"Turn up the heat" vs. "I don't want to pit blue America against Red America"

Where do you stand?

Turn it up.

Then rip of the limbs of some and use them to beat the rest like a rented mule

:thumbsup:

because they simply don't value enough of the things that we do. Compromising or capitulating isn't acceptable.

/spelling

Those few in DC with all the power. They're the ones who concoct issues to pit us against each other.

what they have to offer.

The mass exodus is out of the North and California to the South and mid-West. It's a tax thing.

Not pitting the people against each other isn't the same thing as turning the heat against the Republicans and corrupt cronies in DC, which is Obama's plan.

:spank:

kids without health care and child care. He doesn't want to cave anymore either, which is why he specifically said we need to stop the triangulating and stand up for what we believe in. Not allowing ourselves to get pitted against each other means we can finally turn our attention to the top 1% and get some fundamental fairness back into our government.

what "turn up the heat" means? Wouldn't voting for the war in Iraq be an example of turning up the heat. For some reason I am suspicious of this phrase.

Crimes against Humanity. That is turning up the heat.

lose!

:bounce:

and lose anyway!

:bounce:

Serious. We both know you do stuff like follow me into another thread to tell me to come back to some other one, etcetera. What does that ever get you? Some emotional satisfaction? That's the least effective way of getting what you want. The Iraq War was widely supported by people for their emotional satisfaction; did that work?

So you annoy conservatives, and they use their annoyance to embolden themselves. What then? They plan to get us to annoy them. After the 2004 election, they tried to emphasize that "values voters" were the biggest bloc (22%) despite the fact that that bloc was shrinking (40% in 1996, 35% in 2000). If you took Iraq and national security together, that would have actually been the biggest bloc in 2004. So why did they push these "values voters" into the spotlight? They knew it would get certain of us to throw a royal fit and alienate more of the evangelicals in our base, and motivate more of the Republicans to think they are threatened in order to solidify their support.

You have to think more than one move ahead in this game. The most predictable thing for us to do is get mad and start flailing. They depend on us to do that, have already picked what they are going to use to upset us, and have already thought of how to harness it.

by someone who recently admitted to intentionally irritating people with his threads. :D

What does that ever get you?

Certainly not what I'm after, which is answers to direct questions. :shrug:

Not only did I explain that in the replies, but the fact that I pointed out that you shouldn't take my word for it implied that other people were doing it.

a lot of qualifiers concerning your posts.

she wants to be President for all America that includes the red states too. The democrats did not start this red state blue state. Just the way folks have been voting, but Bill turned it upsdie down in 92 when he won all the states along the Miss. river and several other red states. This time I see HRC running the river and that my friends therein lies the presidency......

Ben David

They were ready to try us all for treason before Bush's facade crumbled!

:evilgrin:

I'll take someone who has the passion, determination, and ability to shake things up in a big way, to move this nation forward...together.

People here constantly assume the entire South is red and the entire North is blue and so on. That's bullshit.

RURAL areas are mostly red and URBAN areas are mostly blue. There just happens to be more rural in the South and mid-West, thus cancelling out most of the blue urban votes.

If you turn it up, please, figure out what the fuck you're talking about first.... Mmmm-Kay?

sorry, we just can't.