Red State Moral Values

Todd Kuzma said:

Oops! Maybe they are more concerned about OTHER people behaving in a
"moral" manner than themselves.

<http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/10177925.htm>

Todd Kuzma

Seek therapy for your Post Election Stress Trauma. PEST.

Really, therapy would help. Get over it, Bush won. Denial isn't just a river....

"Todd Kuzma" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Oops! Maybe they are more concerned about OTHER people behaving in a
"moral" manner than themselves.

<http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/10177925.htm>

Todd Kuzma

once again, theonion.com isn't too far off base:

"The alliance between the tiny fraction at the top of the pyramid and the
teeming masses of mouth-breathers at its enormous base has never been
stronger," a triumphant Bush said. "We have an understanding, them and us.
They help us stay rich, and in return, we help them stay poor. See? No
matter what naysayers may think, the system works."
Added Bush: "God bless America's backwards hicks, lunchpail-toting
blockheads, doddering elderly, and bumpity-car-driving Spanish-speakers."

In article <[email hidden]>,

Weisse Luft said:

Todd Kuzma said:

Oops! Maybe they are more concerned about OTHER people behaving in a
"moral" manner than themselves.

<http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/10177925.htm>

Todd Kuzma

Seek therapy for your Post Election Stress Trauma. PEST.

Really, therapy would help. Get over it, Bush won. Denial isn't just a
river....

Go tell the guys still arguing about Swift boats. Kerry's gone, and
they still can't stop bashing him. Im just gently pointing out that
some people are retarded.

Todd Kuzma

Weisse Luft said:

Todd Kuzma said:

Oops! Maybe they are more concerned about OTHER people behaving in a
"moral" manner than themselves.

<http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/10177925.htm>

Todd Kuzma

Seek therapy for your Post Election Stress Trauma. PEST.

Really, therapy would help. Get over it, Bush won. Denial isn't just a
river....

Denial is working class people voting Republican.

--
Tom Sherman

Hattori Hanzo said:

"Todd Kuzma" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Oops! Maybe they are more concerned about OTHER people behaving in a
"moral" manner than themselves.

<http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/10177925.htm>

Todd Kuzma

once again, theonion.com isn't too far off base:

"The alliance between the tiny fraction at the top of the pyramid and the
teeming masses of mouth-breathers at its enormous base has never been
stronger," a triumphant Bush said. "We have an understanding, them and us.
They help us stay rich, and in return, we help them stay poor. See? No
matter what naysayers may think, the system works."
Added Bush: "God bless America's backwards hicks, lunchpail-toting
blockheads, doddering elderly, and bumpity-car-driving Spanish-speakers."

Don't tell me we have another poster who thinks that theonion.com is a
news source? One per century is more than we'd normally expect...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Tom Sherman said:

Weisse Luft said:

Todd Kuzma said:

Oops! Maybe they are more concerned about OTHER people behaving in
a "moral" manner than themselves.

<http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/10177925.htm>

Todd Kuzma

Seek therapy for your Post Election Stress Trauma. PEST. Really,
therapy would help. Get over it, Bush won. Denial isn't just a
river....

Denial is working class people voting Republican.

In other words, anyone outside of the 19% of Americans who think they
are in the top 1% of income. :-)

Could you guys please discuss this somewhere else?

Matt O.

Todd Kuzma said:

Oops! Maybe they are more concerned about OTHER people behaving in a
"moral" manner than themselves.

<http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/10177925.htm>

Todd Kuzma

Todd:

I gotta give you an award for having huevos to post such a slanted issue
while you are trying to sell stuff to *all* of us.

It really makes no difference, the election is over. We have to live with
what we've got. If you have a partisan view of all this, why don't you take
it where it might do some good. Become active in a political party whose
views you support. Right now, you're pissing off 51% of your potential
customers. Who knows, I could be one of them.

http://lonestartimes.com/index.php?id=0,488,0,0,1,0
Red and Blue in Charity Too
David_Benzion
News reports today are filled with results from the latest "Generosity Index", an annual survey created by the Catalogue of Philanthropy that measures what people in a particular state give to charity in relation to what they have to give.

The index is created by averaging the adjusted income of a state's residents and comparing that to the value of itemized charitable donations reported on their tax returns for the latest year available (in this case, 2002).

Looking at the full results, I think I noticed a pattern-- see if you can pick up on it (I'll give you little hints in parenthesis):

The "Most Charitable" States:

1. Mississippi (Bush +20)
2. Arkansas (Bush +9)
3. Oklahoma (Bush +32)
4. Louisiana (Bush +15)

The "Least Charitable" States:

47. New Jersey (Kerry +7)
48. Rhode Island (Kerry +21)
49. Massachusetts (Kerry +25)
50. New Hampshire (Kerry +1)

My circumstances today don't permit a deeper analysis, but to the naked eye the pattern seems to hold throughout much of the remaining index-- states that went for Bush are more likely to be near the top of the charitable list, while those that went for Kerry more likely to be near the bottom.

I guess this is that whole "values" thing people are talking about, huh?

Mark Hickey said:

Don't tell me we have another poster who thinks that theonion.com is a
news source? One per century is more than we'd normally expect...

That's a joke, Mark, a joke.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Enron's slogan: Respect, Communication, Integrity, and
_`\(,_ | Excellence.
(_)/ (_) |

Quoted message said:

From: Weisse Luft

Quoted message said:

My circumstances today don't permit a deeper analysis, but to the naked
eye the pattern seems to hold throughout much of the remaining index--
states that went for Bush are more likely to be near the top of the
charitable list, while those that went for Kerry more likely to be near
the bottom.

Of folks who reported "charity" on Federal documents in order to get that
amount deducted from their taxes-- so others can pay.

"Kerry had some stingy, self-serving voters, but not as many as Bush"

Fits. <g> --TP

David L. Johnson said:

Mark Hickey said:

Don't tell me we have another poster who thinks that theonion.com is a
news source? One per century is more than we'd normally expect...

That's a joke, Mark, a joke.

I know that, and you know that - I'm just not sure the OP knows that
(my point exactly).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Weisse Luft <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

http://lonestartimes.com/index.php?id=0,488,0,0,1,0
Red and Blue in Charity Too
David_Benzion
News reports today are filled with results from the latest "Generosity
Index", an annual survey created by the Catalogue of Philanthropy that
measures what people in a particular state give to charity in relation
to what they have to give.

The index is created by averaging the adjusted income of a state's
residents and comparing that to the value of itemized charitable
donations reported on their tax returns for the latest year available
(in this case, 2002).

Looking at the full results, I think I noticed a pattern-- see if you
can pick up on it (I'll give you little hints in parenthesis):

The "Most Charitable" States:

1. Mississippi (Bush +20)
2. Arkansas (Bush +9)
3. Oklahoma (Bush +32)
4. Louisiana (Bush +15)

The "Least Charitable" States:

47. New Jersey (Kerry +7)
48. Rhode Island (Kerry +21)
49. Massachusetts (Kerry +25)
50. New Hampshire (Kerry +1)

My circumstances today don't permit a deeper analysis, but to the naked
eye the pattern seems to hold throughout much of the remaining index--
states that went for Bush are more likely to be near the top of the
charitable list, while those that went for Kerry more likely to be near
the bottom.

I guess this is that whole "values" thing people are talking about,
huh?

Is it only me, but I'm bored with this stuff. Perhaps it was
permissible in the run-up to the election, but now it's over I have to
live with the outcome and I'd rather get back to discussing bicycle
matters. (Is that a political statement? I hope not.)

Best wishes,
Nigel Grinter
Spokesperson
Well-Spoken Wheels Inc.
www.wellspokenwheels.com

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:34:07 GMT, Todd Kuzma <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Oops! Maybe they are more concerned about OTHER people behaving in a
"moral" manner than themselves.

<http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/10177925.htm>

Todd Kuzma

Anyone else remember when Todd, proprietor of Tullio's Big Dog
Cyclery, used to actually post cycling related articles?

jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

Nigel Grinter said:

Is it only me, but I'm bored with this stuff. Perhaps it was
permissible in the run-up to the election, but now it's over I have to
live with the outcome and I'd rather get back to discussing bicycle
matters. (Is that a political statement? I hope not.)

Best wishes,
Nigel Grinter
Spokesperson
Well-Spoken Wheels Inc.
www.wellspokenwheels.com

Just shoot the messenger...please place your blame on the original thread starter. That would be todd.

The political message is clear. Gore lost get over it. Then Kerry lost again. Get some help.

John Everett said:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:34:07 GMT, Todd Kuzma <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Oops! Maybe they are more concerned about OTHER people behaving in a
"moral" manner than themselves.

<http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/10177925.htm>

Todd Kuzma

Anyone else remember when Todd, proprietor of Tullio's Big Dog
Cyclery, used to actually post cycling related articles?

I still do from time to time. Take a look at the list of
names on the political threads. There are a lot of them,
not just me.

I think that civil political discourse is very important
(not that all political discourse is civil). This is a
fairly good place for it since anyone who doesn't want to
participate doesn't have to. If you aren't interested in
political discussions on the newsgroup, then don't click on
those subjects. I personally don't care for the helmet
threads, but if others want to argue about that, it's fine
with me.

A lot of people like to hang out at our shop. We are
friends, but we don't all agree on everything. Often, we
discuss politics and even, sometimes, religion! We do it in
a friendly way, but we don't impose our conversation on
others who are not interested. In a newsgroup, it's fairly
easy to do this since the subject header will identify the
discussion. We're just friends hanging out shooting the
bull and talking politics.

Todd Kuzma

Todd Kuzma said:

John Everett said:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:34:07 GMT, Todd Kuzma <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Oops! Maybe they are more concerned about OTHER people behaving in
a "moral" manner than themselves.

<http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/10177925.htm>

Todd Kuzma

Anyone else remember when Todd, proprietor of Tullio's Big Dog
Cyclery, used to actually post cycling related articles?

I still do from time to time. Take a look at the list of
names on the political threads. There are a lot of them,
not just me.

I think that civil political discourse is very important
(not that all political discourse is civil). This is a
fairly good place for it since anyone who doesn't want to
participate doesn't have to. If you aren't interested in
political discussions on the newsgroup, then don't click on
those subjects. I personally don't care for the helmet
threads, but if others want to argue about that, it's fine
with me.

A lot of people like to hang out at our shop. We are
friends, but we don't all agree on everything. Often, we
discuss politics and even, sometimes, religion! We do it in
a friendly way, but we don't impose our conversation on
others who are not interested. In a newsgroup, it's fairly
easy to do this since the subject header will identify the
discussion. We're just friends hanging out shooting the
bull and talking politics.

Todd Kuzma

Todd:

I agree with you completely about the need for civil discourse and ability
to agree to disgree. I often learn more that way than through 'organized'
teaching. However, IMO, your posts smack of the *horrible and devisive*
campaigning that was going on from both sides prior to the election.

Dave Thompson said:

I agree with you completely about the need for civil
discourse and ability to agree to disgree. I often learn
more that way than through 'organized' teaching. However,
IMO, your posts smack of the *horrible and devisive*
campaigning that was going on from both sides prior to
the election.

OK, maybe my comment about the moral values of Red Staters
was a bit over the top. However, it seems that all I've
heard over the past two weeks is that liberals don't
understand how important "moral values" were in the election.

I think for the most part, I've avoided name-calling and
other partisan BS. I'm no fan of John Kerry, and based on
his behavior since the election, I don't feel that he
deserves to be President. Both parties, in my view, need to
be doing a much better job.

My post about violation of international law was not
partisan nor was it meant to be divisive. As world leaders,
we try to uphold a certain standard of behavior, and when we
fail to do so, we should correct it. Just as the abuses
that occurred at Abu Ghraib were wrong and needed to be
corrected so must this.

What is wrong, I think, is someone taking offense when
somebody points out how we might making a mistake. Go ahead
and disagree whether it is a mistake or not, but the
discussion itself is vitally important. In this particular
case, if we ARE violating international law, we shouldn't
ignore it and villify anyone who mentions it. We should
discuss it rationally. That is what keeps the country
strong. Mindless support of the government does nothing to
promote democracy or freedom.

Todd Kuzma

Todd Kuzma said:

Dave Thompson said:

I agree with you completely about the need for civil
discourse and ability to agree to disgree. I often learn
more that way than through 'organized' teaching. However,
IMO, your posts smack of the *horrible and devisive*
campaigning that was going on from both sides prior to
the election.

OK, maybe my comment about the moral values of Red Staters
was a bit over the top. However, it seems that all I've
heard over the past two weeks is that liberals don't
understand how important "moral values" were in the election.

I think for the most part, I've avoided name-calling and
other partisan BS. I'm no fan of John Kerry, and based on
his behavior since the election, I don't feel that he
deserves to be President. Both parties, in my view, need to
be doing a much better job.

My post about violation of international law was not
partisan nor was it meant to be divisive. As world leaders,
we try to uphold a certain standard of behavior, and when we
fail to do so, we should correct it. Just as the abuses
that occurred at Abu Ghraib were wrong and needed to be
corrected so must this.

What is wrong, I think, is someone taking offense when
somebody points out how we might making a mistake. Go ahead
and disagree whether it is a mistake or not, but the
discussion itself is vitally important. In this particular
case, if we ARE violating international law, we shouldn't
ignore it and villify anyone who mentions it. We should
discuss it rationally. That is what keeps the country
strong. Mindless support of the government does nothing to
promote democracy or freedom.

Todd Kuzma

Todd: Let me say this to put things in perspective and give you an idea
where my head might be. My son is a Marine, awfuly damn close to Falluja and
likely will be sent to Ramadi or Mosul soon. Until _we_ have walked the
proverbial mile in their shoes, this discussion has little merit.