« Many California Teachers Get $100,000.00 Per Year Retirement - Good Deal! | Main | Its Mencken Time »

Surprise! Democrats Now Picking On The Farmers and "Fly Over Country"

Democrat Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsak-ofcrap has let everyone know just who won the last election in typical liberal elite fashion – a veiled threat.


He contends that rural communities are becoming less relevant – as opposed to 59 wards in Philadelphia? I think that is what he is getting at.

But after every liberal elite political win there is always a bit of closet-coming-out-of for the tax and spend crowd. They feel the need to crow. It is the emotional side of liberals that show they “care” about power.

Vilsak-ofcrap will probably retract the stupid, divisive, bully tone next week, but his point was made – we have the 47% on our side and you better get used to it.

Reader Comments (41)

Every time you pick on the "47 Percent" you're picking on men and women who fought hard for freedom in this country, might be carrying the wounds of war, and deserve whatever benefits they receive; you're picking on senior citizens who are receiving the Medicare and Social Security they paid for throughout their lives.

You're picking on the families that need help for the care of their kids, who will grow up to become the backbone and vision of our nation as they take on unknown international challenges in decades to come. And you pick on our physically and mentally challenged, who without our collective -- i.e. government -- help would not have lives as productive and full as they may be. And all the many who are in nursing homes, needing health care otherwise not available if we didn't band together in good conscience and help them.

And you never known when YOU may be among that 47 Percent, at a time in your life when you can't care for yourself. We're all in this together, and by being cheerleaders for one another rather than bashers, we're fulfilling the expectations of the Bible in which many of us believe.

I think Jesus respected all the many human beings of his time who would have qualified for being among the 47 Percent. At this time of year, that's something to ponder.
December 10, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
So Jim:

Why would the Democrats pick on people Stacie Marie Laughton in NH as well as the "irrelevant" rural population through Vilsak-of crap?

It doesn't make sense - but then enither does Liberal math.

Libs always get smug after they win an election.

I remember this was the case in NH when the libs had the House, Senate, EC and the Gov. Look how that turned out.

And what do you know about Jesus to keep bringing him up? Is that some personal shot at me or a weak defense of your tax and spending?

What would Jesus do with Detroit Jim? Expaline that liberal utopia in Biblical terms for me..
December 10, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
Ed -- Democrats are not picking on Stacie. We've cheerlead for her, and for our brothers and sisters who are transgender. Do you? Her decision not to serve in office had nothing to do with that.

The last time the Democrats were in the majority -- in 2006 - 2010 -- we did great things to help our poor and needy, and to work for equality. When Republicans were the majority in the House and Senate the past two years, they cut education, gutted UNH, attacked working women and men and their right to negotiate and organize, tried to remove equality for our gay and lesbian citizens, and brought a tone of hate to the Legislature.

And my references to Jesus are not about you -- only the real smug or self-centered would think so. They're about the many Tea Partiers and other right-wingers nationwide who are more about themselves than about each other. It's not about being "liberal," or "conservative." It's about caring and being cheerleaders for the success of one another, not just the wealthy and Corporate America.

But those who get their primary information from Faux News can't understand that, can they?

And yes, I still like you. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.
December 10, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
"Cheerlead her out of office" is more like it is more like it. The Democrat Cheerleadership didn't even wait for an AG opinion before they put the squeeze on her.

So sad.

And you forgot te mention that Republicans tried to "Gut Social Security, slash education spending, reverse abortions that already happened, stop Medicare and Medicaid, hate Hispanics, and take away non-resident voting rights - weren't they the rest of the Democrat campaign slogans.

And the "republicans are racists" articles by your pal Moe Baxley, someone sent me one from Keene. Remember, I am a registered Democrat.

Whatever debating coach told you to end each article with "What would Jesus do," gave you bad advice. Here is why:

What would Jesus do about California's trillion dollar debt if he couldn't print money?
What would Jesus do about partial birth abortion?
What would Jesus do about DC public education?

See, it makes progressive utopia look a tad silly.
December 10, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
Jim bringing up Jesus... there's my laugh for the week.

I seem to recall reading a couple bible passages were Jesus equated tax collectors to the worst of all sinners.

In fact Matthew was a tax collector that Jesus had convinced to give up his evil ways and become a follower.

There are also many passages encouraging self reliance and that people should learn skills instead of taking handouts.

And for that matter there is the parable which Jesus gives about the vineyard in which the owner hires each employee individually and it can show that Jesus was against collective bargaining.
December 10, 2012 | Registered CommenterRick Barnes

Never underestimate the desire of progressives to use talking points.

Saul Alinsky is at the heart of everything they do to persuade once reasonable people to vote for them. In this case, set a standard their opponet can not meet.
December 10, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
Rick -- yours is an intelligent reply, though I suggest it's misdirected. Your interpretation and emphasis on "tax collectors" misses Jesus' teachings. He -- and the original and REAL Boston Tea Party -- taught us we should oppose tax collection that goes not to us but to others. But we ALL benefit from the taxes -- income, property, gas, sales (i.e. Room & Meals in N.H.), and the dozens of other taxes and fees we collectively pay HERE.

Who builds the roads, bridges, and rail lines and airports? Who provides for our common defense? Who provides education for our youth, assistance for those who cannot help themselves who otherwise would be on the streets? Who? US.

As a society, we've banded together to help one another. How to do it fairly and equally is always open to debate, but it is the "WE" of society that helps us all at one time or another.

Jesus, whom I know as you do -- from his teachings -- helped the poor and needy. That he wouldn't want the top 2 percent -- the very wealthy -- of society to share that burden is a mis-read of his teachings.

I have a book to suggest to you for the next three weeks. "A Christmas Carol." It talks about this, in more modern terms. It's been made into many movies, and you can find the book or movies at your local stores, or the Internet. If you want to borrow the book, the public library -- paid for by you and I -- has it.

Not a bad lesson for all of us to be reminded of at all times.
December 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
Jimbo –
With you repeatedly bringing up Jesus – and I'm sure being a big fan of science and facts and stuff – might you point to a passage or two that underscores where your Jesus advocates for guys in shiny boots (with camo upgrade) and pointy gun to go collect all that "charity" of which you claim for the only son?
– C. dog waiting with baited breath
December 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog

Jim, a left wing progresive and whorhiper of all things government, thinks anyone who opposses government control of our lives is a religious nut.

So he attempts to appeal to "us' in a lower level of conciousness - as fitting for the class society he wants to build from the natural surplus a successful Constitutional Republic.

It is the progressive theory of: "From the ash heap of failed government, to the pinacle of citizen government and freedom, back to the ash heap of failed government."

That simple.
December 11, 2012 | Registered CommenterEd Naile
"He -- and the original and REAL Boston Tea Party -- taught us we should oppose tax collection that goes not to us but to others."

So how is the money given to states that mismanage their funds any different today? When CA over spends so badly they need the federal government to take the money from the rest of us how is that different then England taking money from the colonies for the mainland?

"Who provides education for our youth"

Who also forces money out of my pocket for a one size fits all school that may not meet the needs of every child and prevents parents from using their own money on the school they feel would best fit their own children's needs?

"As a society, we've banded together to help one another. How to do it fairly and equally is always open to debate, but it is the "WE" of society that helps us all at one time or another."

How is it helping when I have to find a way to come up with $6,000 to fix a leaking roof on my house but because I'm "rich" I have government put a gun to my head forcing money out of my wallet. Last year on top of all the money already taken from my weekly pay check I had to come up with an additional $3,000 at the same time my wife was out of work and I was trying to figure out how to pay for heating oil.
How exactly did forcing all that money out of my picket help me?

"Jesus, whom I know as you do -- from his teachings -- helped the poor and needy. That he wouldn't want the top 2 percent -- the very wealthy -- of society to share that burden is a mis-read of his teachings."

Jesus preached charity, forced giving is not charity. It makes those forced to contribute to the things they arbor resentful of being forced to do so and those who receive begin to feel entitled rather then thankful.

And Jim, what about the passages where Jesus preached against the lazy and slothful?

"I have a book to suggest to you for the next three weeks. "A Christmas Carol." It talks about this, in more modern terms. It's been made into many movies, and you can find the book or movies at your local stores, or the Internet. If you want to borrow the book, the public library -- paid for by you and I -- has it."

I actually own the book and I don't think you understand the moral of it. If it were about forced giving the Scrooge never would have been put in a position where he had the opportunity to change at the end. I'd suggest you go back and read the part after the ghost of Christmas future visits him.
December 11, 2012 | Registered CommenterRick Barnes
Well Rick, I could engage in a back-and-forth with you on our government for a long time, but that we have taxes that share our responsibilities instead of letting the rich and corporations just use their wealth for their own good has been decided a long, long time ago. The Oil Barons of the 1800s tried to keep all their dough for themselves, but then ran into the rest of us.

Those who are rich often made their wealth by figuring out how to get others to buy their product or service -- and by paying short dollars to others to make their product or service. Some are exceptions -- they might have inherited their wealth, or really earned it through sweat and hard work.

But you don't easily become a millionaire by digging ditches or waiting on tables, not that those jobs are any less worthwhile than being a CEO or corporate stockholder.

Of course, that's not inherently bad, since it is the nature of capitalism, a concept which has made our economy vibrant and our nation strong.

But paying fair wage and being responsible neighbors -- in other words, sharing their good fortune and wealth -- is important too. That's why the battle about sharing our responsibilities through taxes and fees is long-settled.

And that's why the decision to have public education -- and to have everyone participate in sharing the costs, whether or not they have children -- was decided long before you and I hit the pavement.

Fortunately there are more who believe with President Barack Obama and Governor-Elect Maggie Hassan than with the Mitt Romneys and Ovide Lamontagnes of the world.

And while the pendulum of politics tells me that there will be other years and other elections in our future when the side of greed and "me only" wins temporarily over "for the good of all" and "us and we," I think the American values of cheerleading for each other instead of the self will usually win out.
December 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
"And while the pendulum of politics tells me that there will be other years and other elections in our future when the side of greed and "me only" wins temporarily over "for the good of all" and "us and we," I think the American values of cheerleading for each other instead of the self will usually win out."

Jim, those who demand more and more of other people's money are the side of greed, not the side that believe in individual responsibility.

How is giving someone free handouts and Obamaphone's good for all of us?

How is forcing someone of a religious background to pay for things they morally object to good for all of us?

How is forcing American tax payers to put up more of their money for birth control pills for women who can't keep their legs shut and most likely end up costing us even more by spreading VD which we are then also forced to put up more money to cover, good for all of us?

How is having the money follow educators instead of the children we claim to want to educate good for all of them? Or forcing families to either move or be forced to keep their children in failing schools that may not meet their needs good for all of them?

This collective mentality has failed in every single society it has ever been tried.
December 11, 2012 | Registered CommenterRick Barnes
Well, Rick -- the election's over, and the good side won. The American values of wanting to help our kids succeed in an unknown tomorrow by having a system of public schools available to everyone (which has worked for 200 + years and made our nation the greatest in the world), and having a network of help for our needy, our seniors, and our children, won out over those who wanted to make the wealthy even more in control of our nation.

Obamacare (that's a good word) IS the law of the nation. Religious freedom is guaranteed in our country, but that means ALL religions, even those who don't believe, and they can't discriminate outside of their religion, nor in the benefits they contract with (insurance) for their employees -- nor should they be able to. They can't violate child protection laws, nor OSHA regulations in their workplaces, nor other employee-protection laws. Do you advocate that they should be able to?

And "individual responsibility" remains strong, though there's also corporate responsibility in the mix too, and those who are wealthy have to share in the expense of having a nation that has helped make them rich -- because they didn't do it all on their own.

I have some links on the Internet you can go to review the results of the November 6th Election Night if you'd like. It was a wonderful moment in American history.
December 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine

The "good" caring side won in Democrat Detroit a long time ago.

Only 7% of the elementary school kids are proficient in reading. Boy do progressives care about education. And the quality of the 7% - HARVARD material I assume.

So as you spin the time worn Dem (socialists) good - Repub. (evil) evil, and march towards Detroit solutions for creating a new socialist man in NH, forgive us fools who want something different becasue we actually CARE about education.

Democrat/socialist failures, what would Jesus do?

And as we all knew would happen, Obama's business guru, Immelt, is touting communist economies.

So not cool.
December 11, 2012 | Registered CommenterEd Naile
Jim, Ed already beat me to part of the punch.

Out of the 34 top countries in the world the US is rating 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. At this rate we'll be lucky to be the "greatest nation" for more then 1 or 2 more generations.

I had an interesting conversation a few years ago with one of my son's teachers. She argued that we'd be better off with private schools pointing out that children fall into one of 7 different styles of learning. She said as much as we'd like to try there is no way a single school can meet all 7 styles and teach to them successfully.
Forcing one school solution and taking away parental choice hurts, not helps students. So if you were honest about wanting the best for kids you'd look at the country with the number 1 school system (Finland) and see why they are currently beating the pants off us. I've already done it myself and it's school choice. Parents there can pick which school they want their kids to attend and the schools are forced to compete and produce better results to win over the parents since the money follows the kids and not the system as it does here.
December 12, 2012 | Registered CommenterRick Barnes
And while we're on the topic of the "good side", is it good that after Jeep attempted to lay off line workers who were getting drunk on the job that the Unions sued and won forcing the company to give these employees their jobs back?

That certainly doesn't make me want to rush out and buy a car made in their factory.

As others like myself stop buying Jeeps because of stories like this and the company ends up needing another bail out or worse if the company goes belly up, how is this a win for the "good side"?

When people are killed in defective Jeeps because the people assembling them were drunk on the job, how is that a win for the "good side"?

Clearly you and I have a far different idea of what is considered "good".
December 12, 2012 | Registered CommenterRick Barnes

I have spent some time in Belgium with friends who have kids. I even walked one to her school in the morning and got a look at their system first hand.

Yasmine went to the closes school her mother thought was best for her - and had a say in which teachers she wanted. They also are more involved then the average American parent - except home-schoolers.

The first thing you notice is that somehow they seem to think education is NOT a new $40 million dollar school building, just because tax-and-spenders have the votes for a bond.

Once when the wife and I were picked up a a train station by a mother of three little boys, all under 8, I said, "Out ladies" to them when we got to our destination and were all climbing out of the van.
They let me know, IN ENGLISH, that they were not ladies.

When you walk around Brussles after dark you can see students in groups still taking classes for exams.

Unions have destroyed our public schools as well as disinterested parents and it will collapse on its own soon enough.
December 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
Ohhhh My Ed and Rick -- so you want to destroy public schools to give money to private schools? Schools that teach and indoctrinate our kids to support conservative causes? Who want to bring up the next generation of Faux News zealots? Who want to teach the Flat Earth philosophy of many of those who became former N.H. House members two weeks ago? And more anti-union believers?

Fortunately, there will always be more people on the side I am -- who believe in the American value of a public school system that doesn't turn its back on students who need education, but don't have the benefits of wealthy parents who can afford to send them to private schools, which are selective in the students they take, and then to Ivy League colleges, which are even more selective in their admissions.

Because, Ed and Rick, this is America. And despite what you may say about our country -- which yes, can improve in many respects and President Barack Obama and Democrats are working to make those changes. We still eventually in the end come down on the side of equality and freedom to vote, to learn, and to have equality under our laws. More are working on my side on those issues than yours.

It's interesting to see that Faux News is on an anti-union bent during the past few months, seeing that as a way to increase their viewership among the know-littles. They created the non-existent "War on Christmas," so they needed another "war" to keep their chatter box going. Their anti-public education mantra is also well-known, and worn. But you should be more creative in what you repeat from them. Their propaganda is old hat in this day of the Internet.
December 13, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
Jimbo once again advocating for the choice and diversity of one skool, except for Teddy's kids, and Obama's, and Magpie's, and, and ... Hmm, I guess limo Libs really are able to speak to the nuances out the other side of their mouth. By the way, Jimbo, how you doing with your homework assignment finding a passage where Jesus advocated for confiscating the peep's property to build your sandcastles?
– C. dog still waiting for Jimbo to jump for Jesus!
December 13, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog
Jim, as I stated you should look at other countries. Finland is kicking our butts in education because they allow choice. Competition makes markets BETTER, not worse.

And as for people agreeing, polls time and time again show the majority DO support school choice

Forcing kids to continue to go to schools that don't cater to their learning styles and continue to fail them is not helping anyone.

And C. Dog, brilliant point... Jim perhaps you can answer this, if public schools are the best choice over private and they work so well why then does every wealthy liberal send their kids off to private schools over public?
December 13, 2012 | Registered CommenterRick Barnes

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.