Archive

Bush Speechwriter David Frum says Republican Party has been hijacked

  • majorspark
    BCSbunk wrote: You are living in a fantasy land. The states lost their sovereignty in the civil war, game over.
    No doubt the state sovereignty suffered a huge blow as a consequence of the civil war. As for game over nothing is forever. As the federal government continues to destroy us all economically by amassing insurmountable debt you will begin to see states seek to protect their citizens own financial assets.
    BCSbunk wrote: I want what is fair and just and you dictating who can get an abortion or not is just plain tyranny. Mind your own business and your own household. Same with gays mind your own business and your own household etc.
    Should I mind my own business when I believe my neighbor is about to kill his child? Should I not intervene if I see my neighbor beating the hell out of his child? I guess laws against murder are tyranny.
    BCSbunk wrote: If you really want to know how I view politics I lean towards anarcho-syndicalism, but that is like you, in fantasy land. That is not reality and is not going to be in reality in our lifetimes..

    I do not want big government so please do not misunderstand my position. I do however want what is best for all people in a utilitarian sense. I think UHC is a fundementally good idea though the government is probably going to botch it moreso than we could do it.

    Since we have big and huge ass government anyways I would prefer what will help the most people. We all live in society together and should help. In my ideal world there is no "governor" to tell you how to run your life and in yours there is no federal government telling you how to run your life.
    Governments are instituted among men and derive their just power from the governed. The bigger and more centralized governments will by nature of their size force their will on a greater number of those who disagree. Federal Government power must be kept in check by having competitive balance with state and local governments.
    BCSbunk wrote: So I am for UHC in a philosophical moral sense that it is moral and the right thing to do, not necessarily that the government will do it the best way.

    It is however better than the option of allowing a corporation to show compassion because if all laws and regulations were dropped we all would be making as little as possible.
    If you allow individuals to define their own morality you would have chaos. One may not have a problem offing his wife so he can cash in on her life insurance. That is why we have elected government. Government sets the laws governing the individual based on the moral compass of those electing them to power. This is why the balance of government power is essential.

    When power is balanced it provides a release valve to those who feel the form of government they are living under is unjust. The union between the sovereign states allows any citizen of that union to freely move from one state to the other free of the need for a passport or any kind government interference, State or Federal. The union was meant to allow you the choice of 50 (today) state governments to live under.
  • Footwedge
    CenterBHSFan wrote: If Robert Byrd was only in the Klan for a year, starting in 1942, why then, was he writing to the Grand Wizard in 1947 stating that WV needed a rebirth of the Klan and every other state?

    Not buying it.
    Gibby is wrong....as I stated on the previous page, Byrd was a KKK member for about 8 years. But to his credit, he repeatedly and vigorously denounced his participation in those activities after he entered politics.
  • Footwedge
    BCSbunk wrote:
    Footwedge wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    HitsRus wrote: ^^^yeah yeah,,,divide and conquer...try to turn one elemnent againstthe other...we get the strategy. Sure there are fringe elements...just like radicals at PETA and Greenpeace who engage in unlawful destruction/vandalism. The fringe is going to go somewhere.
    YOUR problem is trying to keep the center in line....and they are not buying your attempt to link the tea party movement to the Klan
    Exactly. The Tea Party is now the fringe freaks like Greenpeace and PETA.

    The Klan mentality of hatred has infested it with stupidity.

    Ron Paul has libertarian ideals like amnesty for illegal immigrants. You see the Klan will tell you hell no to amnesty for illegal immigrants. Shame the Tea Party went the way of the Klan.

    I have little problems with Ron Paul and Libertarian ideals however the New Tea Party is nothing like the Libertarian ideals, which supports abortion and gay marriage and amnesty for illegal immigrants.

    I can take the smaller government in exchange for more liberty for Gays and Immigrants and womans choice.

    That is not what I am hearing from the New Tea party it sounds like a Klan meeting minus the robes.
    Spunk...the libertarians are pretty much divided on the pro life/abortion debate. They have a solid lean towards the government staying out regarding homosexuals. Are their racists with the Ron Paul group? I'm sure there were. But that issue was never discussed at the meetings I attended in 08.

    The fundamental beliefs that are unilateral amongst all libertarians....a balanced budget...a true free enterprise system, and an across the board stoppage of unneeded federal expenses. This encompasses all subsidies, safety net programs, and unnecessary miltary missions.
    The official Libertarian party stance on Abortion is pro-choice. Now personally I would say that people are split but the official party platform is pro-choice along with amnesty and by default gay marriage because that is a private concern rather than government concern.

    I have no problems with those. I do have problems with the new infliltration in the tea party that do not have even a clue of what the Libertarian party platform is.

    For those that do not believe that the LP is pro-choice
    http://www.lp.org/platform

    1.4 Abortion

    Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.


    I would welcome the Libertarian platform in its entirety but I am afraid that is not going to happen, too many in this country who want everything they do not like banned. Such as gay rights, abortion amnesty pulling our troops etc.
    As I stated above, the pro life/pro choice is about a 50-50 split for libertarians. It's one of the few political issues that the libertarians do not hold an across the board platform. But virtually all all libertarians are 100% against any governmental subsidy for aborting babies. For a better understanding on the issue, and the more in depth analysis of the libertarian conundrum on the issue, review this link.

    http://www.libertarianfaq.org/index.php?title=Are_libertarians_pro_choice_or_pro_life%3F
  • BCSbunk
    majorspark wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote: You are living in a fantasy land. The states lost their sovereignty in the civil war, game over.
    No doubt the state sovereignty suffered a huge blow as a consequence of the civil war. As for game over nothing is forever. As the federal government continues to destroy us all economically by amassing insurmountable debt you will begin to see states seek to protect their citizens own financial assets.
    BCSbunk wrote: I want what is fair and just and you dictating who can get an abortion or not is just plain tyranny. Mind your own business and your own household. Same with gays mind your own business and your own household etc.
    Should I mind my own business when I believe my neighbor is about to kill his child? Should I not intervene if I see my neighbor beating the hell out of his child? I guess laws against murder are tyranny.
    BCSbunk wrote: If you really want to know how I view politics I lean towards anarcho-syndicalism, but that is like you, in fantasy land. That is not reality and is not going to be in reality in our lifetimes..

    I do not want big government so please do not misunderstand my position. I do however want what is best for all people in a utilitarian sense. I think UHC is a fundementally good idea though the government is probably going to botch it moreso than we could do it.

    Since we have big and huge ass government anyways I would prefer what will help the most people. We all live in society together and should help. In my ideal world there is no "governor" to tell you how to run your life and in yours there is no federal government telling you how to run your life.
    Governments are instituted among men and derive their just power from the governed. The bigger and more centralized governments will by nature of their size force their will on a greater number of those who disagree. Federal Government power must be kept in check by having competitive balance with state and local governments.
    BCSbunk wrote: So I am for UHC in a philosophical moral sense that it is moral and the right thing to do, not necessarily that the government will do it the best way.

    It is however better than the option of allowing a corporation to show compassion because if all laws and regulations were dropped we all would be making as little as possible.
    If you allow individuals to define their own morality you would have chaos. One may not have a problem offing his wife so he can cash in on her life insurance. That is why we have elected government. Government sets the laws governing the individual based on the moral compass of those electing them to power. This is why the balance of government power is essential.

    When power is balanced it provides a release valve to those who feel the form of government they are living under is unjust. The union between the sovereign states allows any citizen of that union to freely move from one state to the other free of the need for a passport or any kind government interference, State or Federal. The union was meant to allow you the choice of 50 (today) state governments to live under.
    Should I mind my own business when I believe my neighbor is about to kill his child? Should I not intervene if I see my neighbor beating the hell out of his child? I guess laws against murder are tyranny.
    Abortion is not murder and the law books state that very clearly. So mind your own business when someone is not breaking the law.

    So lets see Abortion is legal. Beating the hell out of your chold Illegal murder illegal. Nope not even in the same ballpark. Stop trying to destroy freedom of a perfectly legal activity.
    If you allow individuals to define their own morality you would have chaos.
    Utter nonsense. We define our own morality all the time you do not need government to define morality. You sound like someone who needs moral welfare to exist in the world.

    Laws are not necessarily about morals but for making society a smoother functioning society.

    WTF is immoral about crossing a street at a non-desiginated place? It is neither moral nor immoral.


    And this is way off the subject but if you would like to have discussion of morals and ethics. I hold a position of non-cognitivism. Ethical sentences do not express propositions and thus cannot be true or false.

    I would be happy too.
  • HitsRus
    In reference to 'banning" things...there is considerable difference between banning trans fats and cigarette smoking, nanny state legislation, and things like abortion. There are significant numbers of people who believe abortion to be murder...surely government has a duty to ban that.
  • majorspark
    BCSbunk wrote: Abortion is not murder and the law books state that very clearly. So mind your own business when someone is not breaking the law.
    And law books in the vast majority of states and the federal government state very clearly that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. So mind your own business.
    BCSbunk wrote: So lets see Abortion is legal. Beating the hell out of your chold Illegal murder illegal. Nope not even in the same ballpark. Stop trying to destroy freedom of a perfectly legal activity.
    The real freedom being destroyed is the baby's freedom to live.

    Americans are evenly divided on abortion. Many have varying degrees as to how they would want it limited. Any way you slice it there are a significant number of Americans that believe it to be murder.
    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/01/abortion-poll-obama-mobilizes-the-opposition/

    38 states have fetal homicide laws. So in some cases it is murder. In most of those cases if anyone other than the mother kills the fetus it suddenly was a human life. If Roe v Wade is ever overturned and the power to decide these matters is returned to the states. I will not try to destroy your freedom to kill babies in the womb. Unless you live here in Ohio.
    http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/FetalHomicideLaws/tabid/14386/Default.aspx
    BCSbunk wrote: Utter nonsense. We define our own morality all the time you do not need government to define morality. You sound like someone who needs moral welfare to exist in the world.

    Laws are not necessarily about morals but for making society a smoother functioning society.

    WTF is immoral about crossing a street at a non-desiginated place? It is neither moral nor immoral.
    They are a mixture of both. If my sole motivation was a smoother functioning society I would get rid of all the infirm that placed a burden on society. Terminally ill with cancer, see ya, advanced heart disease, bah bye, no need for nursing homes, mental illness or retardation, no need for them. I could go on but you get the point.

    Of course these practices would be immoral to most people so collectively within the bounds of our government we agree to make these activities illegal. A recent example in history of people gaining governmental power and carrying out some pretty heinous legal activity, is that of NAZI party rule in Germany.
  • HitsRus
    Majorspark wrote>>>

    " I could go on but you get the point. "

    Odds are he doesn't.
  • believer
    Footwedge wrote:Gibby is wrong....as I stated on the previous page, Byrd was a KKK member for about 8 years. But to his credit, he repeatedly and vigorously denounced his participation in those activities after he entered politics.
    Yeah...for political expediency. If Byrd were a Republican his political career wouldn't have been quite so lengthy.

    Do I think Byrd changed his racist heart and mind?

    "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.” — Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944

    I doubt it.
  • CenterBHSFan
    The funny thing is, Byrd being in the Klan isn't even the biggest part of why I don't like him (and to be fair, Rockefeller either)
    They've been in office(s) so long, but yet I think WV is in the bottom 5 of the states ... STILL.

    What have they done besides be popular?

    Blech! Glad I don't live there.
  • believer
    CenterBHSFan wrote:What have they done besides be popular?
    Every bridge, highway, and post office in West By Gawd Virginia has Byrd's name on it.
  • Little Danny
    CenterBHSfan--- to be fair to Byrd and Rockefeller, not only have Democrats been in power for so long in West Virginia, they have also been in power in your neck of the woods as well. Dems own Ohio from Youngstown all they way down to Marietta and have done so for the last 50 years or more (in some cases more). I don't have to remind you that region is amongst the poorest and most economically depressed.
  • BCSbunk
    majorspark wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote: Abortion is not murder and the law books state that very clearly. So mind your own business when someone is not breaking the law.
    And law books in the vast majority of states and the federal government state very clearly that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. So mind your own business.
    BCSbunk wrote: So lets see Abortion is legal. Beating the hell out of your chold Illegal murder illegal. Nope not even in the same ballpark. Stop trying to destroy freedom of a perfectly legal activity.
    The real freedom being destroyed is the baby's freedom to live.

    Americans are evenly divided on abortion. Many have varying degrees as to how they would want it limited. Any way you slice it there are a significant number of Americans that believe it to be murder.
    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/01/abortion-poll-obama-mobilizes-the-opposition/

    38 states have fetal homicide laws. So in some cases it is murder. In most of those cases if anyone other than the mother kills the fetus it suddenly was a human life. If Roe v Wade is ever overturned and the power to decide these matters is returned to the states. I will not try to destroy your freedom to kill babies in the womb. Unless you live here in Ohio.
    http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/FetalHomicideLaws/tabid/14386/Default.aspx
    BCSbunk wrote: Utter nonsense. We define our own morality all the time you do not need government to define morality. You sound like someone who needs moral welfare to exist in the world.

    Laws are not necessarily about morals but for making society a smoother functioning society.

    WTF is immoral about crossing a street at a non-desiginated place? It is neither moral nor immoral.
    They are a mixture of both. If my sole motivation was a smoother functioning society I would get rid of all the infirm that placed a burden on society. Terminally ill with cancer, see ya, advanced heart disease, bah bye, no need for nursing homes, mental illness or retardation, no need for them. I could go on but you get the point.

    Of course these practices would be immoral to most people so collectively within the bounds of our government we agree to make these activities illegal. A recent example in history of people gaining governmental power and carrying out some pretty heinous legal activity, is that of NAZI party rule in Germany.
    And law books in the vast majority of states and the federal government state very clearly that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. So mind your own business.
    Touche' so we shall call it a civil union and not marriage, problem solved. Also they are not harming anyone as much as you would like to think they are.
    The real freedom being destroyed is the baby's freedom to live.
    Wrong the freedom being violated is the mothers who can speak and make a case for herself.
    Americans are evenly divided on abortion. Many have varying degrees as to how they would want it limited. Any way you slice it there are a significant number of Americans that believe it to be murder.
    Argument ad populum. even if 99% believed it is murder that does not make it so.
    38 states have fetal homicide laws. So in some cases it is murder. In most of those cases if anyone other than the mother kills the fetus it suddenly was a human life. If Roe v Wade is ever overturned and the power to decide these matters is returned to the states. I will not try to destroy your freedom to kill babies in the womb. Unless you live here in Ohio.
    And here is why we call it pro-choice, focus on choice here. The choice is the mothers not someone elses. You have no business knowing when a stranger is pregnant and your violating liberty in knowing so. If mother will suffer physical or mental harm she needs to be able to terminate the pregnancy.
    They are a mixture of both. If my sole motivation was a smoother functioning society I would get rid of all the infirm that placed a burden on society. Terminally ill with cancer, see ya, advanced heart disease, bah bye, no need for nursing homes, mental illness or retardation, no need for them. I could go on but you get the point.
    Please never speak of being moral again you are morally repugnant.

    Your position consists of internal contradictions. Abortion is wrong but killing the infirm that place a burden on society is morally correct. The poor and those on welfare have the most abortions will their children continue the tradition of welfare? Then they are burdens on society so you should be very happy about abortions lowering your tab to take care of more welfare recipients.

    Personhood should not go to those without conciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, and self awareness (fetus)

    Abortion in the first trimester does not violate personhood after the first trimester I can see a good argument.
  • Writerbuckeye
    Little Danny wrote: CenterBHSfan--- to be fair to Byrd and Rockefeller, not only have Democrats been in power for so long in West Virginia, they have also been in power in your neck of the woods as well. Dems own Ohio from Youngstown all they way down to Marietta and have done so for the last 50 years or more (in some cases more). I don't have to remind you that region is amongst the poorest and most economically depressed.
    Take a look at the cities and states where the Dems have had a stranglehold on power. They almost all have poor economics going for them, and little else.
  • gibby08
    Footwedge wrote:
    CenterBHSFan wrote: If Robert Byrd was only in the Klan for a year, starting in 1942, why then, was he writing to the Grand Wizard in 1947 stating that WV needed a rebirth of the Klan and every other state?

    Not buying it.
    Gibby is wrong....as I stated on the previous page, Byrd was a KKK member for about 8 years. But to his credit, he repeatedly and vigorously denounced his participation in those activities after he entered politics.
    Byrd has stated for 30 years he was in the Klan for ONE year,and leadership of the Klan from that time stated he was only a member for ONE year.
  • RedBlackAttack
    Writerbuckeye wrote:
    Little Danny wrote: CenterBHSfan--- to be fair to Byrd and Rockefeller, not only have Democrats been in power for so long in West Virginia, they have also been in power in your neck of the woods as well. Dems own Ohio from Youngstown all they way down to Marietta and have done so for the last 50 years or more (in some cases more). I don't have to remind you that region is amongst the poorest and most economically depressed.
    Take a look at the cities and states where the Dems have had a stranglehold on power. They almost all have poor economics going for them, and little else.
    lol

    Top 10 poorest states based on household income:
    1. Mississippi (poorest)
    2. West Virginia
    3. Arkansas
    4. Oklahoma
    5. Alabama
    6. Louisiana
    7. Kentucky
    8. Tennessee
    9. Montana
    10. New Mexico

    Top 10 richest states based on household income:
    1. Maryland (richest)
    2. New Jersey
    3. Connecticut
    4. Hawaii
    5. Massachusetts
    6. New Hampshire
    7. Alaska
    8. California
    9. Virginia
    10. Minnesota

    I know that when I think of Democratic strongholds, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Louisiana immediately come to mind.

    And then you have those Republican capitals in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.

    Good point!
  • ptown_trojans_1
    RedBlackAttack wrote: Top 10 poorest states based on household income:
    1. Mississippi (poorest)
    2. West Virginia
    3. Arkansas
    4. Oklahoma
    5. Alabama
    6. Louisiana
    7. Kentucky
    8. Tennessee
    9. Montana
    10. New Mexico

    Top 10 richest states based on household income:
    1. Maryland (richest)
    2. New Jersey
    3. Connecticut
    4. Hawaii
    5. Massachusetts
    6. New Hampshire
    7. Alaska
    8. California
    9. Virginia
    10. Minnesota

    I know that when I think of Democratic strongholds, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Louisiana immediately come to mind.

    And then you have those Republican capitals in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.

    Good point!
    Link?
  • Little Danny
    redblack

    all I know is there are more manufacturing and tech jobs available now in Alabama, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and TN than there are places like Y-town, Steubenville or Bellaire. There are numerous sources out there to verify these places are where the jobs are. Why do you think the jobs are there and not in Eastern Ohio?
  • RedBlackAttack
    ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
    RedBlackAttack wrote: Top 10 poorest states based on household income:
    1. Mississippi (poorest)
    2. West Virginia
    3. Arkansas
    4. Oklahoma
    5. Alabama
    6. Louisiana
    7. Kentucky
    8. Tennessee
    9. Montana
    10. New Mexico

    Top 10 richest states based on household income:
    1. Maryland (richest)
    2. New Jersey
    3. Connecticut
    4. Hawaii
    5. Massachusetts
    6. New Hampshire
    7. Alaska
    8. California
    9. Virginia
    10. Minnesota

    I know that when I think of Democratic strongholds, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Louisiana immediately come to mind.

    And then you have those Republican capitals in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.

    Good point!
    Link?
    http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/28/real_estate/wealthiest_states/
  • RedBlackAttack
    Little Danny wrote: redblack

    all I know is there are more manufacturing and tech jobs available now in Alabama, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and TN than there are places like Y-town, Steubenville or Bellaire. There are numerous sources out there to verify these places are where the jobs are. Why do you think the jobs are there and not in Eastern Ohio?
    The numbers don't lie, Little Danny. If there are more manufacturing and tech jobs in those southern states listed above, it isn't showing up in median household incomes.

    As for why jobs have disappeared from my hometown, I could get into that and it would make for an interesting discussion, but it wouldn't really address writer's statement, since Ohio isn't amongst the 10 poorest states in the country.
  • majorspark
    BCSbunk wrote: Touche' so we shall call it a civil union and not marriage, problem solved. Also they are not harming anyone as much as you would like to think they are.
    Maybe you are incapable of seeing the point I was making with my statement. It was meant to point out your contradiction concerning the issue of abortion being legal. You disagree with legal discrimination against same sex unions. I disagree with legal killing of babies in the womb.

    I agree call it a civil union and be done with it. I don't believe gay people harm anyone. I am just giving my philosophy of balanced government power.
    BCSbunk wrote: Wrong the freedom being violated is the mothers who can speak and make a case for herself.
    So freedoms are based on the ability to speak and make a case for yourself. Babies out of the womb also fall into this category.
    BCSbunk wrote: Argument ad populum. even if 99% believed it is murder that does not make it so.
    I agree that popular opinion does not define right and wrong. Then who defines what is murder? If the populous can't then what just moral authority exists to define it for us all? I know you don't believe in a just God and the Bible so who does that leave but man and government.

    My point was to say that there is strong disagreement on both sides. Unless we allow the balance of governmental authority on these types of issues we raise the potential for civil unrest.
    BCSbunk wrote: And here is why we call it pro-choice, focus on choice here. The choice is the mothers not someone elses. You have no business knowing when a stranger is pregnant and your violating liberty in knowing so. If mother will suffer physical or mental harm she needs to be able to terminate the pregnancy.
    I agree Roe v Wade allows mothers the sole choice to terminate their babies life provided it remains in the womb. But that don't make it right.
    BCSbunk wrote: Please never speak of being moral again you are morally repugnant.

    Your position consists of internal contradictions. Abortion is wrong but killing the infirm that place a burden on society is morally correct. The poor and those on welfare have the most abortions will their children continue the tradition of welfare? Then they are burdens on society so you should be very happy about abortions lowering your tab to take care of more welfare recipients.
    Wow hitsRus nailed it. You did not get the point. I'll help you out one last time. I was responding to this statement by you. Laws are not necessarily about morals but for making society a smoother functioning society. I made it bold in my response to you thinking you would get the point. Go back and try reading it again maybe you will catch the point that many of our laws are defined by moral judgment.

    I countered by listing a set of immoral laws that could take social burdens off of society to prove a point that morality is the driving factor in societal order. In no way was I advocating any of them. I take the sanctity of life very seriously. Only in very limited circumstances do I advocate the taking of a human life.

    BCSbunk wrote: Personhood should not go to those without conciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, and self awareness (fetus)

    Abortion in the first trimester does not violate personhood after the first trimester I can see a good argument.
    It looks like even you have second thoughts about taking a life inside the womb.
  • Writerbuckeye
    So because places that have higher costs of living (and thus higher wages) rank near the top of the list, that tells you those places are doing great economically?

    I don't think so.

    New Jersey (since it is ranked so high) is a fucking mess -- and it's been a Democratic lock for most of the last half century.

    Detroit has never seen a Republican anything (mayor or council) and it is the biggest shithole in creation these days.

    Youngstown can't find new jobs to save its collective ass, and it has never elected Republicans.

    Washington DC is a bigger mess than Detroit in many ways and it has never had Republican leadership.

    I'd argue that places with no competition between the parties (Democrat or Republican) are probably in worse shape than those areas where there are two healthy parties in play.

    I'm living in Columbus and have watched over the past 20 years as it has become one of those strongholds. If things continue, it won't be too much longer that good jobs (non government) will be deserting here as well. Doing stupid things like raising the income tax rate in the middle of a recession is more likely to drive business away than draw it in.

    There are tons more examples out there.

    Those cities with Democratic strongholds without competition tend to be labor driven (union) and are now suffering mightily because all the jobs are going elsewhere.

    When was the last time Dayton had Republican leadership in place? They're in the process of losing some pretty fine jobs last I heard.

    There are so many examples out there it isn't even funny.

    Those places on your list may have "wealth" in terms of higher everything (housing, wages, cost of living) but that sure has hell doesn't mean they are doing well economically.
  • I Wear Pants
    RedBlackAttack wrote:
    Writerbuckeye wrote:
    Little Danny wrote: CenterBHSfan--- to be fair to Byrd and Rockefeller, not only have Democrats been in power for so long in West Virginia, they have also been in power in your neck of the woods as well. Dems own Ohio from Youngstown all they way down to Marietta and have done so for the last 50 years or more (in some cases more). I don't have to remind you that region is amongst the poorest and most economically depressed.
    Take a look at the cities and states where the Dems have had a stranglehold on power. They almost all have poor economics going for them, and little else.
    lol

    Top 10 poorest states based on household income:
    1. Mississippi (poorest) Mccain
    2. West Virginia Mccain
    3. Arkansas Mccain
    4. Oklahoma Mccain
    5. Alabama Mccain
    6. Louisiana Mccain
    7. Kentucky Mccain
    8. Tennessee Mccain
    9. Montana Mccain
    10. New Mexico Obama

    Top 10 richest states based on household income:
    1. Maryland (richest) Obama
    2. New Jersey Obama
    3. Connecticut Obama
    4. Hawaii Obama
    5. Massachusetts Obama
    6. New Hampshire Obama
    7. Alaska Mccain
    8. California Obama
    9. Virginia Obama
    10. Minnesota Obama

    I know that when I think of Democratic strongholds, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Louisiana immediately come to mind.

    And then you have those Republican capitals in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.

    Good point!
    I bolded which states voted for whom. It appears that suggesting only poor people hoping for increased social programs are the only people that voted for Obama would be silly.

    Although Writer makes some decent points above me as well.
  • RedBlackAttack
    Writerbuckeye wrote: Those places on your list may have "wealth" in terms of higher everything (housing, wages, cost of living) but that sure has hell doesn't mean they are doing well economically.
    So, you think cherry picking a handful of cities in an area of the country that was largely dependent on the now dead steel industry is a better illustration of your point than looking at statistical data? I disagree.

    Need I point out that San Francisco holds one of the most flourishing economies in the world? How about Austin, TX, another of the most liberal places in the country? Chances are, for every example you give of a struggling economy that tends to vote Democratic, I could give you one that shows the opposite.

    ....better to look at the data.

    Have you ever driven through Alabama or Mississippi? There are vast areas in those states that make Youngstown and Steubenville look like Beverly Hills.
  • queencitybuckeye
    RedBlackAttack wrote:
    The numbers don't lie, Little Danny.
    They may not lie, but they certainly can distort. Equating wealth with income is highly misleading. For example, someone who makes the $56k cited in California is in a battle to keep a roof over his head in much of the state, while the $40k cited in large parts of Tennessee can be a relatively comfortable life.
  • CenterBHSFan
    Little Danny,

    How well I know. I've always been a democrat enthusiast, up until the last 10-15 years or so. Now I'm just a democrat out of habit (I think). Trust me, Charlie Wilson will NOT see a vote out of me or most of my family ever again!
    .......................................................

    RBA,

    I think you missed the crucial words of Writer. He clearly stated "cities and states". Not just states.
    Also, Danny made a very true statement concerning the Ohio (river) Valley, one that cannot be ignored. Our industries are almost extinct. The steel industry - poof!
    The mining industry - slowly suffocating

    Let's take a look at Bellaire in the last 20 years (and beyond), for example.
    - literally 1/2 of the town was wiped off the map to make way for st.rt. 7, therefore about 1/3 of the population vanished
    - Imperial Glass
    - a brewery (can't think of the name right now, sorry)
    - train stations (both passenger)
    - a national landmark rotting, rusting and falling into the Ohio River, and (Benwood, WV) chunk by chunk

    What has been brought to Bellaire since then? Ummm... Family Dollar, Dollar General, and ... I think that's it.
    Believe me, I could write a book on the grievances, futility, wrong-doings, disgust, worthless planning, laziness, and flat out mis-management done by the authorities of Bellaire, reps, and governor.

    I know Steubenville hasn't faired much better - the difference being you didn't lose 1/2 of your town.

    Who has been in charge of our district(s)?