donnielove: Seriously? The abolish of slavery is the problem? Not the 150 years of policy since then? Gotcha.

That doesn't sound quite right ....

How about "the abolition of slavery"?
or "the abolishment of slavery"?
or "the abolitionization of slavery"?

3_Butt_Cheeks: kliq: I'm sick of politicians sucking up to the "small town values" BS.

This is what small towns values actually are:

1) Low ambition.
2) High levels of ignorance
3) Low levels of curiosity.

If your town was so amazing, more than 500 people would want to live there.

Your stereotypical blanket and wholly uninformed statement is a wonder to behold.

Please cite "low ambition", "ignorance", and the epic "low levels of curiosity". Anything besides "I went to X and saw a redneck" or "I saw a post online..."

Having grown up in a small town, I'll say that he is spot on about those general traits being found in most of the populace. I'll also say that I predicted pretty well which high school classmates would leave and who would stay based on those things. People that wanted to learn about the world, be exposed to new activities, and do something challenging were the ones that left.

Don't Troll Me Bro!: 3_Butt_Cheeks: kliq: I'm sick of politicians sucking up to the "small town values" BS.

This is what small towns values actually are:

1) Low ambition.
2) High levels of ignorance
3) Low levels of curiosity.

If your town was so amazing, more than 500 people would want to live there.

Your stereotypical blanket and wholly uninformed statement is a wonder to behold.

Please cite "low ambition", "ignorance", and the epic "low levels of curiosity". Anything besides "I went to X and saw a redneck" or "I saw a post online..."

Having grown up in a small town, I'll say that he is spot on about those general traits being found in most of the populace. I'll also say that I predicted pretty well which high school classmates would leave and who would stay based on those things. People that wanted to learn about the world, be exposed to new activities, and do something challenging were the ones that left.

Maybe your "small town" or some of the people were like that, but to generalize all "small towns" are like that is ridiculous.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Dan the Schman: Jim_Callahan: Um, from the article:

Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama, and North Carolina.

You want to make the case that these don't count as Republican states?

Really?

Really?

He seems to be making the point that the states seem much less partisan as they have (D) reps, and also vote (R) for POTUS.

Let's look at some actual numbers:

Mississippi
Governor: GOP
State House: GOP control
State Senate: GOP control

Arkansas
Governor: Dem
State House: Dem control
State Senate: Dem control

Tennessee
Governor: GOP
State House: GOP control
State Senate: GOP control

West Virginia
Governor: Dem
State House: Dem control
State Senate: Dem control

Louisiana
Governor: GOP
State House: GOP control
State Senate: GOP control

Montana
Governor: Dem
State House: GOP control
State Senate: GOP control

South Carolina
Governor: GOP
State House: GOP control
State Senate: GOP control

Kentucky
Governor: Dem
State House: Dem control
State Senate: GOP control

Alabama
Governor: GOP
State House: GOP control
State Senate: GOP control

North Carolina
Governor: Dem
State House: GOP control
State Senate: GOP control


So that's:
5 states with total GOP control
2 states with total Democratic control
2 states with GOP control of both legislative bodies + a Dem governor
1 state with Dem gov, Dem House, GOP senate

Or if you give one point for control of one of the 3 key pieces of the lawmaking process:
GOP: 20
Dem: 10

Seems to me that this is pretty solid proof that these states are GOP dominated. And that's not even counting the fact that a good chunk of the Democrats in these states are way to the right of national Democrats. A good chunk of Arkansas Democrats would run as Republicans in California or New York. The same can't be said the other way around.

Bottom line is that these states are way center of right. Republicans seem to love this fact when it comes time for a National election, but then when it's time to take accountability for failed state lawmaking policies all of a sudden they're making hilariously pained arguments that the south isn't deep red.

balloot: Seems to me that this is pretty solid proof that these states are GOP dominated. And that's not even counting the fact that a good chunk of the Democrats in these states are way to the right of national Democrats. A good chunk of Arkansas Democrats would run as Republicans in California or New York. The same can't be said the other way around.

Bottom line is that these states are way center of right. Republicans seem to love this fact when it comes time for a National election, but then when it's time to take accountability for failed state lawmaking policies all of a sudden they're making hilariously pained arguments that the south isn't deep red.

The article actually points out many other things you failed to mention.

Besides the "small town" generalization", rural areas which make less income tend to be based in the hearland; "flyover" country. I was also under the impression the left was supposed to be the champions of the 'less fortunate'....of course that is just kinda a flame line, but admittedly it is a mantra they do hold firmly to.

Anyway, what does the fact many of these states are blue mean to you personally, as a function of either argument or political philosophy?

3_Butt_Cheeks: balloot: Seems to me that this is pretty solid proof that these states are GOP dominated. And that's not even counting the fact that a good chunk of the Democrats in these states are way to the right of national Democrats. A good chunk of Arkansas Democrats would run as Republicans in California or New York. The same can't be said the other way around.

Bottom line is that these states are way center of right. Republicans seem to love this fact when it comes time for a National election, but then when it's time to take accountability for failed state lawmaking policies all of a sudden they're making hilariously pained arguments that the south isn't deep red.

The article actually points out many other things you failed to mention.

Besides the "small town" generalization", rural areas which make less income tend to be based in the hearland; "flyover" country. I was also under the impression the left was supposed to be the champions of the 'less fortunate'....of course that is just kinda a flame line, but admittedly it is a mantra they do hold firmly to.

Anyway, what does the fact many of these states are blue mean to you personally, as a function of either argument or political philosophy?

----------------

Democrats are champions of poor *people*, not poor states. If deep red states want to cut services to the bone, slash minimum wage, let huge swaths go uninsured, cut taxes for the rich, etc then they get what comes from that - a society with less rich people, less jobs, and lots of poor folk.

this is because the author failed to harmonize various statistical quirks

3_Butt_Cheeks: Maybe your "small town" or some of the people were like that, but to generalize all "small towns" are like that is ridiculous.

I go to all kinds of small towns for work (electrical grid stuff). I routinely stay for 3-10 days when on business. I see the same thing time and time again when I go to these places. People completely happy to not know anything about the world around them, but still all too happy to claim that their way of life is superior. One or two shiatty "diners" that serve greasy, salty food that tastes exactly the same as the last 100 small town diners I've been to. Confederate flags flying, and people calling the POTUS a traitor in one breath, then talking about secession in the next breath.

Do counterexamples exist? Hell yeah they do. Are there some amazing restaurants and some really cool people who have some cool stories to tell in small towns? Again, yes. But from my experience, both having grown up in small town WI, and my professional experience visiting these places around the country, small town USA is largely a farking dump filled with people that are proud of their ignorance.

Q: Are the morons on Medicare who held up misspelled signs proclaiming "Kep ur hondz off mai docterz" really smart enough to know the difference?

A: your mom is a hooker

I'm confused here. The point that we libs libs libs attempt to drive home when talking about poor Republican states is that the Republican message is explicitly tailored against these people. Between calling them "welfare queens" or just deriding them as lazy, it should hurt their electability. But therein lies the contradiction; Republicans can afford to hate the poor in these states precisely because they have such a stranglehold on the electorate in those states.

brantgoose: The author correctly points out that all of the ten poorest states are in the South. He is correct to say that there are historical reasons for this poverty, namely the quasi-feudal structure of society and the agrarian economy--an economy large landowners and slaves and free poor with a tiny educated, professional or bourgeois elite (mostly cotton and tobacco traders).

His argument starts to fall apart when he accuses the Democrats of a post hoc ergo propter hoc, because of several flaws. For one thing, he seems to be committing the same logical fallacy himself with respect to Democratic policies as he accuses the Democrats of committing with respect to Republican policies.

Furthermore, although he recognizes that the Republicans took over the South only the 1960s and 1970s, and thus can't be blamed for the policies of Democrats prior to that time, he commits the fallacy of begging the question by assuming that the Republican policies since the Republicans took over the South are any different from those of the Democrats before. In reality, it's more a case of the South taking over the Republican party than it is of the Republican Party taking over the South. And the same is true of the Democrats--it was not Southern Democrats that took over the North, it was the North that took over the Southern democrats. The parties essentially swapped geographic, social and political positions like the old chestnut about the priest and the atheist who convert each other on the atheist's death bed.

In reality, Southern Republicans have continued the prejudices, values and policies of the Southern Democrats before the 1960s and can justly be blamed for the poverty and backwardness of the South, as well as the South's peculiarly Cavalier social and political structure because they are merely the continuance of the Old South in modern dress. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Furthermore, the causes of economic conditions may be durable historical and deeply rooted, but p ...

I would like ^this^ post to have my babies.

People are lazy. They don't want to do what it takes to be responsible citizens so they are fodder for anyone who offers easy solutions to their complex problems ...

The problem is there are no easy solutions. Rich men lie, normal people revert to school pep rallies, and we excitedly elect yet another crook.

Collectively, we are far too stupid and corrupt to govern ourselves. Invariably it all goes to shiat.

Rome lasted 1000 years. I doubt we will make it to 300.

Corporate Self: Rome lasted 1000 years. I doubt we will make it to 300.

Technology accelerates everything. Even demise.

Up next: the Joker isn't really all that bad of a guy, and actually rather successful if you think about it from his perspective. And Batman? Please.... he's just an overrated loser who really hasn't done THAT much to help society.

BSABSVJ

Shaggy_C: Republicans can afford to hate the poor in these states precisely because they have such a stranglehold on the electorate in those states.

And because Republicans have flawlessly crafted their invective to make their "base" think they're talking about some other group of poor people.

"Vote for me and I'll tell those damn lazy welfare leeches to get a damn job! Stupid worthless sacks of crap. ...Oh, not you guys. You're all just...umm...ummm...'soon-to-haves.' Yeah, that's it, you're soon-to-haves! And it's because of those poor people over there that you're not haves now!"

LasersHurt: plus hey, it was hard to recover from losing Slavery.

And don't forget - these are the same people who scream bloody murder if you mention slavery as a reason why African Americans continue to struggle economically.

Shaggy_C: I'm confused here. The point that we libs libs libs attempt to drive home when talking about poor Republican states is that the Republican message is explicitly tailored against these people. Between calling them "welfare queens" or just deriding them as lazy, it should hurt their electability. But therein lies the contradiction; Republicans can afford to hate the poor in these states precisely because they have such a stranglehold on the electorate in those states.

Poor white guys in Alabama who are collecting food stamps and welfare checks don't consider themselves welfare queens because they're not black or female and don't live in a big, liberal voting city.

Dr.Zom: He makes a great argument for reparations to African Americans for slavery.

Okay, how about if you can prove that you, personally, were kept in slavery we'll give you 40 acres and a mule.

/None of my ancestors got here before 1880

Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

I is a collage teacher of derp.

TV's Vinnie: The Great EZE: It's old and another farker linked to it a few days ago, but it's always worth mentioning for this discussion. You really have to hustle to stay that poor and ignorant. You might as well take credit for all your anti-work and stop blaming the libs.

/Yes, they did one with black people the following week because, after all, Both Sides Are Bad

That toothless hick that keeps talking about how things might get better for him (hint: it's not, Cletus) if he keeps voting republican is what's truly wrong with our country. God how much I want to take a plane down there to Mississippi just to punch the living f*ck out him! So many people out there who are now homeless and even dead because of jackwagons like him who voted.

It's not so much the skeevy rightwing politicians waging war on women and the poor. It's militant dumbasses like this hillbilly that keep voting in such slimebags. THEY are the ones that should be dealt with if we are every going to be a free nation again.

It's hardly limited to Dixie, and a fine example if that is the recent vote in Wisconsin: Scott Walker was voted back in in part by goobers livung close to poverty level who didnt want the opportunity to improve their lives, but to see others dragged down into misery. So the sad fact is morons are a national, not regional problem.

theorellior: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: My most recent book is "Famous But Nameless: Lessons and Inspiration from the Bible's Anonymous Characters.

That's gonna be a page-turner.

Actually, as a fiction analysis, it would be fascinating to professors and scholars studying things like Western myth.

However, my reaction to the article was more this:

Emposter: Wow. It's North's fault for not letting the South keep their slaves, and promoting education.

The article actually says that.

tarkus1980: kliq: I'm sick of politicians sucking up to the "small town values" BS.

This is what small towns values actually are:

1) Low ambition.
2) High levels of ignorance
3) Low levels of curiosity.

If your town was so amazing, more than 500 people would want to live there.

Stealing.

Actually those three points fit my small town to a "T" and sh*tloads of people keep moving here. Unfortunately, they're all retirees.

balloot: Bottom line is that these states are way center of right. Republicans seem to love this fact when it comes time for a National election, but then when it's time to take accountability for failed state lawmaking policies all of a sudden they're making hilariously pained arguments that the south isn't deep red.

They like to pretend that every D is Nancy Pelosi, ignoring the fact that tons of those D's in red states would be blue dogs in congress or an R in blue state, just like a lot of the R's in blue states do things like Romneycare.

Being from the two liberal parts of North Carolina(RTP,Cary), I can actually see what they're talking about.

Just because the state is poor, doesn't mean that all the counties are poor.

Wake county has several tech companies, which bring in money.
Mecklenburg County has several company HQs, which bring in money.

I'd count the area around Fort Bragg, but a lot of people in the Army aren't smart enough to look past the next election, so they only vote in their short term interests.

Don't worry - liberals from the northeastern part of the country are already turning former shiatholes like Virginia and North Carolina into livable places. Maybe they'll save Georgia and Florida next and turn them into successful states like Massachusetts, Washington, etc., etc.

Smelly McUgly: Don't worry - liberals from the northeastern part of the country are already turning former shiatholes like Virginia and North Carolina into livable places. Maybe they'll save Georgia and Florida next and turn them into successful states like Massachusetts, Washington, etc., etc.

No state/commonwealth aspires to become more like Massachusetts or ..... Washington state.

Washington? Really?

I liked Virginia before the invasion of northerners looking to co-opt our lifestyle and burden us with versions of the ideas that forced them to flee their homeland and relatives.

whidbey: tarkus1980: kliq: I'm sick of politicians sucking up to the "small town values" BS.

This is what small towns values actually are:

1) Low ambition.
2) High levels of ignorance
3) Low levels of curiosity.

If your town was so amazing, more than 500 people would want to live there.

Stealing.

Actually those three points fit my small town to a "T" and sh*tloads of people keep moving here. Unfortunately, they're all retirees.

Well, all the other three can be loosely summarized as "Waiting for death", so you're still covered.

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Again, yes. But from my experience, both having grown up in small town WI, and my professional experience visiting these places around the country, small town USA is largely a farking dump filled with people that are proud of their ignorance.

Ok...we all have our experiences. Making sweeping generalizations is still just asinine considering the # of "small towns" across the USA.

Hobodeluxe: Fluorescent Testicle: It's the Democrats' fault that they don't head-slap the TeaPublicans every time they bring up Supply Side Jesus and his voodoo economics.

we do. the thing is they don't listen to anyone they don't agree with. they have their own "reality" their own media. their own textbooks,wikipedia and etc.

And even their own Bible, thanks to said "their own wikipedia"!

Step 1: Spend $800 billion a year for 10 years on the military industrial complex.
Step 2: Blame poor people for the trillions lost on wars and indefinite detention.
Step 3: Get poor people to give themselves austerity on the belief if they wanted healthcare its socialism, but don't look to cutting war spending.
Step 4: Roll in money

Ever notice the IMF c-span meeting in which rich people get together to talk about economics? Normally their logic is that people fit into three main categories, Financial, Investor, and Working class. They believe in billion dollar bail outs for the financial and investor class, but believe in austerity for the working class to pay for it.

That's right, bankers lose billions of YOUR money, and they are given another billion dollars of your grand childrens money. The person with no access to healthcare or social services is left to pay for the rich guys mistakes of poor speculation and/or investing.

"As is common in societies based on producing raw commodities, the Old South had an elite that owned the land and employed a poorly educated workforce to plant, tend, and harvest the crops. Historically, then, education was of less importance, and therefore emphasized less, in the South than in the North-a trend that contributed ongoing economic advantages to the North."

Somehow I don't find the explanation that poverty is (or was) caused by education being a low priority and the economy being controlled by the "elite" class to be a compelling argument for voting Republican.

The Why Not Guy: LasersHurt: plus hey, it was hard to recover from losing Slavery.

And don't forget - these are the same people who scream bloody murder if you mention slavery as a reason why African Americans continue to struggle economically.

Slavery has been over for a while. Jim Crow is still within living memory though. I mean, hell, I can remember when Floriduh integrated their schools. People are still alive who experienced that shiat.

Ron Paul?

Lunchlady: You think Big Tobacco can spend a lot? Can you imagine the money Pharmaceuticals and research firms would have pumped into every Executive Office election so their guy would get put on the board to funnel the research dollars into their chosen outfit?

Before I call bullsh*t on everything you've just posted, if "pharmaceuticals and research firms" (never mind that these organizations that supported this have but a fraction of the money big tobacco has, but let's pretend) had all this cash to spend on "every Executive Office election so their guy would get put on the board"... why didn't they?

One might think that for something this important to them, they could at least outspend a few huge multinational corporations... that is, if they had that kind of money in the first place.

Look into it yourself. Here, I'll give you a head start:

Organizations that supported prop 29:
American Cancer Society ~ American Heart Association
American Lung Association in California
Livestrong - Lance Armstrong Foundation
Stand Up to Cancer ~ Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
California Medical Association ~ University of California
California Hospital Association
American Association for Cancer Research
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecologists, California
Association of Northern California Oncologists
Bay Area Breast Surgeons, Inc.
California Children's Hospital Association
California Hosptial Association
California Medical Association
California Primary Care Association
California State PTA
Cancer Center of Santa Barbara
Cedars Sinai Medical Center
Children's Hospital & Research Center, Oakland
City of Hope Hospital
Clinico Oscar Romero
Diablo Valley Oncology
Good Samaritan Hospital, Los Angeles
Humboldt-Del Norte County Medical Society
Huntington Hospital, Pasadena
Integrated Oncology Network, Corona Del Mar
Integrative Radiation Oncology Medical Associates
Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute
Marin Pharmacy Association
Molina Healthcare, California
Operation Samahan Community Health Center, National City
Orange County Cancer Coalition
Riverside County Family Care Centers
San Francisco County Medical Association
San Luis Obispo County Medical Association
San Mateo County Medical Association
Santa Barbara Hematology Oncology medical Group
Scripps Memorial Hospital
St. John's Regional Medical Center, Oxnard
St. Joseph Health
St. Rose Hospital, Hayward
St. Theresa Comprehensive Cancer Center, Stockton
St Joseph's Medical Center, Stockton
St Mary's Medical Center, Long Beach
Tulare County Medical Association
UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center
USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center & Hospital

Organizations that opposed prop 29:follow the money!
Philip Morris Tobacco Company
US Smokeless Tobacco (Altria Tobacco)
American Snuff Company (R.J.Reynolds Tobacco)
California Chamber of Commerce
California Taxpayers Association (which has people from RJ Reynolds as members)
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
Americans for Prosperity (Koch Brothers organization)

Now who's pumping dollars where?

One of these things is not like the others... and... you're full of sh*t.
If this is supposed to be a "social experiment" that might stop a few or even one person from dying from an easily preventable slew of diseases, then so be it.

Shaggy_C: I'm confused here. The point that we libs libs libs attempt to drive home when talking about poor Republican states is that the Republican message is explicitly tailored against these people. Between calling them "welfare queens" or just deriding them as lazy, it should hurt their electability. But therein lies the contradiction; Republicans can afford to hate the poor in these states precisely because they have such a stranglehold on the electorate in those states.

3 Gs.

god, gays and guns.

The stupid people who should vote Democratic don't because they are stupid and they fall for Republican scare tactics over god, gays and guns.

The Democrat's fault?
Just one?

"Yes your honor I did lynch that negro, but it's his fault he was black."

"Yes I fired that pregnant employee, but it's her fault women get pregnant."

"Yes I molested that kid but it's his fault I'm a pedophile."

Absurdist arguements are just that.

Empty Matchbook: According to these people, it's harder to recover from LOSING slavery than it is to recover from actually BEING a slave (or descended from one).

Well, the South is a population that literally was incapable of keeping itself alive without having Black people do the work. Southern notions of race said Blacks were subhuman at worst and genetically deficient humans at best - and Southern Whites could only survive if Blacks planted their food and harvested their cash crops. If Blacks are subhuman, what exactly are the people too retarded to live without said Blacks caring for them night and day? For Southerners losing slavery was worse: they don't have the mental, physical, and moral aptitude to take care of themselves. It's not their fault, really; they are just failed genetic freaks. Don't hate them for what they are, but pity them for their stunted development.

/Bless their hearts

jmr61: Shaggy_C: I'm confused here. The point that we libs libs libs attempt to drive home when talking about poor Republican states is that the Republican message is explicitly tailored against these people. Between calling them "welfare queens" or just deriding them as lazy, it should hurt their electability. But therein lies the contradiction; Republicans can afford to hate the poor in these states precisely because they have such a stranglehold on the electorate in those states.

3 Gs.

god, gays and guns.

The stupid people who should vote Democratic don't because they are stupid and they fall for Republican scare tactics over god, gays and guns.

And blacks. Although that angle is a much more subtle one.

Seems about right to me. The article is spot on.

kukukupo: Just being the devil's advocate here :

Wealth is relative. I could have 100,000 and be rich in the Midwest and I would be poor in California.

Have $100,000? Possibly
Make $100,000? Even in California, you're in the top 20% of wage earners. Sure, there are some places where that would be the median household income, but nowhere in California is an income of $100,000 per year even close to being poor.

kliq: LasersHurt: 3_Butt_Cheeks: kliq: I'm sick of politicians sucking up to the "small town values" BS.

This is what small towns values actually are:

1) Low ambition.
2) High levels of ignorance
3) Low levels of curiosity.

If your town was so amazing, more than 500 people would want to live there.

Your stereotypical blanket and wholly uninformed statement is a wonder to behold.

Please cite "low ambition", "ignorance", and the epic "low levels of curiosity". Anything besides "I went to X and saw a redneck" or "I saw a post online..."

I came from a small town. I can vouch for him - this applies only to those who STAY, of course, not everyone from a small town ever. And it likely doesn't count the small business owners, if there are any, because that takes some gumption.

I grew up in a big city and then in my parents' infinite wisdom, we moved to the suburbs because it was "safer." What I witnessed was horrifying. White people calling each other the "n" word. (Of course there weren't any actual black people in the town). A library with barely any books to read. Not a single good restaurant. Generations of families who apparently believe they were born into paradise and thus never traveled to any other countries. But of course America is number one!

Fark small towns.

Wait, suburbs=small towns?

/Weird.

Sabyen91: Wait, suburbs=small towns?

Look. 69.000 people really isn't that many people, it's like a small town-- I'm sure everyone is on a first-name basis and gossip about what the other 68,000 are doing at any given time.

t's nothing like the big city where you don't know your own neighbors and have to lock your door at night.

whidbey: Sabyen91: Wait, suburbs=small towns?

Look. 69.000 people really isn't that many people, it's like a small town-- I'm sure everyone is on a first-name basis and gossip about what the other 68,000 are doing at any given time.

t's nothing like the big city where you don't know your own neighbors and have to lock your door at night.

Hehe, actually my objection to his use of suburb=small town is less about the amount of people and more about the economic and political realities of a suburb vs. a rural small town. They are nothing alike so I was struck by him using his experience living in a suburb to smear all small towns.