T1B

And they likely all voted for Raygun in '84.

What is your goddamn point? That all those poor people would've been better off with Mitt Romney as their POTUS?

Detroit - 73.1% Obama
Philadelphia - 85.2% Obama
Cleveland - 68.8% Obama
Milwaukee - 66.8% Obama
Memphis - 62.6% Obama
Cincinnati - 51.8% Obama
Miami - 61.6% Obama
Fresno - 50.6% Romney
Buffalo - 56.9% Obama
El Paso - 65.6% Obama
Newark - 77.4% Obama
Toledo - 64.3% Obama
St. Louis (City) - 82.7% Obama
St. Louis (County) - 56.2% Obama
San Antonio - 51.6% Obama
Columbus - 60.1% Obama
Los Angeles - 68.6% Obama
New York (Bronx) - 91.2% Obama
New York (Brooklyn) - 81.4% Obama
New York (Queens) - 78.8% Obama
Albuquerque - 55.6% Obama
Phoenix - 55.1% Romney
Las Vegas - 56.4% Obama





Nice bracket! I'll take Weber State.

Well, I would bet that those voters were thinking "hope and change" would have had different results for them.

Would some be better off if Romney had won? We will never know.

What I do know is that 4 of those cities are dominated at the local level by left leaning city councils and mayors. (I would suspect most of them are, but don't know for a fact and don't feel like googling.) Three of them for decades. How are those left leaning local politics and policies working for the citizens of these cities? A city wage tax in Philly for example has pushed lots of businesses outside of the city and many of its residents a well. Why live or work in the city when 10 miles away you can keep an additional 5% of your income?

Let's not discount the fact that some cities just fucking suck.

Actually, what I most took away from it is that poor people tend to be idiots.

R-Jack wrote:Let's not discount the fact that some cities just fucking suck.

Or the fact that you seem willing to make ridiculous and desperate excuses for them. When did you become such a dickless pantload? Or were you always that way?

Eh, this shit cuts both ways. The southern red states are home to some of the poorest, fattest, least educated people in the country.

Four.

Yeah, see what I mean?

I didn't,

mvscal wrote:

R-Jack wrote:Let's not discount the fact that some cities just fucking suck.

Or the fact that you seem willing to make ridiculous and desperate excuses for them. When did you become such a dickless pantload? Or were you always that way?

Eat a dick till you can show where I'm making desperate excuses or anything of the sort you fake tough douche. When did you become such an illiterate crybaby? Or were you always that way?

You were saying, PW?

http://www.businessinsider.com/red-stat ... ens-2011-8

Flip to any news channel in the past three years, and you can almost be certain to see any number of Republican governors, blustering about how Washington spends too much money and how they'd never spend that much money if they were President. It's a lot of tough talk, really. But is there any truth to it?

Well, all of this tough budget talk from Republicans got me thinking about the central: who really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers.

The truth? Not so fast, Michele Bachmann.

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

Go ahead and bookmark this article. The next time some smarmy teabagger tries to tell you it's liberals who are ruining the country and spending us into oblivion, kindly point them to the evidence that shows it is GOP states, not Democrat states, who are Welfare Queens. It is GOP states who spend more than they collect in taxes. It is GOP states who are out of balance, nationally.

See if they still want to cut off funding when it means no more socialism for slave states.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/red-stat ... z3h1UyIgeV

The count of southern cities, depends on your definition.

Memphis, is without question part of "the south". The Texas cities mentioned, may or may not be. I would argue that Cincinnati could be considered part of the south, culturally. Ever meet someone from southern Ohio? More or less indistinguishable from North Georgia.

If your definition is latitude based, then LA and San Diego are part of the south.

How about Miami? Culturally, it shares jack shit with "the south". I-4 is pretty much the second mason dixon line, everything to the north of it is part of "the South".

'Spray, why are you obsessed with statistics? That's just creepy.

Diego in Seattle wrote:
New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

The writer is either intentionally disingenuous, or a fucking idiot.

I think what he meant to say there was "Does anyone notice the overwhelming presence of states with large numbers of Native Americans, that through treaties receive massive benefits from the federal government?"


It's not every state on the list -- some are notorious for being rife with inbred idiots.

smackaholic wrote:The count of southern cities, depends on your definition.

Memphis, is without question part of "the south". The Texas cities mentioned, may or may not be. I would argue that Cincinnati could be considered part of the south, culturally. Ever meet someone from southern Ohio? More or less indistinguishable from North Georgia.

If your definition is latitude based, then LA and San Diego are part of the south.

How about Miami? Culturally, it shares jack shit with "the south". I-4 is pretty much the second mason dixon line, everything to the north of it is part of "the South".

Texas, Tennessee and Florida were all Confederate states.

Cinci might as well be in Necktucky. Their airport is, anyway.

Yes, they were. But, for some reason, Texas is not always considered part of "the South" or perhaps more accurately the "deep south". And Miami sure as hell is not part of "the south". It is culturally closer to New Jersey.

I remember back when jimmah got elected, he was considered the first dude from "the south" to hold the office since the civil war. Apparently, whomever made this statement did not consider LBJ to be from "the south".

Mikey wrote:Cinci might as well be in Necktucky. Their airport is, anyway.

'zactly.

South Ohio is separated from Kentucky by only the Ohio River. Culturally, they are very much "southern". Same goes for Indiana and Missouri. Had some fukk in my boot camp company from South Missouri. He was the most bassakwards country fukk I have ever met. Even dudes from Georgia and Alabama would run redneck country fukk smack on him.

Papa Willie wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:You were saying, PW?

http://www.businessinsider.com/red-stat ... ens-2011-8

Flip to any news channel in the past three years, and you can almost be certain to see any number of Republican governors, blustering about how Washington spends too much money and how they'd never spend that much money if they were President. It's a lot of tough talk, really. But is there any truth to it?

Well, all of this tough budget talk from Republicans got me thinking about the central: who really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers.

The truth? Not so fast, Michele Bachmann.

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

Go ahead and bookmark this article. The next time some smarmy teabagger tries to tell you it's liberals who are ruining the country and spending us into oblivion, kindly point them to the evidence that shows it is GOP states, not Democrat states, who are Welfare Queens. It is GOP states who spend more than they collect in taxes. It is GOP states who are out of balance, nationally.

See if they still want to cut off funding when it means no more socialism for slave states.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/red-stat ... z3h1UyIgeV

And you might want to consider this:

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state ... gures.html

So those states are balancing their budgets based on subsidization from the feds. Got it.

smackaholic wrote:I would argue that Cincinnati could be considered part of the south, culturally. Ever meet someone from southern Ohio? More or less indistinguishable from North Georgia.

Ah, no. I was in Cincy a couple weeks ago. Culturally, it's a mish mash of folks but more of a midwestern flavor than southern. I could detect a slight twang in some people, but for the most part the locals sounded more like me than they did Papa Willie. I would say the dividing line for predominant southern culture is Lexington.

Papa Willie wrote:
Twenty Poorest Cities and how they voted in 2012:

Detroit - 73.1% Obama
Philadelphia - 85.2% Obama
Cleveland - 68.8% Obama
Milwaukee - 66.8% Obama
Memphis - 62.6% Obama
Cincinnati - 51.8% Obama
Miami - 61.6% Obama
Fresno - 50.6% Romney
Buffalo - 56.9% Obama
El Paso - 65.6% Obama
Newark - 77.4% Obama
Toledo - 64.3% Obama
St. Louis (City) - 82.7% Obama
St. Louis (County) - 56.2% Obama
San Antonio - 51.6% Obama
Columbus - 60.1% Obama
Los Angeles - 68.6% Obama
New York (Bronx) - 91.2% Obama
New York (Brooklyn) - 81.4% Obama
New York (Queens) - 78.8% Obama
Albuquerque - 55.6% Obama
Phoenix - 55.1% Romney
Las Vegas - 56.4% Obama


Does anybody notice a trend? How's it working out for them?

Hmmmm... the richest people of any Metropolitan region in the United States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-i ... ted_States




...voted for Obama at almost a 90% clip.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... rnia,_2012



That's right... close to 9 outta 10 people voted for Obama... and are still rich as shit.

Seems to be working out just fine here in the Bay Area.

Papa Willie wrote:10 States With The Highest Debt Per Person: Report

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/2 ... 29162.html

All but one - blue states. THIS is a more telling sign. Doesn't make a fuck what you make - it's what you owe...

2011?

Weren't you pushing about three bills in 2011?

Pretty sure that list has changed in four years.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

smackaholic wrote:I would argue that Cincinnati could be considered part of the south, culturally. Ever meet someone from southern Ohio? More or less indistinguishable from North Georgia.

Ah, no. I was in Cincy a couple weeks ago. Culturally, it's a mish mash of folks but more of a midwestern flavor than southern. I could detect a slight twang in some people, but for the most part the locals sounded more like me than they did Papa Willie. I would say the dividing line for predominant southern culture is Lexington.

Haven't spent any time in the city itself, but, I know a few from the area who I would have guessed were from Tennessee or Georgia. I do know that the city itself has it's ethnic sections and a sizable dago population. If you are surrounded by a bunch of pizans, it would have more of a midwest or even northeast feel to it. So, mish mash is probably a good description. Maybe it is the surrounding rural areas that have that twang thing goin' on.

Papa Willie wrote:

Mikey wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:10 States With The Highest Debt Per Person: Report

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/2 ... 29162.html

All but one - blue states. THIS is a more telling sign. Doesn't make a fuck what you make - it's what you owe...

2011?

Weren't you pushing about three bills in 2011?

Pretty sure that list has changed in four years.

Feel free to update the statistics.

Papa Willie now weighs a mere 280. You're welcome.

Papa Willie wrote:Somebody is ancient & sucks cocks.

Zsa Zsa Gabor.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:Somebody is ancient & gums cocks.

Zsa Zsa Gabor.

FTFY

You can keep your melts to one thread, champ.