Texas Tea

[fuelair]

Is Cruz a Christian Zionist?

Naah, just a flaming rectum.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Now I'm really worried about Texas. I'm beginning to think that we could actually do worse than Rick Perry for governor. I'm not sure how, but recent trends seem to indicate a further descent into abject stupidity. How bad could it get? Well, Texas is one of the few states where Sarah Palin could easily get elected.

My coworker, who is a TEA partier and strong supporter of Ted Cruz, while delighted with the outcome of the runoff has expressed concers that Cruz and Texas TEA party groups have moved from just taxation and limited government into more social conservatism.

I just smiled and nodded.

 

[BenBurch]

From the ads I've been swamped with lately, I think he is a Washington trial lawyer who defends Chinese patent thieves.

But I heard this from a disreputable source, the Texas lieutenant governor.

Happy birthday!

China is our number one enemy on the whole planet right now, and anybody who will take a case like that (if true) is worse than disloyal.

 

[Travis]

All looking fine to me!

Moving right along here in Texas!

Apparently truly terrible and evil things look fine to you.

“With a strong, hard-working ally in Ted Cruz, we will work to pass a balanced budget amendment,

Because we don't like the idea of a government being able to bring an end to a recession or fight that occasional war.

remove the federal government’s boot off the neck of our small businesses,

Because Mike's Playground Toxic Waste Dumping Ground Inc creates jobs! Who cares about the kids it kills!

and repeal-and-replace ObamaCare,”

Because having people die because they can't afford treatment is the American way.

said Cornyn, R-Texas, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “I will do everything I can to help elect Ted Cruz in November and look forward to working with him next year.”

Because I have a hard on for Mad Max dystopian nightmares!

 

[mhaze]

Apparently truly terrible and evil things look fine to you.

​

Because we don't like the idea of a government being able to bring an end to a recession or fight that occasional war.

​

Because Mike's Playground Toxic Waste Dumping Ground Inc creates jobs! Who cares about the kids it kills!

​

Because having people die because they can't afford treatment is the American way.

​

Because I have a hard on for Mad Max dystopian nightmares!

Let me guess....that occurs in November 2012?

 

[elbe]

It means that people think Texas is a good place to live. Whether or not they like Texas politics, it's pretty clear that they don't share Tricky's perspective.

Not necessarily. For example, where you can get a job may not be somewhere you'd actually want to live if given the choice, and not everyone has much of a choice. While I have no issues with your U-Haul premise I find the conclusion you drew from it, that people are swarming to it because they agree with it's policies, questionable. You may not think that's the conclusion you claimed, but that's how it sounded.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not necessarily. For example, where you can get a job may not be somewhere you'd actually want to live if given the choice, and not everyone has much of a choice.

Why are you separating availability of jobs from preferences of where to live? Those aren't different issues. By your own admission, job availability is a major component of the desirability of a location. We should consider it as such.

While I have no issues with your U-Haul premise I find the conclusion you drew from it, that people are swarming to it because they agree with it's policies, questionable. You may not think that's the conclusion you claimed, but that's how it sounded.

If the people moving to Texas don't like its politics, they're doing so because they like something else about it better, such as job availability. Your own post seems to agree on that. Which means that they don't think the state is going to hell. That's my point. If they prioritize job availability, then the places that are going to hell are the places that are losing jobs, not Texas. You should also consider the possibility that these other factors like jobs are actually affected by politics, and that if something like jobs is doing well, maybe the politics aren't as dysfunctional as they might seem.

 

[elbe]

Why are you separating availability of jobs from preferences of where to live? Those aren't different issues. By your own admission, job availability is a major component of the desirability of a location. We should consider it as such.

Is your life that shallow? I'm sorry for you.

If the people moving to Texas don't like its politics, they're doing so because they like something else about it better, such as job availability. Your own post seems to agree on that. Which means that they don't think the state is going to hell. That's my point. If they prioritize job availability, then the places that are going to hell are the places that are losing jobs, not Texas. You should also consider the possibility that these other factors like jobs are actually affected by politics, and that if something like jobs is doing well, maybe the politics aren't as dysfunctional as they might seem.

People are moving there because companies like the politics (I'm generalizing of course, there are many people who quite like Texas). In some cases the owners of the companies don't even want to live in that state, but it's better for their corporate interests.

People have many desires in a place to live: schools, environment, climate, etc. Just that we don't always get the choices we want doesn't change that people can move places they don't actually want to live. I just don't like the idea of "voting with your feet", I think it's disingenuous and ignores the actual reasons people do what they do.

 

[Beerina]

Foolish people kick companies in the balls based on power-hungry politicians promising them an awesome afterlife -- before they die -- if'n they'd only authorize the politician to bash he businessman on the head.

Business flees elsewhere, people who want jobs follow, and wreck the business environment there, too. Repeat ad nauseum.


It's just a variation on Empire growth and collapse with the new core of empire forming on the outskirts of the old sclerotic, economically oppressive one.

Basically all of human history.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is your life that shallow? I'm sorry for you.

You think that viewing jobs as important is shallow?

I really don't get that perspective. Perhaps I'm just not deep enough.

People are moving there because companies like the politics (I'm generalizing of course, there are many people who quite like Texas). In some cases the owners of the companies don't even want to live in that state, but it's better for their corporate interests.

Those corporate interests evidently include hiring people. Is that somehow a bad thing?

People have many desires in a place to live: schools, environment, climate, etc. Just that we don't always get the choices we want doesn't change that people can move places they don't actually want to live.

Of course we don't always get what we want. But if you move somewhere, it's because you would prefer to live there than elsewhere. Otherwise, you wouldn't move. For some reason, you appear to want to consider everything but the availability of jobs. That perspective makes no sense, and you have said nothing which justifies it. And where people might like to live IF there was a job which doesn't exist is no different than any other counter-factual hypothetical, like where they would like to live if they could control the weather, or where they would like to live if mansions were free, or where they would like to live if politics were different than they are. But people decide based on what things are, not what they wish could be.

I just don't like the idea of "voting with your feet", I think it's disingenuous and ignores the actual reasons people do what they do.

I'm not the one trying to exclude motivations for why people move, you are. I'm including everything, you want to exclude jobs. The only basis I can see for your objection is that it produces results that you don't like.

 

[elbe]

You think that viewing jobs as important is shallow?

I really don't get that perspective. Perhaps I'm just not deep enough.

You worded it as the most important thing in a person's life. That's sad. It's important but it doesn't trump everything else for everyone, does it?

Those corporate interests evidently include hiring people. Is that somehow a bad thing?

Did I say it was? Somehow I don't think I did...

Of course we don't always get what we want. But if you move somewhere, it's because you would prefer to live there than elsewhere. Otherwise, you wouldn't move. For some reason, you appear to want to consider everything but the availability of jobs. That perspective makes no sense, and you have said nothing which justifies it. And where people might like to live IF there was a job which doesn't exist is no different than any other counter-factual hypothetical, like where they would like to live if they could control the weather, or where they would like to live if mansions were free, or where they would like to live if politics were different than they are. But people decide based on what things are, not what they wish could be.

I'm not the one trying to exclude motivations for why people move, you are. I'm including everything, you want to exclude jobs. The only basis I can see for your objection is that it produces results that you don't like.

I disagreed with the conclusion you drew that people automatically like the policies of places they want to move to, I don't really care about why people do whatever they want though. Some people like it, some don't. Assuming that they do, however, when we know that there exists a powerful demand for people to do things they don't necessarily want to (you know, work to live) is questionable.

You seem to be letting your bias intrude in you attitude about others again.

 

[Ziggurat]

You worded it as the most important thing in a person's life.

No I didn't. My point was that if people are moving because of a job, then obviously they think that it's more important than any reason they would have for not moving, or else they wouldn't move. That should be obvious. And it was you, not me, that made the point that these people were moving for jobs and not for other reasons, so it was you, not me, that made a claim about people considering jobs to be more important that other things.

And since you seem to have trouble figuring out the obvious, let me make this as explicit as I can: people are free to prioritize things on their own, and I'm not questioning their priorities. If they're moving for jobs, then that means they prioritize jobs above reasons to not move, but it does not mean that they prioritize jobs above everything. Nothing I said suggests otherwise. It's just that whatever those higher priorities are, they obviously aren't standing in the way of people moving, or (duh) they wouldn't move.

I disagreed with the conclusion you drew that people automatically like the policies of places they want to move to

But I never made that conclusion, just like I never concluded that jobs were more important than anything else. Those are entirely straw men of your own construction.

You seem to be letting your bias intrude in you attitude about others again.

I'm sure you missed the irony in this statement.

 

[Beerina]

Red herrings all.

Here's more like it. (registration free)

It's not against the Democrats per se, but rather it's a Republican insurgency against Bush and other Republicans becoming a little too like Democrats in spending and so on.

 

[AlBell]

You worded it as the most important thing in a person's life. That's sad. It's important but it doesn't trump everything else for everyone, does it?

...

Not everyone agrees that bashing Xianity, pro gay marriage, and free contraceptives for women are the only worthwhile values.

Many (well, not here) also do find jobs rather than govt handouts important.

 

[cwalner]

Many (well, not here) also do find jobs rather than govt handouts important.

I would think that most people here agree with that general statement. I certainly do.

I, however, also recognize that the government can have a positive role to play in creating those jobs, rather than waiting for some mythical Job Creator that seems to require tax cuts and deregulation as appeasement before He grants us His bounty of good fortune.

 

[Corsair 115]

Many (well, not here) also do find jobs rather than govt handouts important.

What do you call it when the government is providing the job? Like, say, all those employed by the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, or FBI?

 

[AlBell]

I would think that most people here agree with that general statement. I certainly do.

Glad to hear it.

I, however, also recognize that the government can have a positive role to play in creating those jobs,

Hogwash, at least for the current admin's policies.

rather than waiting for some mythical Job Creator that seems to require tax cuts and deregulation as appeasement before He grants us His bounty of good fortune.

Tax cuts? I think not; the only thing stupider than that would be tax increases.

Deregulation imo would often help.

ps to Tricky, sorry for the not-only-Texas derail.

 

[AlBell]

What do you call it when the government is providing the job? Like, say, all those employed by the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, or FBI?

Are they hiring?

Current estimates by tv talking heads are that 1/1/13 will begin reductions of 700,000 to 1,000,000 jobs. And of course all but the FBI are by constitutional mandate, so 'govt provides jobs' is a bit laughable.

I'm surprised you didn't mention cops, firepersons, teachers, DMV workers, social services staff, etc.

 

[Ohmer]

Define "bad"? I mean, aside from your personal tastes.

You see, the thing about Texas is, well, people vote with their feet, too. And how are they voting? Well, the price to rent a 10' U-haul from Boston to Houston is currently $1731. The price from Houston to Boston is $738. Why the price differential? Because of a demand differentia: more people want to move from Boston to Houston than from Houston to Bostonl. And it's not just Boston either. Try it with any major blue-state city. The differences vary, but every one I price comes out significantly more expensive to move to Houston than from Houston. Evidently, people don't share your opinion of Texas. And that includes people not currently living in Texas.

Plus, as already mentioned, Cynthia McKinney.

Houston re-elected an openly gay Democrat as Mayor in 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annise_Parker

It's complicated.

 

[AlBell]

Is there some reason you chose to evade the actual issue at hand, which is why U-Haul charges more, and chose, instead, to engage in a personal attack?

Please explain why you believe that's the 'actual issue at hand'. It isn't.