New Title: Staunch liberal admits to being lifelong Conservative Republican

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Wrong-o. With the amount of tax money saved by cutting welfare to Republican states, blue states can build up all this capacity, or buy it from bankrupted red-staters much cheaper. It's not like we get fuel and electricity for free because we subsidize rednecks with our tax money.

How long has it taken for CA to make itself self sufficient?

It takes longer to develop an infrastructure than the impact of needing to develop.

CA complains about brownouts during the summer. How would it handle rolling blackouts all year long.

What would happen to the food production in Sourthen CA when the Colorado river is shut down?

Nevada, Arizona and Colorado can last at lot longer without Fed support than CA can standing on its own trying to build desalinization, pipelines and nuke plants.

There are no decent food production facilities east of the Ohio and north of Virginia. All those blue voters will have to tighten their belts when crops are not delivered. Are they going to turn housing developmetns into farmland?
Where will they get the fuel to farm - NJ has no excess refinery capacity.

See, the blue states are much more dependant on the reds than the reds are dependant on the blues if you want to setup a economic class war.

Time to build; let alone any public interference?
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Red states and blue states are a myth. The divide in everything is rural/urban. Redistribution is from urban to rural, and the "blue states" are the ones with the higher urban populations, which is why they vote Democrat.

2008-election-map-wash-post.gif
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
There are no decent food production facilities east of the Ohio and north of Virginia. All those blue voters will have to tighten their belts when crops are not delivered. Are they going to turn housing developmetns into farmland?
Where will they get the fuel to farm - NJ has no excess refinery capacity.
Then they would import food from Canada. Right now I'm eating a fruit cup of mandarin oranges and it says product of China on it. I wonder if I now have lead poisoning.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
How long has it taken for CA to make itself self sufficient?

It takes longer to develop an infrastructure than the impact of needing to develop.

CA complains about brownouts during the summer. How would it handle rolling blackouts all year long.

What would happen to the food production in Sourthen CA when the Colorado river is shut down?

Nevada, Arizona and Colorado can last at lot longer without Fed support than CA can standing on its own trying to build desalinization, pipelines and nuke plants.

There are no decent food production facilities east of the Ohio and north of Virginia. All those blue voters will have to tighten their belts when crops are not delivered. Are they going to turn housing developmetns into farmland?
Where will they get the fuel to farm - NJ has no excess refinery capacity.

See, the blue states are much more dependant on the reds than the reds are dependant on the blues if you want to setup a economic class war.

Time to build; let alone any public interference?

Again, we are not getting stuff from redneck states for free just because we are subsidizing them with our taxes. We can keep buying stuff and using rednecks for cheap labor even without these subsidies, just like we do with banana republics outside of the US.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
Again, we are not getting stuff from redneck states for free just because we are subsidizing them with our taxes. We can keep buying stuff and using rednecks for cheap labor even without these subsidies, just like we do with banana republics outside of the US.

"You" aren't subsidizing shit. "The Rich" and the "evil corporations" in your state are. Your calls for raising taxes on the rich would result in "blue" states paying more in taxes, and with everything else staying the same, you'd be receiving less in tax dollars per capita in return.

You're arguing against redistributing wealth from the rich to the middle/lower class. You are arguing that the rich pay too much!

Keep going though, I'm going to save this thread for when you start arguing that the rich don't pay enough.

Classic. :D
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Again, we are not getting stuff from redneck states for free just because we are subsidizing them with our taxes. We can keep buying stuff and using rednecks for cheap labor even without these subsidies, just like we do with banana republics outside of the US.

Go ahead and continue trolling.

Your redneck areas provide items that the urban ares required and are unable to generate on their own.

While government transfer of money from the urban to the rural areas may be uneven; the governmetn also takes resources without fair payment.

The complete country benefits from interaction with each other. Trying to claim that the flow is uneven is jsut cherry picking onset of numbers vs another.

This was tried in '60 to no avail; why tear the country up again with your hypothetical unven bleating.

You have a stronger argument in the Robin Hood theory; yet you will not deliver such.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I'd love to hear your reason for why this is the case. Please explain.



Typical Libthought. Those not among the elite, educated left are ignorant, inbred, undesirables... except when they are needed to progress an agenda... then they are "middle class America". Glad we have people such as yourself to so clearly articulate liberal ideologies.

I was just countering one absurdity with another, tongue in cheek.

Which, obviously provoked a lot of silly chest thumping and defensive posturing- "Keep you hands off of my pile!" "We Rule! You Suck!" "The South Shall Rise Again!"

Only slightly amusing, in a pathetic sort of way.

I'll refrain from pitching over your head, if it'll make you feel better, Silly Righties...
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
I was just countering one absurdity with another, tongue in cheek.

Which, obviously provoked a lot of silly chest thumping and defensive posturing- "Keep you hands off of my pile!" "We Rule! You Suck!" "The South Shall Rise Again!"

Only slightly amusing, in a pathetic sort of way.

The only chest thumping of that nature has come from the "blue" states all these years. "Keep your hands off my pile!", "Quit leeching off of us!", "Backwoods hillbillies would be lost without us!"... when in actuality, that very argument goes against just about every other tax argument the left wants to make.

As I pointed out... the left wants nothing more than to increase taxes on the rich. To do so would disproportionately affect the tax dollars paid-in by "blue" states, since more corporations and higher concentrations of affluent personnel reside in those areas. The end result would be an even greater skew in the amount of taxes paid-in versus the return, all else being equal.

It's redistribution of wealth in action, yet the left like to trumpet it out as the rest of the country being dependent on a handful of "blue" states.

The only way to really solve the problem would be to either tax the rich less, and the poor more... or send more tax dollars to the rich states, and fewer to the poor states.

One side or the other... what's it gonna be?
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
As I suspected, it's corrupt private construction firms, the kind owned by Republicans who lobby and win this money by deceiving the government. Government waste and abuse can always be tracked back to Republicans who milk the country for all it's worth, the filthy assholes.


You live in a hate filled world.

Here is one of the people in charge of one of Tennessee's most infamous road projects that dragged on and on and on and went way over budget.

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/darek-bell.asp?cycle=08

In 2006 at the height of the debacle he gave $1000 to the democratic senate candidate while only giving $500 to the republican candidate.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
"You" aren't subsidizing shit. "The Rich" and the "evil corporations" in your state are. Your calls for raising taxes on the rich would result in "blue" states paying more in taxes, and with everything else staying the same, you'd be receiving less in tax dollars per capita in return.

You're arguing against redistributing wealth from the rich to the middle/lower class. You are arguing that the rich pay too much!

Keep going though, I'm going to save this thread for when you start arguing that the rich don't pay enough.

Classic. :D

As someone who pays A LOT more in taxes than I take in in govt services, I am in fact subsidizing lazy rednecks in red states who are smooching off the federal government teet. Are you one of them? If so, get off your lazy behind and be more useful so you can pay more in taxes and not leech off the blue states so much. Honestly, how hard is it for red states to be more productive and useful, so you guys can generate enough economic activity to pull your own weight? Why do you have to wait for someone in a blue state to do it for you?
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
As someone who pays A LOT more in taxes than I take in in govt services, I am in fact subsidizing lazy rednecks in red states who are smooching off the federal government teet. Are you one of them? If so, get off your lazy behind and be more useful so you can pay more in taxes and not leech off the blue states so much. Honestly, how hard is it for red states to be more productive and useful, so you guys can generate enough economic activity to pull your own weight? Why do you have to wait for someone in a blue state to do it for you?

1) What state do you live in?

2) Are you for or against raising taxes on the rich?

3) The top 10% pay far, far, far more in taxes than they take in in gov't services, so they are in fact subsidizing you. Why don't you get off your lazy ass so you can pay more in taxes and not leech off the rich so much? Honestly, how hard is it for the middle class to be more productive and useful? Why do you have to let the rich do it for you?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
1) What state do you live in?
California.
2) Are you for or against raising taxes on the rich?
For, but not to subsidize redneck leeches like you.
3) The top 10&#37; pay far, far, far more in taxes than they take in in gov't services, so they are in fact subsidizing you. Why don't you get off your lazy ass so you can pay more in taxes and not leech off the rich so much? Honestly, how hard is it for the middle class to be more productive and useful? Why do you have to let the rich do it for you?

I am in the top 10%, dummy. Now get more productive, and stop leeching off of me.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
California.

For, but not to subsidize redneck leeches like you.

I am in the top 10%, dummy. Now get more productive, and stop leeching off of me.

Obviously you didn't get your money's worth out of 7th grade or beyond.

Either you raise taxes on the rich, which would necessarily increase the disparity in taxes paid vs received per capita per state (subsidizing those redneck, leeching, ignorant middle class Americans), or you solve the problem by lowering taxes on the rich, necessarily decreasing the disparity in taxes paid vs received.

You are sounding more and more like a Republican every day! I knew one of these days you'd see the light! :D
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
You people aren't listening to me. There aren't red states and blue states. There is only urban and rural.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
You people aren't listening to me. There aren't red states and blue states. There is only urban and rural.

I am listening, and that's been the point of my lecture to senseamp. The statistics for dollars paid in vs returned per state are skewed by the disproportionately urbanized populations and concentrations of corporations and generally more affluent individuals in what are considered "blue" states, and the lower-income, rural, retired, less populous "red" states.

It is redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, yet Senseamp thinks it is the most awful thing in the world that the middle and lower classes are leeching off the rich.

This thread basically proves that Senseamp is a conservative Republican. History has been written. :D
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Obviously you didn't get your money's worth out of 7th grade or beyond.

Either you raise taxes on the rich, which would necessarily increase the disparity in taxes paid vs received per capita per state (subsidizing those redneck, leeching, ignorant middle class Americans), or you solve the problem by lowering taxes on the rich, necessarily decreasing the disparity in taxes paid vs received.

You are sounding more and more like a Republican every day! I knew one of these days you'd see the light! :D

First the best backfire thread of 2011, and now another self ownage. My...the loliburls are self destructing more and more it seems. I can only imagine what the rest of 2011 and 2012 will bring....

Chuck
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
You people aren't listening to me. There aren't red states and blue states. There is only urban and rural.

It's not always that simple. I live in a metro area with about a million people, and many of them are extremely conservative. The general consensus around here is that people should work for a living and basically be left to die if they don't want to. Metro areas on the other side of the country are wildly different, especially concerning things like government funding of art projects, overall energy policies, environmental policies, federalism vs state provincial rights, and various other things.

The thing that always confuses me is why the sides always need to disagree with each other. If my area wants to have poorly funded healthcare and no funding for art, then why would people in other regions care? I also don't understand why other regions want to increase funding for local festivals but they insist on using federal money to do it. What a bunch of hypocrit assholes. If they want an art festival, they should pay for it with their own money. This is not Russia.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
The thing that always confuses me is why the sides always need to disagree with each other. If my area wants to have poorly funded healthcare and no funding for art, then why would people in other regions care? I also don't understand why other regions want to increase funding for local festivals but they insist on using federal money to do it. What a bunch of hypocrit assholes. If they want an art festival, they should pay for it with their own money. This is not Russia.

Which is exactly what the founding fathers wanted... States being in control of issues with minimal federal interference. The states were meant to be a testing ground for different policies.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Which is exactly what the founding fathers wanted... States being in control of issues with minimal federal interference. The states were meant to be a testing ground for different policies.
The cool thing is that theoretically you could move to the state that most closely represents what you want since you're a citizen in all 50 states!

Unfortunately that's not the case so there's no real difference between Alaska and Florida other than the weather :'(
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
snip...

...I also don't understand why other regions want to increase funding for local festivals but they insist on using federal money to do it. What a bunch of hypocrit assholes. If they want an art festival, they should pay for it with their own money. This is not Russia.

That federal money that comes from taxes? That money is unlimited. Not only can we print more of it, but, in those peoples eyes, all money in the country earned is federal money, the Fed's are just gracious enough to let us keep some of it. Which is why higher taxes for more services/"services" isn't a problem for those people: It's just government keeping more of their (government's) money. What's wrong with keeping more of your own money?

Chuck
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
What's wrong with keeping more of your own money?

Unfortunately that's what it has turned into. Everyone else is trying to get federal money, so only an idiot would stand against the crowd and intentionally screw himself by not asking for any.