Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
hear that ole Harrier? Another person proving your posts ignorant, as usual. Another thread fail. How embarrassing for you!
Huh? Where in Californians34' post did she refute the fact that in the most productive agricultural region in the U.S.A., the counties which comprise it are predominately politically conservative?
Are you another one seeing words in front of you that are not there?
I though it was going to be something meaningful such as not cutting Food Stamp Benefits or getting rid of the sequester BS that is hurting kids. Nice misleading thread title OP, but my head is stilll intact.
The sequester isn't hurting anyone. The budget is still HIGHER than last years!
Most people have to get by without any pay rise. These fools still got one. Just not as much as they thought.
I'm sure the workers are probably liberals. Most farmers I know are conservative. Most farmers I know would rather slap any politicians they saw, regardless of party. They've got real work to do
All those counties are in a state that is populated with liberals and has a legislature and statehouse dominated by Democrats.
It is the failed policies of the Democrats that have caused the disaster that is California.
... a "disaster" that nonetheless has a thriving agricultural sector.
You seem to believe that the success of those farmers is somehow informed by the political makeup of the counties they live in, but the abject failure of those counties to provide a decent life for their citizens is informed by the political makeup of the state those counties are in.
That makes absolutely no sense. (Not that I expected otherwise from you.)
It would make much more sense to credit liberal California for the success of California agriculture. If it were left up to you cons, would there be a State Water Project? Would there be crop subsidies? I think not.
I think you need to revisit your hypothesis. Especially since the most prosperous counties in California are all very "blue."
... a "disaster" that nonetheless has a thriving agricultural sector.
You seem to believe that the success of those farmers is somehow informed by the political makeup of the counties they live in, but the abject failure of those counties to provide a decent life for their citizens is informed by the political makeup of the state those counties are in.
That makes absolutely no sense. (Not that I expected otherwise from you.)
It would make much more sense to credit liberal California for the success of California agriculture. If it were left up to you cons, would there be a State Water Project? Would there be crop subsidies? I think not.
I think you need to revisit your hypothesis.
Actually, you have it wrong. Go back and read the OP.
Harrier did not attribute success to any political affiliation - he only noted that in the most prodictive agricultural region in the United States, the majority of the counties in that area tend to be conservative.
He then asked liberals why they hate Republicans so much.
It really is that simple, and it is odd that you and the other creative writers in this thread feel the need to make up stuff.
Loretta and her sister are alright - they just have some nutty political viewpoints, and unfortunately enact policy based on those failed liberal ideas.
"Illegal alien" makes it sound like they came from outer space. When, in fact, they came from Mexico and Guatemala and El Salvador.
Of course those "nutty political viewpoints" equal power.
Something that the children of the people picking your vegetables will have in 30 years. Buckle up. You conservatives who call them "illegal aliens" and dismiss their children as anchor babies will be pressing "2" for English. Because right now all those anchor babies (whose parents pick crops when it's 100 degrees) are sitting in Cal State Chico studying law and political science.
They'll remember who treated their parents with dignity and respect. They'll also remember the legacy of hate and discord sewn by conservatives who refused to treat their mothers and fathers as human beings because they weren't lucky enough to be born a U.S. citizen.
Harrier did not attribute success to any political affiliation - he only noted that in the most prodictive agricultural region in the United States, the majority of the counties in that area tend to be conservative.
Well then, so what? If correlation doesn't mean causation, which you're now saying it doesn't, then the political affiliation of those counties is utterly irrelevant -- except that it has now prolonged this ridiculous discussion onto a 6th page of comments, which I suspect was your aim all along.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
