heart as it relates to who they believe their elected representatives should be? No. But it's a lot more practical than advocating denying federal aid to people who've lost their homes, or demanding some odd mea culpa from 3.8 million Oklahomans.

[geek tragedy]

137. So, when Infhofe and Coburn insist on cuts to Medicaid and

Obamacare to pay for/offset OK disaster aid, what tune are you going to sing?

Because that's the real question.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

140. Has that even been proposed as that relates to the Oklahoma tornado?

I fully expect Inhofe and Coburn to act like total hypocrites when it comes to federal disaster aid. Bet the bank on it.


That doesn't change a thing that such aid should be given to those who need it, regardless of location or political affiliation.

[geek tragedy]

141. For some time now the Republicans have tried to use disasters

to force spending cuts in social welfare programs--that's what this offset business is about.

If they make that demand, are we prepared to say "okay, no aid for you?" Or do we cave in the name of "we're all in this together" like Obama is famous for doing?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

142. Let them be assholes.

Just let them show the country who they are.

If they are going to try to politicize something as non-partisan as disaster relief aid, let them try to do it. Chances are the American people will see right through them and their efforts will be in vain.

Did the Republicans ultimately succeed in getting the ACA repealed or monies from Medicaid cut as a stipulation to passing Hurricane Sandy relief?

No, such a proposal died a just death. Those supporting the proposal ended up looking like jackasses.

But just because they politicize relief aid to a "blue" state doesn't mean our response needs to be to in turn politicize relief to a "red" state.

They politicize, we de-politicize. It's as simple as that.

[geek tragedy]

145. If they insist on offsets, there's no way to depoliticize.

It becomes a question of whether we let them shoot the hostage.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

146. They tried it with Sandy. It failed.

If they are stupid enough to try it relating to disaster relief in a "red" state, it will again fail.

It's like their repeated attempts to repeal the ACA. All it does is make them look insane.

If they insist on making themselves look bad, no need to stand in the way. And certainly no need to make us look equally bad, either.

[geek tragedy]

147. As it turns out, Hal Rogers just said

"no offset for you."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014488905

Dilemma resolved, and hopefully that's the last we hear of this shitty idea.

[riqster]

84. The thread title says it all.

Humble the guilty motherfuckers who went to DC and voted to fuck the nation. But get the aid to the people of the state with all speed.

To do otherwise amounts to collective punishment. CP is wrong on two levels: the Moral and the Practical. The Moral has been stated by others on this thread already, so I'll address the Practical.

Collectively punishing the innocent along with the guilty creates a paradigm in which the criminal uses the innocent to shield himself form the consequences of his crimes. If one person throws a rock at a National Guardsman and the troops open fire on the entire crowd, the price was not paid by the rock-thrower (Yes, I'm talking about Kent State). The price was paid by the innocent. Same thing here. Inhofe and Coburn are throwing rocks at our entire nation, aided and abetted by a goodly percentage of their constituents.

If we "open fire" by denying aid to the helpless, then we are not punishing the guilty.

[geek tragedy]

85. We'll see how they act.

If they insist on spending cuts for poor people in other states, then no aid.

[riqster]

89. You won't hurt the Senators or Congresscritters one bit with that course of action.

They are rich motherfuckers who wouldn't need aid even if their houses were destroyed. Their constituents (some of whom voted for them, others not) will pay the price. And only they will pay the price.

If we want to punish the guilty, we have to find a way to hurt them. Fucking over the innocent will not hurt Reep Senators, because they are already on board with fucking over the innocent.

[geek tragedy]

92. It is of the utmost necessity that we not allow them to get away with imposing

one set of standards on blue states while giving red states a free pass.

That simply cannot be allowed to happen.

To allow disaster aid to be used as a political weapon against blue states is something that we need to prevent at all cost.

And that means we do not turn the other cheek.

Unilateral disarmament is suicide.

[riqster]

94. Political warfare is one thing.

Collateral damage must be minimized.

[geek tragedy]

96. We have to prevent our own from being their collateral damage.

If they can get away with it, they'll screw us hard.

[riqster]

97. No argument there.

But if there is no aid to the people who actually need it, are we taking care of our own? No.

I am of the opinion that these elected Reep motherfuckers need to be fucked. Hard, brutally, and injured terribly and permanently in the process (No, I'm not as nice as some of the good people on this thread).

But letting families sleep in the rubble does. not. harm. Inhofe. He is living high on the hog and doesn't give a shit about the people who are in need of aid, not even the ones who voted for him.

The first rule of warfare: Know what you're shooting at and why.

The second rule of warfare: Make sure you use the right weapon, and make sure you hit your intended target with it.

Withholding aid from the suffering violates both of those rules.

[geek tragedy]

98. We must insist on red states and blue states playing by the same set of

rules, no matter what.

Agree?

[riqster]

103. Of course.

It's how we get there that needs careful consideration.

Instead of withholding aid to the needy, I propose the Dems hit these Reep bastards hard and often for the next election cycle, making sure everyone knows how they voted and why. Make their elected lives Hell. Investigate them, sue them, do everything we can to hurt the guilty parties. Run them out of Congress on a rail.

That would punish the guilty and spare the innocent. But alas, the Dem party is too full of nice guys to do that sort of thing.

[geek tragedy]

106. They are guaranteed re-election in Oklahoma absent a showing

that their policies will majorly screw over Oklahoma.

Oklahoma is the most rightwing state in the nation.

What is needed is a brushback pitch--fuck with aid to blue states, and you endanger aid to red states. Let the aid go through, but make it clear there will be consqeuences for their constituents if they try to pull what they did with Sandy again.

[riqster]

107. We're almost in agreement`

The only thing we're not in alignment on is the target. I get what you're saying, but I don't think it'll work. Because it's been tried before and failed (and because I have a moral issue with delaying/withholding aid from the needy, no matter the rationale).

No, the only thing that will fix the problem is turning as many seats as possible Blue. As long as Reeps are in power, they'll do what Reeps do, and what they do is corrupt and criminal.

Make sure their constituents know that their senators are holding up their aid. They are, by insisting that the aid be contingent on cuts in other areas. That slows things down. So make that a talking point, and don't stop talking.

Elected Reeps care only that they remain elected. We hurt them by taking that away.

[geek tragedy]

109. Here's the rub: they may insist on spending cuts to

poor people in other states to pay for this aid.

if they do that, the people of Oklahoma will have to pay the price for their intransigence.

And we have to be willing to let that happen.

[riqster]

111. And make sure everyone knows that it is the Reeps who held up the aid.

That hurt them badly with Sandy.

[geek tragedy]

113. Yep. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

50. how do senators and congress critters become senators and congress critters?

i dont agree on withholding money to OK or anywhere else for a disaster but to act as though these lawmakers got elected without support from their constituents really seems silly

[riqster]

54. A majority does not = 100%

That's my point. Not everyone is eligible yo register to vote. Out of those eligible, a small number of people register to vote. Then a smaller number yet actually cast ballots in any given election.

We say " a majority elected them", but it is never even close to half of the people in a state who cast those ballots.

So we cannot punish every single man, woman and child for the actions of a minority of a state's citizens.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

56. And even for those who didn't vote my way, it doesn't matter. I want to see them helped.

If you see someone drowning and you're standing next to a life preserver, do you first shout out to the drowning person and ask him or her who he or she voted for? Or do you just throw the damn life preserver?

I think too many people (yourself not included, of course) here are forgetting basic human decency. It's sad, especially amongst people who profess to be progressive and liberal.

[riqster]

91. Oh, agreed.

It is sad to see people advocating policies that would kill people in order to achieve a political end. And it is especially sad to see it here.

Every apple barrel and all that, I guess.

[kestrel91316]

59. I wish we had a way to withhold aid from the anti-gubmint, racist, Obama-hating,

homophobic, misogynist crowd in OK (any anyplace else that suffers a natural disaster). Might teach those neanderthals a thing or two about how to treat one's fellow humans.

I can't figure out they they WANT aid from the feds, since they hate them so much. You'd think they would just politely decline. Biting the hand that quite literally feeds your entire state, and has for many decades, isn't very nice.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

62. Because that will make them like liberals so much more. nt

[Daniel537]

110. Sort of reminds me of people who support the embargo against Cuba

"Well, if we deny them money and resources, they'll learn to love us!"

Its insanity, and too many DUers seem to be just fine with going along with it here at home.

[egduj]

100. Or from anyone whoever wished to "withold aid" from anyone who needed aid...

[Corruption Inc]

165. I can figure it out easily, the term is "hypocrisy"

The definition reads: "Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie."

The people in OK that vote R are liars, hypocrites and criminals, it's that simple. Of course they'll take anything from anybody, the whole time insulting the way of life of the people giving it to them.

[Apophis]

74. Well, those constituents voted for those politicians.

Hurricane Sandy victims didn't deserve to suffer because of red state asshole politicians.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

80. No victims of any disaster need to suffer more than they already have.

Why do we feel the need to keep score?

[riqster]

86. SOME of "those constituents voted for those politicians".

Not all of them. Not fair to make the others suffer for the actions of the guilty.

[Apophis]

143. Most*

[riqster]

148. All due respect, but it isn't most. It's a majority of a minority.

Here's the deal: many people (children, for instance) aren't eligible to vote.

A huge number of those eligible never register.

Entirely too many of those registered don't vote regularly.

Only a small percentage of the state's population actually cast ballots for these Reep motherfuckers.

When we say "a majority of Oklahomans (or Ohioans, or wherever) voted for fillintheblank", we are not being accurate. It's a majority of a minority.

[Apophis]

149. I don't react to sensationalism.

If the parents cared about the kids, they should have done more to protect them. They did nothing.

[riqster]

153. Granted. And what part of that is the kids' fault? Or that of those who voted Dem?

Hurting the innocent along with the guilty is wrong on pretty much every level. If you can find a way to give aid only to the deserving, have at it. But withholding aid from everyone helps no one.

Actually, that's not quite right, now I think on it... Withholding aid helps the "Republicans", by confirming the right-wing meme that "the Government won't help you if you are in trouble, they can't be trusted, give us money and elect more of us so we can shut that damned useless guv-mint down Blahblahblahramaramadingdong".

[Daniel537]

108. Some really creepy Stalin-esque comments on this thread

Omelets and eggs and so forth. Good grief. Any person with half a heart would of course agree that people shouldn't suffer just because of politics. We're all humans, and we're all in this together folks, like it or not.

[riqster]

114. That's why I wrote the OP.

Sickening, how some so-called "liberals", "progressives", et.al. can turn into inhumane monsters.

[Daniel537]

124. I'm sure its going completely over their head

but do the people posting these revolting ideas of withholding aid realize that they are thinking in the exact same way of Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad etc...? Its times like this that make me glad we don't have extremists on either side in positions to determine who gets what. Human beings can be frightening creatures.

[riqster]

127. Some of them deny that they are thinking that way.

Others say things like "yes, but MY motives are pure, so it's OK".

Not sure which one nauseates me more.

[sofa king]

112. Completely disagree.

Oklahomans sent these people to Congress. They are entirely deserving of the "tough love" their representatives so cheerfully advocate whenever someplace else gets smacked.

I will be fucking pissed if a budget offset, as proposed by Oklahoma's own Members of Congress, does not come entirely from federal aid already allocated to Oklahoma.

Asshole conservatives deserve to be the primary beneficiaries of asshole conservative policies, end of story.

[riqster]

116. Children did not vote to send them to DC.

Democrats did not vote to send them to DC.

The only people who DID send them there are the voters who cast ballots for them. An insignificant percentage, relative to the population of the state.

To fuck them all in order to hurt the few is a pretty revolting attitude.

[jeff47]

129. So what?

Yes, invoking children is a fantastic attempt to tug at heartstrings. But it also begs the question: where was this concern for children when Oklahomans voted to not build storm shelters for the past 2-3 decades?

Anyway, children have parents who are supposed to care for their best interests. Those parents voted to send those representatives to DC. Thus those children get the joy of living with their parent's decisions. Just as if those parents decided that meth was a fantastic hobby or keeping a loaded gun in the house was a great idea.

An insignificant percentage, relative to the population of the state.

Um, no. The total that voted for them, as well as the total people who didn't give enough of a damn to vote, is the vast majority of Oklahomans.

Those decisions have dire consequences. The fact that they did not consider those consequences is not the fault of everyone else. Somehow, they have to learn of those consequences. And just ignoring those votes and giving aid anyway has failed to teach.

If Oklahoma had it's way, FEMA would be gone. A year from now, Oklahoma will want FEMA gone again. That cycle needs to end.

[riqster]

130. If the only way to end the cycle is by killing kids

then no thanks. and that is what withholding aid WILL do. The parents may not have thought this through, but that ain't the kids fault.

But it is NOT the only way.

The way to do it is for we to treat the Red states as occupied territory. Which they are: occupied by the criminal enterprise called "republicans".

We stop being nice, sweet, gentlemanly Dems and go after the Reeps. Fight down and dirty, winner-take all, take no prisoners, run those motherfuckers out of DC on a rail.Take the states back.

THAT ends the cycle, and doesn't harm the innocent.

[jeff47]

132. So we should just accept when they want to kill our kids?

I'm sorry, but Oklahoma's representatives wanted to "kill the kids" in the Northeast after Sandy. And their constituents aren't upset about it.

They have to learn that their votes matter.

We stop being nice, sweet, gentlemanly Dems and go after the Reeps. Fight down and dirty, winner-take all, take no prisoners, run those motherfuckers out of DC on a rail.Take the states back.

THAT ends the cycle, and doesn't harm the innocent.

Bullshit. It already harmed people in the Northeast when Sandy aid was held up. And Oklahomans are happy to say "this time is different!" instead of saying "We shouldn't have done that".

[riqster]

133. Tit-for-tat is not a political strategy. It's just emotional garbage.

Calling "bullshit" on my alternative approach without then addressing it also quite curious. I'd suggest that your anger blinds you.

Calm down and get REALLY mean. That is what I propose.

[jeff47]

135. I did address it.

Your "alternative" is what we've supposedly been doing for the last decade or so.

How'd that work out? Oh wait, we were told to stop being so mean.

[riqster]

138. "Supposedly" says it all.

The Dems almost NEVER fight like they should. They don't just bring a knife to a gun fight: hell, they show up with a rubber chicken.

If what I proposed had actually been done, I'd say you have a point. But it hasn't. Every now and then, somebody grows a pair for an hour or two. But then they shrink back and become the wussies we know.

Until the Reeps get beat on their own battlefield, repeatedly and forcefully, nothing will change. And nothing else will fix the problem.

Saying "you starved my kids, so I'll starve yours back" fixes nothing. It just tells citizens that their Government won't help them. And that message is exactly what the Reeps want people to believe. Withholding aid plays into their hands.

No, we deliver the aid, and then pull out the brass knucks, switchblades and other bar-fight tools; and we take it to them. And we don't slack off or back off. We fight to win, and we don't quit until we do.

Anything else and we get the scenario you and others have accurately described - BOHICA. And fuck that, we deserve better.

[sofa king]

188. I appreciate your Curtis Mayfield moment.

"Save the children," you say?

What could adults have done to ensure that their children were less endangered? One two-part solution that instantly springs to mind is that voters could have 1) actually voted, and; 2) cast informed votes when they did vote. The majority of Oklahomans did neither.

The only people who DID send them there are the voters who cast ballots for them. An insignificant percentage, relative to the population of the state.

Sorry, but eligible non-voting adults in Oklahoma cast an automatic vote for the winners, and thus inherited responsibility for the actions of the Republican Members of Congress that were sent to Washington. Over half of all voting-age Oklahomans deigned not to vote in 2012.

Which means that the vast majority of Oklahomans--Republicans and non-voters combined--are responsible for the representation they have.

Parents had a duty to use their votes to protect their children, and now it is abundantly clear that they did not. Their children (and the people who cast responsible votes) are the insignificant percentage in this equation, which by the way actually explains why Oklahoma is the way it is, whereas your counter-argument does not.

That's not my personal wish, by the way. This isn't an "I say let 'em crash" snipe, and I certainly am not advocating withholding aid or increasing the suffering there in any way.

All I'm saying is that Oklahomans have furnished the means by which they suffer and therefore they should be the ones who pay for it by offsetting the costs of cleanup from federal funds already allocated to Oklahoma. We can do that without harming the children any more than Republicans already have harmed them.

[clarice]

115. Is this thread for real ?? shame, shame. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

122. Their attitudes are neither liberal or progressive

and they are increasing in number on DU.

[clarice]

123. My thoughts exactly. Thanks Puzz. nt

[Zoeisright]

117. Nope. Not even a little bit.

Actions have consequences. And many people do NOT learn until they suffer the consequences of their actions.

[riqster]

118. So what about the many people (dems, children, etc.) who did not vote for the Reeps?

They did not perform the action, so they should not suffer the consequences. And if we withhold aid, we are deliberately harming the innocent in order to 'punish' the guilty.

[Whisp]

120. Yeh, that's really low, to wish more harm on innocent people

just for some kind of twisted political revenge. I pity the heartless assholes that say that kind of shit.

[riqster]

128. Maybe it says something negative about me, but

..I don't pity them all that much. I mostly pity the people they hurt.

[Doctor_J]

156. they speak for their constituents when they utter their malignant

Treasonous bs. The people of Oklahoma have voted Inhofe into office for decades and will do it again next time he runs. They must believe in what he stands for. And right now the choice is to either help his constituents and reward his treason, or give him what he deserves and consider the people who continue to voted for him collateral damage.

[riqster]

157. How very nice.

So the kids in that state are "collateral damage" too, even though they couldn't vote. And any Dems in that state, hey fuck 'em, "collateral damage" too?

Fucking over the innocent along with the guilty is some truly revolting behavior.

[Doctor_J]

161. so is rewarding treason

Over and over. Fallin, Inhofe and Coburn, and the people who voted for them are never going to be useful Americans if their treason is rewarded. To turn the argument around, what do you think should be done these filthy politicians and the majority of Oklahomans who voted for them?

[riqster]

162. I've said it several times already on this thread

But here ya go again: the guilty parties are the Reep Voters and Reep Elected officials. Odds are most of them will not be hurt by the denial of aid. In fact, denial of aid plays into their hands by "proving" that the government is useless, yadayada.

So denial of aid does not hurt the guilty parties.

What WOULD hurt them is for the Dems to finally nut up and fight those treasonous bastards they way they should be fought. Stop being nice and sweet, and above-the-fray. No, hammer them relentlessly with attack ads, lawsuits, investigations and GOTV. Run the fuckers out of office.

That might sound difficult to you, but I suggest that punishing the guilty while caring for the innocent is what America was founded on. Not the reverse.

[Doctor_J]

166. Well, if the media were reversed, this would be well and good

We could send them their aid, and for the next week 1500 radio stations would be running 2/47, calling Inhofe and the rest traitors, psychopaths, and so on(which is what they are). In this case the republican party would be completely dead by 2020.

But it's not. The day after they have their money they and their giant propaganda machine will be right back to their seditious treason. So your idealistic plan to

hammer them relentlessly with attack ads, lawsuits, investigations and GOTV

is a complete fantasy. You recently saw what happens when the WH tried to investigate treason among the teabaggers. Big Media takes the side of the traitors.

You want to "play hard ball" by somehow taking them to death when they own all of the microphones. Some of us want to bring the consequences of their actions a little closer to home.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

168. So what is your solution? What would you do?

I just want to have you on the record here.

[Doctor_J]

170. The president and/or Reid should call a caucus meeting. The Dems would announce

that the aid will be released as soon as a vote is taken on the jobs bill, and all of the pending court appointments are seated. And then stand firm.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

171. So you want to play politics with disaster aid?

(No matter how well-intentioned the demands are)

Oh, that will play over really well. Really well.

You need to de-politicize disaster relief, not further politicize it.

[Doctor_J]

173. You and the rest of the appeasers just don't get it

There is no way to alter the behavior of these traitors and seditionists without proffering some consequences for their treason. Tell me what those consequences are.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

176. Hopefully electoral defeat for Inhofe and Coburn.

Holding disaster relief ransom, however, will not accomplish that.

Whenever I hear anyone propose that we have to do the exact same thing as the Republicans do, I can't help but think of the movie "O Brother Where Art Thou?", where Governor Pappy O'Daniel's campaign staff is trying to think of ways to counter the campaign of Homer Stokes, whose over the top campaign side shows include appearances by a little person:

Junior O'Daniel: We could hire our own midget, even shorter than his.

Pappy O'Daniel: Wouldn't we look like a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies, bragging on our own midget, doesn't matter how stumpy.

[Doctor_J]

179. THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN

The problem with you appeasers is that all of your proposals rely on million-to-one shots to happen. "We just have to elect 66 Dem Senators", "We have to get our voters out", "We have to message better", "We just have to support the president no matter what he does". The only way Inhofe is going to leave office is to be replaced by someone worse.

Now go back to the real world and find a solution there.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

180. So let's just deny disaster relief aid to people who've lost their houses.

Gotcha.

[Doctor_J]

175. Coburn already did that. He wants tax cuts to go with the aid to starving children

So as another generous throw-in to voting for the jobs bill, the Dems will not bring up that stinking piece of shit ever again.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

177. So that means we have to do it too?

Why do we have to play dirty just because they do?

[Doctor_J]

181. Only if we want to make some progress against the teabaggers

Or we can continue to give them whatever they ask for, with no strings or payback, and hope they magically start to regain their humanity. That's been working just great for 20 years.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

182. Who is "them"?

You keep on referring to "them".

[Doctor_J]

183. The teabaggers and other traitors in the government, and their voters and propagandists.

It followed pretty directly from the post you responded to

[Tommy_Carcetti]

184. So no Democrats lost their homes yesterday? nt

[riqster]

169. By denying starving children aid?

You call that closer to home? Leave me out of that.

[Doctor_J]

174. Actions and elections have consequences

at least they are supposed to. If you can think of a realistic way to provide Fallin, Inhofe, and Coburn and those who voted for them meaningful consequences without doing any harm to the innocents, I am on board. So far I haven't read any such suggestion.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

178. Who the fuck cares? It's disaster relief aid for people who've lost their houses.

Why do we need to play politics here?

Just give the people their relief. Sheesh.

[riqster]

185. So you are OK with letting the innocent suffer

If it furthers your political agenda.

That tells me everything I need to know about you.

[Doctor_J]

186. And you want to give billions of tax dollars to traitors, hate mongers, and pigs

You want to give them a fish. They need to be taught to fish, by which I mean doing whatever is necessary to get sane representation in Congress - recalls, impeachment, what have you.

If we send them money, by the time the ink is dry on the check, which will have my tax money in it, the stupid hag that runs that state, the senators, the OK House delegation, and all of hate radio will already be back to bashing liberals, Dems, "the government", and the president, and probably his wife and Hillary too, up to and including calling for their assassinations.

Anyone who has raised children and read anything about basic psychology knows that when bad behavior is rewarded, or ignored, it escalates. Giving terrorists like Inhofe money is very bad politics. It is the moral equivalent of rubbing a kid's head when you find him strangling the cat. That kid needs to be rescued before he turns into a serial killer. The teabaggers already are bloodthirsty sociopaths. It is time to try to limit the damage they do from here on. If you can think of some OTHER way to get them to stop destroying the country, I am all ears.

Edit: BTW the KeystoneXL will also go through there, mainly at the behest of the Kock Bros. When that blows, who do you think is going to pay the bill? Yep, the same old Blue State Donors.

[riqster]

187. No, I want the money to go to the needy.

You would see them die so you can score a political point.

[LanternWaste]

163. I'm of the opinion that should one's political ideology become such

I'm of the opinion that should one's political ideology become such as it prevents or denies aid in any form to anyone who needs it, that person has then become (at best) a political hack or (at worst) a precise copy of those they claim to hate... and should step back and begin to reexamine and reevaluate those ethics upon which that desire for denial of assistance (regardless of how one rationalizes it to themselves) is based.

[riqster]

167. Well said!

[Doctor_J]

172. What an excellent bromide

I'm of the opinion that should one's political ideology become such as it prevents or denies aid in any form to anyone who needs it, that person has then become (at best) a political hack or (at worst) a precise copy of those they claim to hate... and should step back and begin to reexamine and reevaluate those ethics upon which that desire for denial of assistance (regardless of how one rationalizes it to themselves) is based.

every single republican congressman and governor has exhibited this is exactly his/her view. What are you going to do to fix it (realistically - not by being nice to them until they suddenly change from Machiavelli to Gandhi)?