This is a stupid post, why don't you give us the link? Kerry did win in the education category "No High School".great bear said:
OTB
Some interesting numbers.
- Thread starter Bush League
- Start date
OTB
will see if I can find the link. I notice your home town is Hooterville. Is that close to Snowball Corners in Arkansaw?
I notice that papasmerf thinks Bush "wow" all 50 states. I wonder what candidate pappasmerf voted for?
great bear said:I notice that papasmerf thinks Bush "wow" all 50 states. I wonder what candidate pappasmerf voted for?
I never made a secret of my supprt for Bush, nor have i made it a secret that I voted for McCain in 2000.
great bear said:pappasmerf, actually I knew all along who you voted for!
Good guess is my bet
pappasmerf, actually not a good guess. Its your spelling skills that points you out as a Bush supporter!
I know your joking,actually there is a suberb in Ohio wher Bush recieved about 3800 votes,unfortunately there are only 682 people living in that suberb,what gives?onthebottom said:LOL,
All the high crime areas voted for Kerry, nuf said.
I think Bush won the income>50k pretty easily - these are the people who do the work and pay the bills in my country.
OTB
great bear said:pappasmerf, actually not a good guess. Its your spelling skills that points you out as a Bush supporter!
Now my secret is out
I DON"T USE SPELLCHECK But I do use common sense when it comes to voting
Peace4u said:I know your joking,actually there is a suberb in Ohio wher Bush recieved about 3800 votes,unfortunately there are only 682 people living in that suberb,what gives?
Please to provide the district number and the doccumented facts, that is the polling results you mentioned
What exactly is "their share"? You think the tax burden should be divided evenly throughout the pay scale? Someone earning 12,000 a year and corporation earning 10 billion a year should both owe 24,000 a year in taxes?onthebottom said:They work they just don't pay their share of the bills, they are subsidized by people who earn more.
OTB
Then again, I do note that you didn't say "fair share." And it was nice of you to acknowledge that the millions who provide cheap labour in your country and mine - though not cheap enough for most labour-exporters - do, in fact, "work".
Which one of us is the elitist again?
Good comeback indeed.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html
Isn't it naptime, papa?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html
Isn't it naptime, papa?
Piece
the election is over.
How about some of that comming together and moving trwards center the loosers talked about?
the election is over.
How about some of that comming together and moving trwards center the loosers talked about?
Drunken Master said:Good comeback indeed.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html
Isn't it naptime, papa?
Not suprised that computerized voting is not as reliable as the old fashioned machines used for over 100 years here in WNY.
I'm not sure which is more offensive - the left's persistent suggestions that rural & suburban voters (and their values) are dumb and unsophisticated, or OTB's idea that a citizen's "worth" can be measured in income or taxes paid.
The more interesting question is, do rural/suburban voters have more conservative opinions because they live outside of big cities, or do they live outside of big cities because of their more conservative values?
The more interesting question is, do rural/suburban voters have more conservative opinions because they live outside of big cities, or do they live outside of big cities because of their more conservative values?
You find less welafre supprted citizens, governtment emplyees and teachers liveing in the rual areas of NY. These folks have too much to loose with a consertitive controlled Senate and Congress. Let alone a consertitive President.The Shake said:I'm not sure which is more offensive - the left's persistent suggestions that rural & suburban voters (and their values) are dumb and unsophisticated, or OTB's idea that a citizen's "worth" can be measured in income or taxes paid.
The more interesting question is, do rural/suburban voters have more conservative opinions because they live outside of big cities, or do they live outside of big cities because of their more conservative values?
In more Rual areas you find working people who value their EARNED income.
My vote is for option A. I have yet to meet a single person who has moved out of the city because of the plauge of liberalism in urban centers, although I have meet a few people who have moved away from the country for the opposite reason. I also don't believe there's anything inherently "conservative" about rural life; quite a few of the left-leaning cornerstones of Canadian life, such a Medicare, originated in rural political movements.The Shake said:I'm not sure which is more offensive - the left's persistent suggestions that rural & suburban voters (and their values) are dumb and unsophisticated, or OTB's idea that a citizen's "worth" can be measured in income or taxes paid.
The more interesting question is, do rural/suburban voters have more conservative opinions because they live outside of big cities, or do they live outside of big cities because of their more conservative values?
I've it said before, and I'll say it again: the right has spent the last few decades making a solid case to rural voters, while the left has mostly been talking amongst themselves about what's best for these voters. It's not at all surprising which strategy worked best.
I did not use "fair share" because that gets into how progressive a tax system should be, my point was that the bottom half of the country (from an income perspective) pay 10% of income taxes, thus they are subsidized by the top half. You can add whatever value system you want to this but at the end of the day the people paying the bills (those making over 50k) voted for Bush.Drunken Master said:What exactly is "their share"? You think the tax burden should be divided evenly throughout the pay scale? Someone earning 12,000 a year and corporation earning 10 billion a year should both owe 24,000 a year in taxes?
Then again, I do note that you didn't say "fair share." And it was nice of you to acknowledge that the millions who provide cheap labour in your country and mine - though not cheap enough for most labour-exporters - do, in fact, "work".
Which one of us is the elitist again?
I'm not sure what in that FACT you find elitist.
OTB
