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.
Coming from you, that means nothing. You're a partisan that disagrees with him. What else would you say?
I posted facts. What in the world does that have to do with partinsanship? On my phone so I can't link articles but go back and read the link. It outlined voter demographics. One of the categories was income. Black and white. Read it. If you continue to try and claim he was right, I'll have to dismiss you too as either too willfully ignorant or too uneducated to understand.
The facts are that the rich blue states are subsidizing the poor red states. That's a fact.
Ironically, the poor red states' politicians have a lots of advice for everybody about being fiscally responsible lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
I posted facts. What in the world does that have to do with partinsanship? On my phone so I can't link articles but go back and read the link. It outlined voter demographics. One of the categories was income. Black and white. Read it. If you continue to try and claim he was right, I'll have to dismiss you too as either too willfully ignorant or too uneducated to understand.
Again your own link provides the definition. Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. All of those mean less government intervention.
Conserve = use less of
In your twisted world it may mean something else. In reality it means small government
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapaport
Do you have reading comprehension issues now? Lol Are you an economic conservative or libertarian? You argued that all conservatives favor small government and what you quoted does not support that absurd opinion..
Lol Your own link proved my point
Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. All of those mean less government intervention.
Comprehend much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapaport
So it's not about "less government" but "less federal government" and "more state government" as you want the state governments to assume many functions performed by the federal government today.
Now you're getting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapaport
Don't worry, we all know that the conservative talk about "small government" is just a smoke screen: conservative stance on marijuana liberalization and gay marriage proves that. Conservative affiliation with the Christian Right looking to impose Christian version of Sharia Law on the entire population provides even further proof of that.
Marijuana and gay marriage should be left to the states. Although government should stay out of the marriage issue altogether. Again someone can call themselves a conservative but if they don't believe in conservative ideals then it's all hat and no cattle. Just like a majority of your posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapaport
I am afraid you still understand conservatism in a very parochial sense limited to America and post a WWII.
Post WW2? Like the anti Federalists? You remember them, the ones who opposed a strong Federal government.
You're changing the subject because you're not being able to comprehend the data. Again, the richest states in the nation always vote blue while the poorest always vote red. Isn't that ironic? What's is the voting record of Alabama, Mississippi or West Virginia? You never asked yourself why those poor states invariably vote republican???? Lol
Not really changing the topic. Merely pointing to the fact you say California pays more in federal taxes than it receives back.
I say the rich pay more in federal taxes than they receive back.
Which goes back to the point if you want to rationalize my point that California has 6.1 million non paying citizens and that makes up more than several red states combined. You mention percentages. I mention raw numbers.
So what's it going to be. Percentages or raw numbers. If you want to do percentages, than I agree, more poor red states not paying taxes. If you want to do raw numbers, than more citizens in "rich blue states" not paying taxes.
If you do percentages, than the rich probably aren't paying enough in taxes. If you do raw numbers than the rich pay way too much in taxes.
Not really changing the topic. Merely pointing to the fact you say California pays more in federal taxes than it receives back.
I say the rich pay more in federal taxes than they receive back.
Which goes back to the point if you want to rationalize my point that California has 6.1 million non paying citizens and that makes up more than several red states combined. You mention percentages. I mention raw numbers.
So what's it going to be. Percentages or raw numbers. If you want to do percentages, than I agree, more poor red states not paying taxes. If you want to do raw numbers, than more citizens in "rich blue states" not paying taxes.
If you do percentages, than the rich probably aren't paying enough in taxes. If you do raw numbers than the rich pay way too much in taxes.
Well, as a resident of one of those top richest states that support the poor ones, I admit I'm more concerned about my fellow CT taxpayers than I am about rich people living anywhere.
So, yeah: If you live in Alabama, Mississippi or the like … you're welcome.
The left wing has the GI bill, the new deal, social security. What about the right wing?
It depends on who you ask.
"America" is not a monolithic whole. America is an ideological fiction, made of up different classes with competing interests and agendas. Right-wing policies have been a godsend for the elite--i.e. those who are now colloquially referred to as "the 1%." They have been a disaster for everyone else.
You posted support for your partisan perspective. You just want to make it seem like your input had some kind of privileged status, because you are frustrated that reasonable people disagree with you, and you seem to have some kind of notion in your head that you're due fealty and deference, here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
If you continue to try and claim he was right, I'll have to dismiss you too as either too willfully ignorant or too uneducated to understand.
That's your stock answer to everyone who doesn't kowtow to, or otherwise glorify, your bias. It's such a ridiculously childish, self-serving behavior, that one would think you'd try to come up with a tactic other than whining about people disagreeing with you and hiding when they won't bow down and subjugate themselves to you as their Lord and Master. And it underscores the inherent problem with the perspectives (plural) that you support: The apparent inability to acknowledge that reasonable people disagree with you.
The facts are that the rich blue states are subsidizing the poor red states. That's a fact.
Ironically, the poor red states' politicians have a lots of advice for everybody about being fiscally responsible lol
Lol Your own link proved my point
Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. All of those mean less government intervention.
Comprehend much?
The only thing I am comprehending is that you can't read. The quote above says:
"Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise."
It doesn't say "Conservatives favor small government" but instead "Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government " while you claimed that "Conservatives favor small government" as in "conservatives in general" They don't. There are many aspects of conservatism and Wikipedia provides this definition of conservatism instead:
"Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions."
I hope you learned something from this. Consider this a public service on my part, helping the less educated to understand the world they live in. Lol
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.
