You should be ashamed of yourself popping off as though a civil war is a good thing. Have you ever been to a war zone.
Have you ever seen a war movie? That should be sufficient enough to tell you that you don't want one I. Your back yard. With your loved ones in the crosshairs.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
You should be ashamed of yourself popping off as though a civil war is a good thing. Have you ever been to a war zone.
Have you ever seen a war movie? That should be sufficient enough to tell you that you don't want one I. Your back yard. With your loved ones in the crosshairs.
The answer is the Republican controlled Congress with a 17% approval rating.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but the dems got the majority in the election of 2006, a super majority in 2008. That looks like about 4 years of control to me. Is my bark correct? For 2 years the dems could've done ANYTHING they wanted to (budget, tax reform, immigration, whatever). What did they do? Healthcare.
0
Quote Originally Posted by TheGoldenGoose:
You are a dog barking up the wrong tree.
The answer is the Republican controlled Congress with a 17% approval rating.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but the dems got the majority in the election of 2006, a super majority in 2008. That looks like about 4 years of control to me. Is my bark correct? For 2 years the dems could've done ANYTHING they wanted to (budget, tax reform, immigration, whatever). What did they do? Healthcare.
Austin you really need to shut the fuck up. This isn't a game of Call of Duty you're suggesting, it's war. You're actually promoting people dying and families being torn apart all because your candidate didn't get elected. You're a douche bag in every sense of the word.
Go fuck yourself.
really hard to argue otherwise and don't get why any american would choose to
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
Austin you really need to shut the fuck up. This isn't a game of Call of Duty you're suggesting, it's war. You're actually promoting people dying and families being torn apart all because your candidate didn't get elected. You're a douche bag in every sense of the word.
Go fuck yourself.
really hard to argue otherwise and don't get why any american would choose to
So Dirt, whose approving all the giveaways? The Federal Government correct? Too big, too powerful and too influential over EVERYTHING. I believe in states rights and their dwindling everyday. The federal gov is a monster now, and growing, I have no problem with stopping all the giveaways or at least unnecessary ones. Obviously, some people need help but at 47%, and as far as the corporate welfare, that's corruption plain and simple and it's wrong.
I think the solution is may be in this threads subject, but it won't happen until people get hungry, which might not be far off. Then you'll see our Feds in their glory. A government big enough to give you everything is also powerful enough to take it all away. Why do you think the left would love to take away the 2nd amendment?
it's not a democrat vs. republican thing. that's my point. a lot of the rightwingers go on and on about socialism and food stamps and unemployment, basically all of the government assistance going to the poor yet they ignore all of the welfare going to the corporations even though it's a much bigger number. i'll never understand how poor and middle class rightwingers hate poor and middle class people in favor of the ultra rich who hate the poor and middle class. someone explain that to me.
but both parties are guilty, it's just that each party wants to ignore the welfare benefiting the otehr side. but the right is worse because they completely ignore or try to rationalize coprporate welfare while the left at least acknowledges social welfare but makes excuses for it.
and i'm far from one of those hate the rich type. i believe everyone should be able to make as much as they can. i just don't believe the corporations who are making record profits through this mess need welfare on top of it that i have to pay for.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Killer_B:
So Dirt, whose approving all the giveaways? The Federal Government correct? Too big, too powerful and too influential over EVERYTHING. I believe in states rights and their dwindling everyday. The federal gov is a monster now, and growing, I have no problem with stopping all the giveaways or at least unnecessary ones. Obviously, some people need help but at 47%, and as far as the corporate welfare, that's corruption plain and simple and it's wrong.
I think the solution is may be in this threads subject, but it won't happen until people get hungry, which might not be far off. Then you'll see our Feds in their glory. A government big enough to give you everything is also powerful enough to take it all away. Why do you think the left would love to take away the 2nd amendment?
it's not a democrat vs. republican thing. that's my point. a lot of the rightwingers go on and on about socialism and food stamps and unemployment, basically all of the government assistance going to the poor yet they ignore all of the welfare going to the corporations even though it's a much bigger number. i'll never understand how poor and middle class rightwingers hate poor and middle class people in favor of the ultra rich who hate the poor and middle class. someone explain that to me.
but both parties are guilty, it's just that each party wants to ignore the welfare benefiting the otehr side. but the right is worse because they completely ignore or try to rationalize coprporate welfare while the left at least acknowledges social welfare but makes excuses for it.
and i'm far from one of those hate the rich type. i believe everyone should be able to make as much as they can. i just don't believe the corporations who are making record profits through this mess need welfare on top of it that i have to pay for.
although there is one thing that we do agree on and that is that the red states have the largest percentage of individuals in the 47%. This much has been shown numerous times in recent months.
you are talking numbers, facts and reality...
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
although there is one thing that we do agree on and that is that the red states have the largest percentage of individuals in the 47%. This much has been shown numerous times in recent months.
The Bluer a state is, the worse its financial and economic numbers are. If a state shows good economic data it always turns out to be a Red. ...
The Bluer than Blue state of California has — by a wide margin — the highest level of poverty of any state, with nearly a quarter of its 38 million residents in that category... 33% of the nation's welfare recipients are in California ..any wonder ,that 25% of the nations illegal aliens call that state home ..
0
Speaking of numbers .............
The Bluer a state is, the worse its financial and economic numbers are. If a state shows good economic data it always turns out to be a Red. ...
The Bluer than Blue state of California has — by a wide margin — the highest level of poverty of any state, with nearly a quarter of its 38 million residents in that category... 33% of the nation's welfare recipients are in California ..any wonder ,that 25% of the nations illegal aliens call that state home ..
although there is one thing that we do agree on and that is that the red states have the largest percentage of individuals in the 47%. This much has been shown numerous times in recent months.
rick says thats impossible to confirm...
can you show us where you are coming up with this idea that "red states have the largest percentage of individuals in the 47%"?
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
although there is one thing that we do agree on and that is that the red states have the largest percentage of individuals in the 47%. This much has been shown numerous times in recent months.
rick says thats impossible to confirm...
can you show us where you are coming up with this idea that "red states have the largest percentage of individuals in the 47%"?
can you show us where you are coming up with this idea that "red states have the largest percentage of individuals in the 47%"?
Before I post the link if have a question? How in the hell is this impossible to confirm ? It is called a statistic that is collected. That is like saying it is impossible to confirm the % of female students attending the University of Florida.
0
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
rick says thats impossible to confirm...
can you show us where you are coming up with this idea that "red states have the largest percentage of individuals in the 47%"?
Before I post the link if have a question? How in the hell is this impossible to confirm ? It is called a statistic that is collected. That is like saying it is impossible to confirm the % of female students attending the University of Florida.
How can I help my country vs how can my country help me
Brains vs Brainless
Ambitious vs Lazy
Itd be great!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dem's would get their ass kicked because they would all be sitting around waiting for somebody else to do the fighting for them!!!
Old buddy of mind was in angola back in mids seventy, he was a spook of sorts and they were trying to paint a bad picture of the russians and how bad they were.Some tribal chief told this buddy of mine, his people like the russians they kept there bellies full.Pride,work ethic will never beat the free again.Your civil war is next do not kid yourself.
0
Quote Originally Posted by aaustinova67:
Republicans vs Liberals
Red vs Blue
O'reily vs Obama
Paycheck vs Welfare check
How can I help my country vs how can my country help me
Brains vs Brainless
Ambitious vs Lazy
Itd be great!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dem's would get their ass kicked because they would all be sitting around waiting for somebody else to do the fighting for them!!!
Old buddy of mind was in angola back in mids seventy, he was a spook of sorts and they were trying to paint a bad picture of the russians and how bad they were.Some tribal chief told this buddy of mine, his people like the russians they kept there bellies full.Pride,work ethic will never beat the free again.Your civil war is next do not kid yourself.
You guys criticize FOX News and right wing radio for putting a conservative slant on the news they present. That article David Graham wrote for the Atlantic does the same thing.
All the article states is "most of the 47% come from mostly red states." Like Rick pointed out earlier, there is no way to quantify or qualify this information.
How do we know the people who aren't paying income taxes voted for Romney? I'm from New Orleans. Romney won Louisiana but he lost in the New Orleans area. Without having the information I would bet over 50% of the people who don't pay income taxes in Louisiana (and receive govt assistance for that matter) are from the New Orleans area. I bet the same principle holds true in Atlanta (GA), Jackson (MS), Birmingham (AL), etc, etc, etc.
0
You guys criticize FOX News and right wing radio for putting a conservative slant on the news they present. That article David Graham wrote for the Atlantic does the same thing.
All the article states is "most of the 47% come from mostly red states." Like Rick pointed out earlier, there is no way to quantify or qualify this information.
How do we know the people who aren't paying income taxes voted for Romney? I'm from New Orleans. Romney won Louisiana but he lost in the New Orleans area. Without having the information I would bet over 50% of the people who don't pay income taxes in Louisiana (and receive govt assistance for that matter) are from the New Orleans area. I bet the same principle holds true in Atlanta (GA), Jackson (MS), Birmingham (AL), etc, etc, etc.
You guys criticize FOX News and right wing radio for putting a conservative slant on the news they present. That article David Graham wrote for the Atlantic does the same thing.
All the article states is "most of the 47% come from mostly red states." Like Rick pointed out earlier, there is no way to quantify or qualify this information.
How do we know the people who aren't paying income taxes voted for Romney? I'm from New Orleans. Romney won Louisiana but he lost in the New Orleans area. Without having the information I would bet over 50% of the people who don't pay income taxes in Louisiana (and receive govt assistance for that matter) are from the New Orleans area. I bet the same principle holds true in Atlanta (GA), Jackson (MS), Birmingham (AL), etc, etc, etc.
Of course we do not know for certain whom those "47%" voted for and I am not suggesting that all are republican. But those numbers do not lie and tell a very strong trend.
I posted this in a conversation you and I had on this topic in another thread.
So basically you are implying that that the number of people who are
democrats in these overwhelmingly red states (already a minority in their respective state alone) who do not pay
taxes are so many that they enter in the top 10 of the country who do
not pay taxes? That does not add up.
And how about the 10 states
with the fewest people in the "47%". They are mainly blue states. How do
you deal with this information? After all they are primarily democratic
right?
I am not looking to get in an argument. I am just
pointing out that when you look at the real numbers it does not support
the theory that many try to make about the party lines of the people
"receiving handouts".
If anything it would suggest the opposite
(although I am not actually going to make this claim but it is what the
data suggests).
0
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
You guys criticize FOX News and right wing radio for putting a conservative slant on the news they present. That article David Graham wrote for the Atlantic does the same thing.
All the article states is "most of the 47% come from mostly red states." Like Rick pointed out earlier, there is no way to quantify or qualify this information.
How do we know the people who aren't paying income taxes voted for Romney? I'm from New Orleans. Romney won Louisiana but he lost in the New Orleans area. Without having the information I would bet over 50% of the people who don't pay income taxes in Louisiana (and receive govt assistance for that matter) are from the New Orleans area. I bet the same principle holds true in Atlanta (GA), Jackson (MS), Birmingham (AL), etc, etc, etc.
Of course we do not know for certain whom those "47%" voted for and I am not suggesting that all are republican. But those numbers do not lie and tell a very strong trend.
I posted this in a conversation you and I had on this topic in another thread.
So basically you are implying that that the number of people who are
democrats in these overwhelmingly red states (already a minority in their respective state alone) who do not pay
taxes are so many that they enter in the top 10 of the country who do
not pay taxes? That does not add up.
And how about the 10 states
with the fewest people in the "47%". They are mainly blue states. How do
you deal with this information? After all they are primarily democratic
right?
I am not looking to get in an argument. I am just
pointing out that when you look at the real numbers it does not support
the theory that many try to make about the party lines of the people
"receiving handouts".
If anything it would suggest the opposite
(although I am not actually going to make this claim but it is what the
data suggests).
Point #1: I do not have my avatar yet. What do I need to do?
Point #2: Just like the author, I am speculating because I do not have enough information. When it is said that a person doesn't pay income taxes, does that mean a person doesn't have to file or does that mean they get money back. Personally, some years I get money back and some years I have to pay more. This is what I'm talking about when the author states 47% doesn't pay taxes.
Point #3: We do not know the demographics or the voting history of the people in the Blue States either. Maybe all of them voted for Romney, maybe it was split 50-50. Who knows?
I don't call this arguing. It's debating. I don't take anything personally. I hope none of you libs take anything personally I say. I like debating. It would be boring if everyone agreed on everything 100% of the time. There is someone I know that doesn't take anything personally because we are constantly making fun of each other's stereotypes (and that's CLUBDIRT).
0
Point #1: I do not have my avatar yet. What do I need to do?
Point #2: Just like the author, I am speculating because I do not have enough information. When it is said that a person doesn't pay income taxes, does that mean a person doesn't have to file or does that mean they get money back. Personally, some years I get money back and some years I have to pay more. This is what I'm talking about when the author states 47% doesn't pay taxes.
Point #3: We do not know the demographics or the voting history of the people in the Blue States either. Maybe all of them voted for Romney, maybe it was split 50-50. Who knows?
I don't call this arguing. It's debating. I don't take anything personally. I hope none of you libs take anything personally I say. I like debating. It would be boring if everyone agreed on everything 100% of the time. There is someone I know that doesn't take anything personally because we are constantly making fun of each other's stereotypes (and that's CLUBDIRT).
Point #1: I do not have my avatar yet. What do I need to do?
Point #2: Just like the author, I am speculating because I do not have enough information. When it is said that a person doesn't pay income taxes, does that mean a person doesn't have to file or does that mean they get money back. Personally, some years I get money back and some years I have to pay more. This is what I'm talking about when the author states 47% doesn't pay taxes.
Point #3: We do not know the demographics or the voting history of the people in the Blue States either. Maybe all of them voted for Romney, maybe it was split 50-50. Who knows?
I don't call this arguing. It's debating. I don't take anything personally. I hope none of you libs take anything personally I say. I like debating. It would be boring if everyone agreed on everything 100% of the time. There is someone I know that doesn't take anything personally because we are constantly making fun of each other's stereotypes (and that's CLUBDIRT).
Your avatar shows up on my screen. I am not sure what to do. mine just appeared.
0
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
Point #1: I do not have my avatar yet. What do I need to do?
Point #2: Just like the author, I am speculating because I do not have enough information. When it is said that a person doesn't pay income taxes, does that mean a person doesn't have to file or does that mean they get money back. Personally, some years I get money back and some years I have to pay more. This is what I'm talking about when the author states 47% doesn't pay taxes.
Point #3: We do not know the demographics or the voting history of the people in the Blue States either. Maybe all of them voted for Romney, maybe it was split 50-50. Who knows?
I don't call this arguing. It's debating. I don't take anything personally. I hope none of you libs take anything personally I say. I like debating. It would be boring if everyone agreed on everything 100% of the time. There is someone I know that doesn't take anything personally because we are constantly making fun of each other's stereotypes (and that's CLUBDIRT).
Your avatar shows up on my screen. I am not sure what to do. mine just appeared.
the top 10 states with the fewest that fall in the "47%"
1) Washington
2) Wyoming
3) North Dakota
4) Minnesota
5) Virginia
6) Maryland
7) Connecticut
8) Massachusetts
9) Alaska
10) New Hampshire
Don't you ever get tired on embarrassing yourself?? What is relevant is the total number of people sucking off the system and therefore the expenditure, not the percentage. Duh,obviously. Quit sucking down my oxygen. Factor that in and the predominate states are blue city.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
The top 10 states with the most that fall in the
"47%"
the top 10 states with the fewest that fall in the "47%"
1) Washington
2) Wyoming
3) North Dakota
4) Minnesota
5) Virginia
6) Maryland
7) Connecticut
8) Massachusetts
9) Alaska
10) New Hampshire
Don't you ever get tired on embarrassing yourself?? What is relevant is the total number of people sucking off the system and therefore the expenditure, not the percentage. Duh,obviously. Quit sucking down my oxygen. Factor that in and the predominate states are blue city.
Don't you ever get tired on embarrassing yourself?? What is relevant is the total number of people sucking off the system and therefore the expenditure, not the percentage. Duh,obviously. Quit sucking down my oxygen. Factor that in and the predominate states are blue city.
Nice to have you back. I thought you had run away . once again you are wrong and it does not take very long to come up with the numbers. I suggest trying to do it sometime as opposed to making blatantly wrong comments. 7 of those 10 states in that category with most "47%" are in the top half of the 50 states for population. 3 are in the top 10. California is obviously huge for the absolute # but Texas is not too far behind and Texas has a greater % not paying "47%"
0
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:
Don't you ever get tired on embarrassing yourself?? What is relevant is the total number of people sucking off the system and therefore the expenditure, not the percentage. Duh,obviously. Quit sucking down my oxygen. Factor that in and the predominate states are blue city.
Nice to have you back. I thought you had run away . once again you are wrong and it does not take very long to come up with the numbers. I suggest trying to do it sometime as opposed to making blatantly wrong comments. 7 of those 10 states in that category with most "47%" are in the top half of the 50 states for population. 3 are in the top 10. California is obviously huge for the absolute # but Texas is not too far behind and Texas has a greater % not paying "47%"
Don't you ever get tired on embarrassing yourself?? What is relevant is the total number of people sucking off the system and therefore the expenditure, not the percentage. Duh,obviously. Quit sucking down my oxygen. Factor that in and the predominate states are blue city.
Hey why did you run away Goon?
0
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:
Don't you ever get tired on embarrassing yourself?? What is relevant is the total number of people sucking off the system and therefore the expenditure, not the percentage. Duh,obviously. Quit sucking down my oxygen. Factor that in and the predominate states are blue city.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but the dems got the majority in the election of 2006, a super majority in 2008. That looks like about 4 years of control to me. Is my bark correct? For 2 years the dems could've done ANYTHING they wanted to (budget, tax reform, immigration, whatever). What did they do? Healthcare.
Put it this way, if the Republicans had let Hillary have her Healthcare almost twenty years ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion today.
~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
0
Quote Originally Posted by Killer_B:
Please correct me if I'm wrong but the dems got the majority in the election of 2006, a super majority in 2008. That looks like about 4 years of control to me. Is my bark correct? For 2 years the dems could've done ANYTHING they wanted to (budget, tax reform, immigration, whatever). What did they do? Healthcare.
Put it this way, if the Republicans had let Hillary have her Healthcare almost twenty years ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion today.
Nice to have you back. I thought you had run away . once again you are wrong and it does not take very long to come up with the numbers. I suggest trying to do it sometime as opposed to making blatantly wrong comments. 7 of those 10 states in that category with most "47%" are in the top half of the 50 states for population. 3 are in the top 10. California is obviously huge for the absolute # but Texas is not too far behind and Texas has a greater % not paying "47%"
7 of 10 in the top 50% The fact is the largest number of non tax payers reside in states like California, New York, and Illinois. Blue, bluer, bluest. So I'll go with........ weak comeback.
Goon?? genius
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
Nice to have you back. I thought you had run away . once again you are wrong and it does not take very long to come up with the numbers. I suggest trying to do it sometime as opposed to making blatantly wrong comments. 7 of those 10 states in that category with most "47%" are in the top half of the 50 states for population. 3 are in the top 10. California is obviously huge for the absolute # but Texas is not too far behind and Texas has a greater % not paying "47%"
7 of 10 in the top 50% The fact is the largest number of non tax payers reside in states like California, New York, and Illinois. Blue, bluer, bluest. So I'll go with........ weak comeback.
7 of 10 in the top 50% The fact is the largest number of non tax payers reside in states like California, New York, and Illinois. Blue, bluer, bluest. So I'll go with........ weak comeback.
Goon?? genius
A fact is not a fact simply because you say so.
0
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:
7 of 10 in the top 50% The fact is the largest number of non tax payers reside in states like California, New York, and Illinois. Blue, bluer, bluest. So I'll go with........ weak comeback.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
tax reform...loopholes...lobbyists....term limits....
? It is called a statistic that is collected. That is like saying it is impossible to confirm the % of female students attending the University of Florida. 
. once again you are wrong and it does not take very long to come up with the numbers. I suggest trying to do it sometime as opposed to making blatantly wrong comments. 7 of those 10 states in that category with most "47%" are in the top half of the 50 states for population. 3 are in the top 10. California is obviously huge for the absolute # but Texas is not too far behind and Texas has a greater % not paying "47%"
7 of 10 in the top 50%
Hot Forum Topics
