See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On January 25th, 2009 at 11:46 am, chapoutier said:

   Nesting,

   That comment was directed more at Limbaugh and the guests he was talking to, not necessarily you.

   Assuming you feel McCain is conservative, Chapoutier.

   I am pretty sure I would lose any small amount of credibility I have managed to eke out here if I were to say yes.

2. #102
   On January 25th, 2009 at 11:47 am, NestingHawk said:

   How do state-wide gun laws and taxes do in NYC versus upstate support? That’s a sincere question for anyone who knows.

3. #103
   On January 25th, 2009 at 11:52 am, NestingHawk said:

   On January 25th, 2009 at 11:46 am, chapoutier said:
   Nesting,

   That comment was directed more at Limbaugh and the guests he was talking to, not necessarily you.

   Assuming you feel McCain is conservative, Chapoutier.

   I am pretty sure I would lose any small amount of credibility I have managed to eke out here if I were to say yes.

   Thanks, Chapoutier, for both the comment and the laugh. I understand your concern, but I find you highly credible either way.

4. #104
   On January 25th, 2009 at 11:58 am, chapoutier said:

   How do state-wide gun laws and taxes do in NYC versus upstate support?

   NYC has their own separate gun laws, though I am unsure of their status since Heller. I am not aware of any attempt specifically rooted in upstate interests to change this, beyond the usual suits from national groups like the NRA.

   You have no problem finding a gun upstate. I have never purchased one myself, so others would have to speak to any regulatory difficulties.

   Tax rates for the state are on the higher side overall, but NYC imposes its own income and corporate tax on top (which is another reason it is a fallacy that all the upstate money ends up in the city), which are both very steep. But the NYS legislature, as far as I know has not messed with these, nor tried to.

5. #105
   On January 25th, 2009 at 12:06 pm, Laree said:

   http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/01/sunday-morning-civic-lesson-americanism.html

6. #106
   On January 25th, 2009 at 12:12 pm, NestingHawk said:

   On January 25th, 2009 at 11:25 am, chapoutier said:

   these urban populations do outweigh the rest of the populace in state and national elections.

   Of course they do. There are more people there. What do you propose to do about that in a way that does not violate the Constitution?

   I know this wasn’t directed to me, but I have a suggestion anyway. More restraint on the part of non-local governments. If it’s not necessary to make a law one locality wants for itself across the whole state, don’t do it. Let the locality or localities that want it make that law for themselves.

   Same with federal and state governments. If it’s not necessary to make a law consistent across the whole country, don’t. Let the states that want it make it themselves.

7. #107
   On January 25th, 2009 at 12:30 pm, backwoods conservative said:

   On January 25th, 2009 at 12:12 pm, NestingHawk said:

   I know this wasn’t directed to me, but I have a suggestion anyway. More restraint on the part of non-local governments. If it’s not necessary to make a law one locality wants for itself across the whole state, don’t do it. Let the locality or localities that want it make that law for themselves.

   Same with federal and state governments. If it’s not necessary to make a law consistent across the whole country, don’t. Let the states that want it make it themselves.

   Have you been listening to Fred?

8. #108
   On January 25th, 2009 at 1:11 pm, Stillwaiting said:

   This guy should be kicked off the team, but he won’t be. Assault on the basketball court is okay. I’m surprised the ref called a foul.

   http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Please-note-that-Chase-Budinger-s-face-is-not-a-?urn=ncaab,136602

9. #109
   On January 25th, 2009 at 1:15 pm, Stillwaiting said:

   SIGN OF THE TIMES

   My wife just found a coupon for a home paternity kit!!! I had no idea such a thing existed. The ad with the coupon shows a father with his young son. Since both are smiling, I guess the test came back with a positive match.

   I didn’t realize the guests on Maury actually represented mainstream America. God help us!

10. #110
    On January 25th, 2009 at 1:47 pm, corona said:

    So, in case any one still doubts that socialism is coming … check out this graphic from a supposedly “conservative” newspaper.

11. #111
    On January 25th, 2009 at 4:32 pm, NestingHawk said:

    Thank you for your perspective on my question, Chapoutier. When I have more time on my hands than I do at present maybe I should do some research for myself, to get more details and such. (Which places voted which way for the state-wide tax rates, which specific gun laws are state-wide and which places supported them, etc.) Admittedly, I’ve never lived in NY, but VA may have some similar issues.

    Actually, Backwoods Conservative, I hadn’t seen that video. It was interesting, though-I knew I liked that guy.

12. #112
    On January 26th, 2009 at 12:12 am, Kevin K. said:

    corona said: (#111)

    So, in case any one still doubts that socialism is coming … check out this graphic from a supposedly “conservative” newspaper.

    It looks to me to come from the Washington Post–(the text said “Post”, and the style looks to be that of the WP)–not a conservative paper, just big. (If it is the Washington Post, its nickname during the Cold War was the “Washington Pravda” because of its politics.)

13. #113
    On January 26th, 2009 at 12:35 am, Kevin K. said:

    chapoutier said (#97):

    I also don’t have a clue about how anyone could look at that map linked to and state “this country is conservative” unless they think we vote by acre.

    I like that idea. Do you think we can get it to happen? Please?

    The fact of the matter is that for a number of reasons, rural representation in bodies politic are most often OVERREPRESENTED looking at it from a one man one vote basis.

    I don’t know about in the states, but in the federal government it was because as written the Constitution created a nation of states, and the representation in the senate was to increase the influence of small, less populated states against the big, well populated states that would have more influence in the House of Representatives. But that’s probably what you were referring to.

    (As an aside, I’ve been wondering if E.E. Schattschneider’s book was worth finding and reading. I was supposed to read it in college, but lost it before I could. Since you wrote a thesis on it, I guess you endorse his analysis. I’ll find the book.)

14. #114
    On January 26th, 2009 at 12:43 am, Kevin K. said:

    NestingHawk said: (#111)

    … which specific gun laws are state-wide and which places supported them, etc.) …

    Sorry for trimming your comment so much, but this is all I wanted to address.

    With gun laws, state-wide laws are usually more sensible as it minimizes confusion when going from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Virginia once had local laws (grandfathered from when the General Assembly took over the gun laws). However, it was found to present problems, including unequal burdens upon law-abiding citizens buying guns, so local control has been pretty much ended as a practical matter. Some things are still by county or city (hunting restrictions and concealed carry permit issuance, for example), but the main laws are pretty consistent state-wide.

    With state-wide laws, citizens know that if it’s legal where they live, it should be legal where they’re visiting or working.

15. #115
    On January 26th, 2009 at 7:47 am, Socky said:

    Having Blown Up the Mortgage Industry, the Diversity Police Take Aim at Charities.

16. #116
    On January 26th, 2009 at 11:25 am, DBNinKY said:

    Of course they do. There are more people there. What do you propose to do about that in a way that does not violate the Constitution?

    Easy: “spread the [revenues] wealth” by giving us simple country folk, a.k.a., the earners, our fair share of the state’s spending pie!

    It’s the whole “unfair taxation…” thing; just because urbanites out number us rural folk, doesn’t mean they should get more of the tax dollars we all generate. In fact, because urban areas attract more diverse businesses, they should require less in state revenues.

    And as the urban populations control and direct all facets of most state houses – from taxes to allocations – they should feel magnanimous enough to give back to the rural areas a little more of what they take from them, by providing EQUAL spending on roads, education, and municipal services.

    “…taxed so heavily in KY.”

    My point is, the taxing of rural areas to give added support to the supposedly high income-generating urban ones is not unique to NY, KY, or any other state, and is often done at the expense of ignoring the needs and/or to the detriment of rural citizens.

    The revenue driver in NY is NYC and its suburbs.

    That’s my example point with KY: eastern KY generates a large amount of tax money for the state, like NYC & its ‘burbs, but receives little of this money back in terms of state funding, services and infrastructure. And because we are under-represented in the state House, there’s nothing we can do about it.