• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

If I Was President

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
I'm going to go out on a limb and say "Occupy Democrats" numbers are suspect.

I'm betting this list doesn't even take into account entitlements.

Jason Peterson said this, in the comments, and he sums it up nicely…

"First problem with the premise of the article is that there is no definition for "federal funding"...so this most likely includes military installations, etc.

Second problem is that painting states purely as "red" or "blue" is a straw-man argument. Many of the Red states were BARELY red, and many Blue states were BARELY blue - so to assume that a state's "color" makes it conservative or liberal is ludicrous (using the electoral college results as a barometer of overall political persuasion of a state is like using bottle caps to do a cola taste test).

Third problem is that many of the states painted "red" here are actually run by the Democratic party. #1 on his list, for example - New Hampshire is painted "red" but the Democratic party has a 37-33 majority in the senate, and a Democratic Governor. #2 on the list (West Virginia) has a 53-47 senate majority for the Democrats and a Democrat for Governor, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I feel that many right-wingers are whiners that only want to oppose everything that isn't totally conservative. However, most liberal "holier than's" who go pomping around with "Statistics" and "Data" are usually manipulating the data (as is the case here) and are just as full of crap.


And all of God's people said "AMEN".
 

JohnDeereFan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'm going to go out on a limb and say "Occupy Democrats" numbers are suspect.

I'm betting this list doesn't even take into account entitlements.

Jason Peterson said this, in the comments, and he sums it up nicely…

"First problem with the premise of the article is that there is no definition for "federal funding"...so this most likely includes military installations, etc.

Second problem is that painting states purely as "red" or "blue" is a straw-man argument. Many of the Red states were BARELY red, and many Blue states were BARELY blue - so to assume that a state's "color" makes it conservative or liberal is ludicrous (using the electoral college results as a barometer of overall political persuasion of a state is like using bottle caps to do a cola taste test).

Third problem is that many of the states painted "red" here are actually run by the Democratic party. #1 on his list, for example - New Hampshire is painted "red" but the Democratic party has a 37-33 majority in the senate, and a Democratic Governor. #2 on the list (West Virginia) has a 53-47 senate majority for the Democrats and a Democrat for Governor, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I feel that many right-wingers are whiners that only want to oppose everything that isn't totally conservative. However, most liberal "holier than's" who go pomping around with "Statistics" and "Data" are usually manipulating the data (as is the case here) and are just as full of crap.


And all of God's people said "AMEN".

I would also point out that every "red" state has urban centers that are overwhelmingly "blue".

In Alabama, a red state, Birmingham, Montgomery, and Bessemer are all "blue". They all present a serious drain on the state.

Georgia is an even better example. Atlanta is dragging that state down like a rock.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
So why is it they require more money from the Feds to stay afloat than the Blue states? Seems they are welfare states the Blue states are supporting.


We learn quick. The latest leftist mantra is take welfare and do what you enjoy. So we are taking yankee money and huntin, fishin, golfin, all on the yankees dime!
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I would also point out that every "red" state has urban centers that are overwhelmingly "blue".

In Alabama, a red state, Birmingham, Montgomery, and Bessemer are all "blue". They all present a serious drain on the state.

Georgia is an even better example. Atlanta is dragging that state down like a rock.

GA would be nothing without Atlanta. Get real.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I would also point out that every "red" state has urban centers that are overwhelmingly "blue".

In Alabama, a red state, Birmingham, Montgomery, and Bessemer are all "blue". They all present a serious drain on the state.

Georgia is an even better example. Atlanta is dragging that state down like a rock.

Yea get real!
 

blackbird

Active Member
You're going to have to explain what governors your OP refers to before I can answer that question. It is not unconstitutional for a state governor to lobby for less federal government spending, or less federal government, which is what your OP details. So what governors are you talking about here?

Louisiana Gov Bobby Jyndal??? Media has coined him as a crybaby! It figures the bias media would do that!!!
 

padredurand

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
TND's link explained it much better.

Deese guyz; Dose guyz; Dem guyz.

Dat's how youse conjumagate poysonal pronouns.

Back to the OP.:thumbsup:

If I were King of the Forest, Not queen, not duke, not prince.
My regal robes of the forest, would be satin, not cotton, not chintz.
I'd command each thing, be it fish or fowl.
With a woof and a woof and a royal growl - woof.
As I'd click my heel, all the trees would kneel.
And the mountains bow and the bulls kowtow.
And the sparrow would take wing - If I - If I - were King!
Each rabbit would show respect to me.
The chipmunks genuflect to me.
Though my tail would lash, I would show compash
For every underling!
If I - If I - were King!
Just King!

Wizard Of Oz - If I Were King Of The Forest
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I would not call Sherman and his troops men! They were scavengers!

If Sherman's men were not men what does that make the Southern boys they whipped?

Old, they were all men, both sides, and put up with much more hardship then either you or I have ever thought about. Don't insult those who were such important men in our history.

Remember I am a Southerner but not so biased as some seem to be here.
 

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
You're as biased as anyone, here. And we have your entire posting history to prove it.
 
Top