Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-11-2009, 03:40 PM
 
Location: PA
5,562 posts, read 5,680,664 times
Reputation: 1962

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrusjul View Post
Election Tracker: Candidate Polling - Election Center 2008 from CNN.com

Looking at the voting map on the news I wondered. Why do the states that are most expensive to live in and has way more rich people, usually go for a democrat, like NY, NJ, CT, and CA for example. While the poorer states (usually in the south or in the middle) go republican. I mean the richest states need a republican more than the poorer states need a democrat (well you will think when taxes is suppose to be the issue). But they still go democrat. Why does the red states like to be so red then. Is it about race? Religion beliefs?

Rich liberals have a guilty complex and poor ethic people believe the rich white people should feel guilty so they vote for someone who will give them hope and change.
All the while nothing changes, but they feel better about it.
That summons up the democrat party these days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-11-2009, 03:46 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,861,612 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyandJusticeforAll View Post
Rich liberals have a guilty complex and poor ethic people believe the rich white people should feel guilty so they vote for someone who will give them hope and change.
All the while nothing changes, but they feel better about it.
That summons up the democrat party these days.
That summons up your world view. I don't know why you all think that liberals feel guilty. Guilty about what?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2009, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Kentucky/ Displaced Texan
3,105 posts, read 3,289,003 times
Reputation: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayDude View Post
I love how mateo45 just makes up stuff as he goes along and then expects us to believe it somehow.

Isn't that the case. Then when you call him out on it, no response until he makes up some other ridiculous statement. Guess the truth shuts him up, so hopefully he will be pretty quite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2009, 04:21 PM
 
Location: San Diego
2,521 posts, read 2,347,939 times
Reputation: 1298
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
For that matter, Mary Phagan (coincidentally the name of the young woman raped and murdered in Georgia in 1912 in the Leo Frank case, which revived the KKK) seems to have not read the 9/11 Commission Report.

Any culpability Clinton has for 9/11 is indirect, by appointing Louis Freeh to head the FBI. No government agency failed more to prevent 9/11 than the FBI did. Freeh, after being appointed by Clinton, directed a massive amount of the FBI's resources into trying to get evidence to impeach the man who appointed him, money that could have been better spent going after terrorists. FBI headquarters also ignored reports of Islamist extremist activity and reports of the actual hijackers coming in from FBI field office. Instead of blaming Clinton she should be blaming Freeh, who - as I stated - was hardly a loyal servant of his boss.
Keep in mind that Mary Phagan is probably just another incarnation of someone who was booted from this site. They joined in the end of April and their first post was in a thread about supporting the Confederacy and later about how they wish that the South would secede again. They are nothing but a KKK supporter pretending to be here to debate. THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!

The arguments would just have more credibility if Mary Phagan could actually formulate and punctuate a sentence, but unfortunately for the KKK, Mary Phagan seems to have flunked 4th grade English.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2009, 05:19 PM
 
Location: San Diego
2,521 posts, read 2,347,939 times
Reputation: 1298
Quote:
Originally Posted by mary phagan View Post
I stand corrected on the U.S.S Cole it was 2000,I got ahead of myself.I meant to stand trial for the first WTC attack which was Al Qaeda,yes Bin Laden had a hand in that.During the years 1996 -1998 Sudan was in talks with Clinton national security advisor Sandy Berger.Sudan offerded his arrest and extradiction to U.S but was turned down.During this time frame the U.S Embassy in Tanzania,the Embassy in Kenya was attacked by Al Qaeda,wounding 4,500.These attacks did happen prior and during these talks

The people involved in the 1993 Plot were caputred and tried within 5 years. Most of them within 1.

Quote:
The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2009, 06:07 PM
 
Location: chattanooga
646 posts, read 801,249 times
Reputation: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pug Life View Post
The people involved in the 1993 Plot were caputred and tried within 5 years. Most of them within 1.
You have no idea do you.The mastermind of the 1993 attack Kahalid Sheikh Mohammed went on and planned the WTC attack 2 and then went on and beheaded Daniel Pearl before the Bush admin. captured him.But with all the time you spend worrying about the south I can see how you easliy missed it.As far as the other statements you made.I won't even respond to your elementary mindset.You can take the "low" road.Your not the only one with a fascination about the south,but man it is eating you up.Do you hate us more than the actual terrorist
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2009, 07:39 PM
 
4,465 posts, read 7,997,031 times
Reputation: 813
I think the point is, and what the GOP has found, pertains to the fact that if you appeal to the typical white Southerner then you're gonna lose most of the rest of the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2009, 09:31 PM
 
30,894 posts, read 36,937,375 times
Reputation: 34516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Democrats prefer living where they are dependent on others. Republicans prefer living where they are independent of others.
That's kind of a chicken and egg statement, I think. It could easily be the other way around...the environment (urban vs. rural) you live in influences your politics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2009, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 10,414,394 times
Reputation: 973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof Woof Woof! View Post
Maybe the poorer states have a lack of good education and that's why they voted Bush twice and then thought McCain would be a good pres.

I'm in Boston and nobody here voted for McCain or Palin and this is a very educated, sophisticated part of the country.
or could it be that the red states put more energy into living a good life, spending time with family and working hard, and not on wealth, popularity standing, and other superficial stuff?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2009, 01:46 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,442,152 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
That's kind of a chicken and egg statement, I think. It could easily be the other way around...the environment (urban vs. rural) you live in influences your politics.
I believe the environment does strongly influence one's political decisions, and vice versa.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:58 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top