It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Libs getting out after Bush wins 2nd Term

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
They represent among the highest incomes, educations and contributions. The lost taxes alone would render most red states immediately bankrupt ...


So Rant ... you are saying that Democrats pay more taxes and have
higher income and education then Republicans???
Yeah ...
okay ....
Only one question ... are you going to share some of
what you are smoking with the rest of us??

I'd LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE to see some REAL stats on which
demographic pays more in taxes and which demographics are
sucking up tax money and have their votes bought through give
away programs that the wealthy and middle class end up paying
for.

If people want to leave this country ... GO! Leave your citizenship
papers at the border. Go! Be 'Free' in socialist Canada or where ever.
I couldn't care less. Buh-Bye now!


[edit on 2/7/2005 by FlyersFan]




posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
Why would you keep a dress with semen on it
unless you was going to use it for something.

True. I'm sure she had something planned. BUT ...
If Clinton hadn't have lied under oath and if he hadn't
committed unrepentant adultry, she wouldn't have
had the dress with his semen on it to begin with and
none of this would have come out in public. All he had
to do was keep his pants zipped and to tell the truth
while under oath. But he didn't. Monica may have
had motives, but folks can't shift the blame for Clinton's
impeachment upon Monica. It's all his fault. His alone.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
well it can be argued that nancy reagan was much more pro-active in the presidency than hillary ever was, the chinese embassy was done by the US air force if i'm not mistaken as was attacks on british troops by US aircraft in Gulf Wars I and II and I think afghanistan, i thought clinton launched cruise missile attacks against OBL's bases in afghanistan and OBL was just missed, the ATF and the FBI I believe murdered children at waco in that awful massacre not the president of the united states, no government has the right to seperate a child from his father and family for political and socio-economic differences and wasn't it UNPROFOR who went into Bosnia in 1992 and was a coalition of many nations ?

in regards to waco i dont think a president tells what the law enforcement agencies to do in regards to operations I think they just do it. I don't think clinton said 'lets go attack waco' and ordered the agencies there. It's not like war where the blame can be layed on the president because he is the commander in chief and takes a nation to war and convince congress for war against the target at hand.

thanks,
drfunk

[edit on 7-2-2005 by drfunk]


More revisionist history............oh never mind, its a waste of fingertips. But, that "child"...most of his family died trying to get him to freedom......for that alone Clinton should have been removed and jailed..........

Billary were micromanagers. Don't think they didn't make the "choice" to kill those kids in Waco.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by RANT
They represent among the highest incomes, educations and contributions. The lost taxes alone would render most red states immediately bankrupt ...


So Rant ... you are saying that Democrats pay more taxes and have
higher income and education then Republicans???
Yeah ...
okay ....
Only one question ... are you going to share some of
what you are smoking with the rest of us??

I'd LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE to see some REAL stats on which
demographic pays more in taxes and which demographics are
sucking up tax money and have their votes bought through give
away programs that the wealthy and middle class end up paying
for.


If you noticed I was careful to use the same geographical relation argument Bush supporters do when they prance about with maps of red versus blue, not Democrat versus Republican. Though it obviously holds that those in the highest income, highest tax paying areas (which happen to be blue) do trend Democrat and the "feeders" in red areas trend Republican.

As for the data on the discrepancies between red and blue inhabitants, I've posted quite a bit previously and am seraching now to edit in for your benefit should you still doubt urban centers are more likely to produce college grads or higher incomes than farm land.


It's really fasciniating on even more than the economic or education level though. By a straight red versus blue per capita analysis, red is more likely to get divorced too (multiple times), not just be on welfare.


What I'd LOOOOOOOVE to know is abortion rates by red and blue. If what I've discovered so far about who really practices family values in America holds, I'd expect the highest per capita abortions to come from red staters too.

It's been shown previously abortions went down under Clinton, while up under Bush...(most likely due to what happens when you pass out condoms versus pay religious groups to teach abstinence), so the body of evidence approaches the overwhelming that conservatives are not only quite quite hypocritical in theory (on economics), but ineffective in practice as well (on social issues).

I'll get you all the data you can stand and more my friend.


[edit on 7-2-2005 by RANT]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
Why would you keep a dress with semen on it
unless you was going to use it for something.

True. I'm sure she had something planned. BUT ...
If Clinton hadn't have lied under oath and if he hadn't
committed unrepentant adultry, she wouldn't have
had the dress with his semen on it to begin with and
none of this would have come out in public. All he had
to do was keep his pants zipped and to tell the truth
while under oath. But he didn't. Monica may have
had motives, but folks can't shift the blame for Clinton's
impeachment upon Monica. It's all his fault. His alone.


You are right, all he had to do was tell the truth.

If he believed that BJ's wasnt sex then he wasnt telling a lie.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Though it obviously holds that those in the highest income, highest tax paying areas (which happen to be blue) do trend Democrat and the "feeders" in red areas trend Republican.

I'll get you all the data you can stand and more my friend.



Sure ... more data ... more data ... post it all.

Show me (and everyone here) that those who vote democrat
pay more in taxes. Sorry, but outside of Hollyweird, I don't buy
it.

80 something percent of black America voted for Kerry. Show
me that those 80 something percent of black Americans pay more
in taxes than white and black republicans in the same state.

That sounds a bit racist, but it's not. I have seen the massive poor
black neighborhoods of Baltimore, DC, NYC .... all of which vote
primarily democrat. There is no way that they pay more in taxes
than their republican neighbors. It's not possible. I have seen the
poor white parts of Alabama and Georgia. I don't know what they
tend to vote, but there is no way that they pay more in taxes then
their middle class republican counterparts in the same state.

The North East has the best schools in the country but even though
they have the best schools, where do the graduates come from and
where do they go? I don't think Yale in CT has just people from CT
going there. NYC has Columbia ... but those graduating from Columbia
come from all over the country, and they leave and go all over the
country not staying in NYC. AND considering the population of NYC,
and that it usually votes blue, how many actually go to college and
how many don't (and how many drop out of high school).

Sorry Rant, but you are going to have to come up with some very
serious figures ..... SERIOUS FIGURES ... for me to be able to believe
that those who vote dem pay more in taxes and are better educated
than republicans. I'm not saying republicans are better educated ...
but I am very sure that democrats are not. (don't make me post
the 'educated' Churchill comments .... :lol



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I'd LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE to see some REAL stats on which
demographic pays more in taxes and which demographics are
sucking up tax money and have their votes bought through give
away programs that the wealthy and middle class end up paying
for.


Start here FlyersFan. Man, it's getting hard to find your own posts these days.


I actually appreciate the opportunity to discuss the statistics since every time I put forth the effort I barely rate a nibble from the board's conservatives. Seems they prefer theory to facts.

We can do this here in so far as it relates, or on that thread. Either way.

Even a cursory analysis of that limited data should result in the same reasonable conclusions I've postulated. It's the efficiencies of the few urban centers (overwhelmingly Democratic) in blue states that fund the entire UNION, not just the red states...though statistically the red staters do benefit the most and contribute the least (even per capita).

I mean think about it from the most obvious perspective. Who pays to build the roads and schools in the middle of nowhere? The scant inhabitants thereof, of Democrats in New York City? It's rather obvious who's paying for suburban Wal-Mart employee's food stamps. And it's not the other Wal-mart employees.

But the social issues alone are one of my favorite implications. Not only does that favorite target of conservative ridicule, Massachusetts, boast among the highest per capita income, education and public works offerings (like excellent schools), but...


The state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation is Massachusetts. At latest count it had a divorce rate of 2.4 per 1,000 population, while the rate for Texas was 4.1.

But don't take the US government's word for it. Take a look at the findings from the George Barna Research Group. George Barna, a born-again Christian whose company is in Ventura, Calif., found that Massachusetts does indeed have the lowest divorce rate among all 50 states. More disturbing was the finding that born-again Christians have among the highest divorce rates.

The Associated Press, using data supplied by the US Census Bureau, found that the highest divorce rates are to be found in the Bible Belt. The AP report stated that "the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people." The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.


I mean it's laughable really. Divorced evangelicals sucking at the government teet the most think they pay for "lazy democrats" to sit around in their skyscrapers thinking of new ways to destroy the American family. :shk:

Just some food for thought.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Just some food for thought.

Not as good tasting as chocolate ... but I'll dive in
and look around. I'll get back to you on this.

Honestly ... I don't buy that dems pay more in
taxes. Education?? Could be, but looking at
Churchill and his comments, I'm not impressed
with the state of education in America.
(that's why we home school - gov't schools
are so dumbed down)

Divorce rates? FUNNY side note!


I'll take a look around at the figures and see
what else I can find and I'll be back ....



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Sorry Rant, but you are going to have to come up with some very
serious figures ..... SERIOUS FIGURES ... for me to be able to believe
that those who vote dem pay more in taxes and are better educated
than republicans. I'm not saying republicans are better educated ...
but I am very sure that democrats are not. (don't make me post
the 'educated' Churchill comments .... :lol


Listen, it's a relational argument based on geography, not Republican versus Democrat data (does that even exist?). But given we live in a representative Republic, it may be said to hold to party based on those geographic voting blocks.

The taxes aspect is documented in the thread link provided which backtracks to a variety of sources.

The education aspect should be obvious, but isn't at all crucial to what I'm saying. As neither is the black versus white thing you've put forward.

Look, people don't tend to graduate from college then move to the middle of nowhere. They go to cities...even the "little ones" that always go blue in the middle of big red states. I could find you data on education by urban verus rural populations (blue versus red) but do you really need to see it?

Get back to me on the "SERIOUS FIGURES"
of per capita taxation versus benefit and let me know how that's not supportive of what I'm saying?

Blue supports Red. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it does. Probably always will.

(edited to match more with simultaneous posting)

[edit on 7-2-2005 by RANT]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Look, people don't tend to graduate from college then move to the middle of nowhere. They go to cities. I could find you data on education by urban verus rural populations (blue versus red) but do you really need to see it?


Um ... you do know that there are more cities in America than just
NYC, Chicago, and LA? There are other cities, in the RED states.
AND ... when well educated people start working in cities many do
like we have done ... work in Philly but live in a smaller town outside
the city so that we have better schools, more room to live, safer,
etc.

I'm still reading your link. It kicked me off, so I'll try to go back
and re-read again.

Anyways ... I'm still looking around. This will take a while because
we have to go over to the YMCA (Emily has swim team today), but
for a start -

www.american-partisan.com...
(old) excerpt

Krugman Sees Red
by W. James Antle III
June 10, 2002

Without citation, he rattles off some statistics comparing the red states and the blue states that seem to show more crime, divorce, illegitimacy and government dependency in the former than the latter. He triumphantly asserts that the blue states subsidize the red states "to the tune of $90 billion or so each year," implying that hypocritical Republicans are really living off the toil of Democrats.

some interesting murder stats ... then ....

As far as the Gore voters paying the bills while Bush voters collect, support for the GOP ticket was inversely proportional to income based on six income brackets ranging from incomes under $15,000 to incomes over $100,000. Gore won 57 percent of the votes of those earning less than $15,000 while Bush carried 54 percent of voters earning more than $100,000. Although many of the beneficiaries of corporate welfare, farm subsidies and non-means-tested entitlements are far from poor, it is also true that the highest income earners supply the most income tax revenue. In 1999 alone, the top 1 percent of income earners paid 33 percent of the personal income taxes collected. Ostrowski theorizes, "If red states are subsidized by blue states, the only rational explanation is that red persons in blues states are subsidizing blue persons in red states."

There is probably something to this. Consider that Bush carried every Southern state, including Gore's Tennessee and Bill Clinton's Arkansas. These states nevertheless have very large black populations that vote heavily Democratic. These are Democratic voters living in states that went Republican in the presidential election who have higher rates of poverty and out-of-wedlock births.

One aspect of the blue/red state divide that Krugman curiously does not expound upon is that by voting for politicians who will expand the redistributive powers of the federal government, many blue state voters are actually voting against their economic self-interest... No matter how many federal projects Ted Kennedy brings home, Massachusetts's voters are still net taxpayers to the federal government.
********************************************************

BTW - this is an excellent topic to discuss.


[edit on 2/7/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Lets see, Billary bombed an asprin factory, a chinese embasy, started a war in bosnia without the UN or the EU crowd. He passed on getting OBL how many times? Sold secrets to China, Murdered children at waco, sent a small child back to a murdering dictator, oh yes, Clinton was so innocent!



If this is true, why no charges for this? Just charged with a lie about BJ's?


"Why no charges? Probably the same reason John Kerry hasn't paid back the American taxpayer $90,932.68 for 146 days of senate votes he didn't show up for. You can add John Edwards to that list to the tune of $63,543.16. You can add Dick Gephardt's $81,362.83 to that list. 2 U.S. Code 39 requires the secretary of the Senate and the chief administrative officer of the House of Representatives to deduct congressional salary for days of unexcused absences. Here's the link I quoted from. It's a good read.

www.cnsnews.com...\Politics\archive\200501\POL20050127c.html

The senate and congress has many "shady" characters within it's ranks. Some violate laws that you and I would be in jail for but they take care of their own. Here's some old links but things probably hadn't changed all that much.

www.renaissancemag.com...

www.wwco.com...

www.capitolhillblue.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Anyways ... I'm still looking around. This will take a while because
we have to go over to the YMCA (Emily has swim team today), but
for a start -

www.american-partisan.com...


Glad you found that. I see some eggheads already did the work for us from the last election.


From that I take this as the prevailing example of counter-argument:


Ostrowski theorizes, "If red states are subsidized by blue states, the only rational explanation is that red persons in blues states are subsidizing blue persons in red states."


Along with similar counterexamples of debunking the greater statistics of red versus blue sins and virtues based on sub-analyses.

Obviously I totally concede in that regard a NYC annual earner of $1 million that happens to vote Republican is worth 4 of his Democratic counterparts earning $250,000 (for example) in the greater scheme of things, though not the electoral vote.


So it's kind of wash from the argument of secondary qualities (taxes, divorce, murder, etc.) in so far as the article you found adequately muddies the prevalent data, though I'd stop far short of saying it counters it.

Meaning, though one could find reason to suspect the red versus blue implications favoring Democrats (in my example), does not necessarily mean the opposite is true...which happens to be the prevailing themes of modern punditry. That being, red state Republicans supposedly support the planet.


I actually think in the thread I linked I eventually went into further detail debunking the whole of red versus blueisms (a few posts in).

But whenever I hear this who needs liberals anyway? stuff (as this thread began) I'll be happy to bring out the data counterintutive to the predominant conservative dialogue.

Follow me? You bring out your "bunk" I'll bring out mine.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
You bring out your "bunk" I'll bring out mine.

While I was having my lunch (an apple, grapes and some
water) I was thinking that this could be impossible to
prove either way. From my experience of living for
8 years in Alabama, and from growing up and living
in Connecticut for the first 20 years of my life -

Money and it's worth are different in different parts of
the country. 10$ in Alabama goes a heck of a lot further
than 10$ in NYC. A 'middle class' person in Mississippi would
be considered poor in S. California. There is so much change from
state to state on who is middle class/upper class ....

Those that are considered by NY and CA to be 'poor' in the
deep south are really middle class in that area. (we'd fit in
that group ... middle class except in the Blue states where
I don't know if we'd make it to middle class)

My experience here in Delaware - North Wilmington voted
mostly republican and it's mostly middle class (for here).
The city of Wilmington voted heavy democrat and it's mostly
lower middle class and poor (and minority). North Wilmington
(republican) support the people (dems) in the city of
Wilmington through paying more taxes than the city folks do
AND of course through charities and church things ...



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
So it's kind of wash from the argument of secondary qualities (taxes, divorce, murder, etc.) in so far as the article you found adequately muddies the prevalent data, though I'd stop far short of saying it counters it.

My thought - (totally off the original topic) - you showed the
stats for Evangelicals and divorce. Perhaps they have a higher
divorce rate because the actually get married. In other statistical
groups many people don't bother getting married for many years,
if at all. They live together and when they break up, it isn't a
'divorce' because there was no marriage.
Could be.

BACK ON TOPIC - can we agree that if anyone wants to leave this
country, for what ever reason, they should just go and be happy
elsewhere? Republican or Democrat or Independent or whatever.
If they are so miserble that they want to leave and don't want to
stay to try to fix things ... then they should just go. Can we agree
on that?

[edit on 2/7/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Rant I agree that most urban centers have a higher average income and formal education however your assumption that those in the city centers who vote democratic are the same ones with the highest income and education is IMHO incorrect.
I believe the true implication of this information is that the vast majority of urban resdents are democrats. As the vast majority of urban resdents are poor, especially among those who live within the city limits, I would accept this data as evidence that the cities are predominatly Democratic because cities have the highest concentration of poor residents.
Those with the highest incomes and educatons tend not to live within the city limits, rather they work within the city limits and live outside of the city.Therefore it stands to reason that the city itslef would be strongly democratic while the suburban centers outside the city would be strongly republican.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Those with the highest incomes and educatons tend not to live within the city limits, rather they work within the city limits and live outside of the city.

That's what we do. My husband has two masters degrees and is
going for his doctorate. I studied Psychology, but right now I'm a
stay at home mom. My husband works in Philly, but we live outside
the city.

Colleges and Universities may be in cities, but that doesn't mean that
the people they service live in those cities. People from all over the
country go to those colleges and then they go elsewhere to work.
Like my husband went to college in a city and he now works a totally
different city (in a state that goes both red and blue) and lives in
a suburb not only outside the city, but in an entirely different state.
Just because two of the three colleges he went to were in blue states,
doesn't mean that those blue states are smarter ... it was just a
processing center. My husband took the education he received there
and moved away, taking the 'smarts' with him.

My college was in a red state and now I live in a blue state. Is the
red state smarter because I received the education there, or is the
blue state smarter because I now live there and brought the education
with me???? Dunno???
(my guess ... where the education goes
is where the 'smarts' goes).

Red supports blue ... blue supports red ...?? Here are some non-tax
stats on which states support through private means ... RED is on
top supporting the BLUE on the bottom.


www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org...



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Higher education effects voting -
(newer stats !!)

www.lsureveille.com...

Excerpt -

Higher education levels affect voters' independence
College scene may sway early choice
By Alexandria Burris, Staff Writer
February 05, 2004

A New York Times columnist recently told a crowd at Dartmouth College that people with college degrees vote less independently.

David Brooks, aforementioned columnist, said rising education levels have helped shape modern politics and voting in the United States.

"The effect of this increasing education level for voters should be to make voters independent minded, open to argument, rational and sophisticated," Brooks said. " It's just the opposite."

According to an October 2003 poll conducted by the Harvard Institute of Politics, 39 percent of undergraduate students said they would vote for President George W. Bush in the 2004 election.

Only 34 percent would vote for a Democratic candidate, while 27 percent said they were independent voters or they do not know who or which way they will vote.



[edit on 2/7/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I mean all the libs who would flee should flee and that would make us stronger. Anyone who would abandon their country just because their side didn't win in a democratic election is pretty useless anyway IMHO.


As RANT pointed out...the country would collapse if all the libs who would flee did flee. It is the reasons that people would be leaving...like...civil liberties being violated, lack of jobs with livable wages, lack of education, health insurance for poor, and other issues while tax money is being spent on a war for oil.

So much for the melting pot of America.

But...got some news here...most libs aren't going anywhere.

Dr. Horacid...it is OUR America, too! jeeesch....you have sole ownership cause bush appears to have won? that makes libs no longer americans?



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Look, people don't tend to graduate from college then move to the middle of nowhere. They go to cities...even the "little ones" that always go blue in the middle of big red states.


I think there are some very good colleges and universities in the
'Red Zone' and I do indeed think people move all over the country
working after receiving educations in different universities. I am
providing a map of the country, zone by zone, just to remind
readers which parts of the country went red and which went blue.
There are plenty of cities in the red AND even the cities that went
blue (like Philly) have huge amounts of educated people who work
in them, but who live in the red. (like us)



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Its a shame they are leaving. We need someone to save us from the worthless NEO conservatives who are traitors to their nation and people.

It is the conservatives who are ruining this country, with their insane spending, embracing of cooperate crime, and useless wars.

I am very ashamed of the liberals who are leaving, you should stay and fight. If you dont, youve betrayed the country as bad as those who currently run it.

If liberals leave we will be losing alot of educated, intelligent people, and stuck with a country of braindead beer drinking belching apes.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join