Worst US State
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 02, 2024, 12:02:23 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Worst US State
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
Author Topic: Worst US State  (Read 31695 times)
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: July 26, 2004, 11:55:57 AM »

Mr. Fresh,

The funny thing is this....if you or I had said, "I don't like Detroit because it's filled with all of those crazy MUSLIMS" can you imagine the reaction of the Left Wingers?

It's OK for them to make fun of Christian-based religions and call them all sorts of names, but they enforce political correctness in all other areas.

Hypocrisy 101...

Amazingly, you are completely right.  I just read something where a City Council in South Carolina can't open with a prayer mentioning Jesus, yet I bet they could do the same mentioning Allah.

Yep. In Palm Beach, the city council refused to allow Christians to put up a nativity scene at their place of business, yet the CITY ITSELF had expressions of the Jewish and Islamic faith specifically placed on city property!!!

You Christians have enough Churches everywhere, you don't need a frickin nativity scene.  

So much for freedom, huh?

Oh, you can have it, but you don't need it.  You flaunt yourselves enough.  
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: July 26, 2004, 11:56:53 AM »

Mr. Fresh,

The funny thing is this....if you or I had said, "I don't like Detroit because it's filled with all of those crazy MUSLIMS" can you imagine the reaction of the Left Wingers?

It's OK for them to make fun of Christian-based religions and call them all sorts of names, but they enforce political correctness in all other areas.

Hypocrisy 101...

Amazingly, you are completely right.  I just read something where a City Council in South Carolina can't open with a prayer mentioning Jesus, yet I bet they could do the same mentioning Allah.

Yep. In Palm Beach, the city council refused to allow Christians to put up a nativity scene at their place of business, yet the CITY ITSELF had expressions of the Jewish and Islamic faith specifically placed on city property!!!

You Christians have enough Churches everywhere, you don't need a frickin nativity scene.  

So much for freedom, huh?

Oh, you can have it, but you don't need it.  You flaunt yourselves enough.  


And out comes the truth of the Democratic party.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: July 26, 2004, 12:01:41 PM »

Mr. Fresh,

The funny thing is this....if you or I had said, "I don't like Detroit because it's filled with all of those crazy MUSLIMS" can you imagine the reaction of the Left Wingers?

It's OK for them to make fun of Christian-based religions and call them all sorts of names, but they enforce political correctness in all other areas.

Hypocrisy 101...

Amazingly, you are completely right.  I just read something where a City Council in South Carolina can't open with a prayer mentioning Jesus, yet I bet they could do the same mentioning Allah.

Yep. In Palm Beach, the city council refused to allow Christians to put up a nativity scene at their place of business, yet the CITY ITSELF had expressions of the Jewish and Islamic faith specifically placed on city property!!!

You Christians have enough Churches everywhere, you don't need a frickin nativity scene.  

So much for freedom, huh?

Oh, you can have it, but you don't need it.  You flaunt yourselves enough.  


And out comes the truth of the Democratic party.

What did I just say.  I believe people can do what they want, but it doesn't mean I'm not going to have an opinion about it, and I'm personally very outspoken.  I'm wasn't talking about the democratic party.  
Logged
elcorazon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: July 26, 2004, 12:02:24 PM »

There's no way I'm reading this whole thread...   Anybody want to sum it up for me?


Some people don't like some states while other people don't like other states. Some people didn't read the question and started posting about cities. Others who didn't read the question started listing several state they didn't like. I think that gets you up to date.
Thanks.  I'm sure glad I didn't bother reading it.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,409
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: July 26, 2004, 12:10:14 PM »

Mr. Fresh,

The funny thing is this....if you or I had said, "I don't like Detroit because it's filled with all of those crazy MUSLIMS" can you imagine the reaction of the Left Wingers?

It's OK for them to make fun of Christian-based religions and call them all sorts of names, but they enforce political correctness in all other areas.

Hypocrisy 101...

Amazingly, you are completely right.  I just read something where a City Council in South Carolina can't open with a prayer mentioning Jesus, yet I bet they could do the same mentioning Allah.

Yep. In Palm Beach, the city council refused to allow Christians to put up a nativity scene at their place of business, yet the CITY ITSELF had expressions of the Jewish and Islamic faith specifically placed on city property!!!

You Christians have enough Churches everywhere, you don't need a frickin nativity scene.  

So much for freedom, huh?

Oh, you can have it, but you don't need it.  You flaunt yourselves enough.  


And out comes the truth of the Democratic party.

What did I just say.  I believe people can do what they want, but it doesn't mean I'm not going to have an opinion about it, and I'm personally very outspoken.  I'm wasn't talking about the democratic party.  

That's not flaunting, it's expressing our religion.
Logged
I spent the winter writing songs about getting better
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 113,435
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: July 26, 2004, 12:28:35 PM »

Of course we can look at history and see what Democrats have done for blacks compared to Republicans. We know which party has the nastier of the history and it doesn't start with a "R" either.

do you blame the current German government for the Holocaust? That makes as much sense as blaming the modern day Democratic party for slavery.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: July 26, 2004, 12:50:27 PM »

Of course we can look at history and see what Democrats have done for blacks compared to Republicans. We know which party has the nastier of the history and it doesn't start with a "R" either.

do you blame the current German government for the Holocaust? That makes as much sense as blaming the modern day Democratic party for slavery.

Their modern policies of the Democratic party try to latch people on to the government for economic benefits. Slavery was pretty close to that.
Logged
I spent the winter writing songs about getting better
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 113,435
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: July 26, 2004, 12:56:09 PM »

Of course we can look at history and see what Democrats have done for blacks compared to Republicans. We know which party has the nastier of the history and it doesn't start with a "R" either.

do you blame the current German government for the Holocaust? That makes as much sense as blaming the modern day Democratic party for slavery.

Their modern policies of the Democratic party try to latch people on to the government for economic benefits. Slavery was pretty close to that.

But 90% of blacks apparentely don't think so.

By the way, what about the 1968 election? Wallace was running because Humphrey was the Democrat most responsible for adding the Civil Rights plank to the Democratic platform. And hence Wallace took more votes from Nixon, something most Republicans here admit. And then came Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to pick up annoyed segregationists.  Oh but wait, I'm talking to someone who says he would've voted for Wallace!
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: July 26, 2004, 12:57:51 PM »

Of course we can look at history and see what Democrats have done for blacks compared to Republicans. We know which party has the nastier of the history and it doesn't start with a "R" either.

do you blame the current German government for the Holocaust? That makes as much sense as blaming the modern day Democratic party for slavery.

Their modern policies of the Democratic party try to latch people on to the government for economic benefits. Slavery was pretty close to that.

But 90% of blacks apparentely don't think so.

By the way, what about the 1968 election? Wallace was running because Humphrey was the Democrat most responsible for adding the Civil Rights plank to the Democratic platform. And hence Wallace took more votes from Nixon, something most Republicans here admit. And then came Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to pick up annoyed segregationists.  Oh but wait, I'm talking to someone who says he would've voted for Wallace!

Yes I would have voted for Wallace because I agree with his foreign policy stands and his ways to deal with hippie traitors.
Logged
I spent the winter writing songs about getting better
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 113,435
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: July 26, 2004, 01:01:48 PM »

Then why are you whining about the racism of the Democratic party which happened 140 years ago, especially since back then the Democrats were opposed to the man you hate most in American politics.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: July 26, 2004, 01:04:13 PM »

Then why are you whining about the racism of the Democratic party which happened 140 years ago, especially since back then the Democrats were opposed to the man you hate most in American politics.


The racism the participate in nowadays is economic racism and Affirmative Action racism. Dependence = Slavery.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,409
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: July 26, 2004, 01:21:11 PM »

Then why are you whining about the racism of the Democratic party which happened 140 years ago, especially since back then the Democrats were opposed to the man you hate most in American politics.


The racism the participate in nowadays is economic racism and Affirmative Action racism. Dependence = Slavery.

Then it seems everyone here has been enslaved at some point in their lives: when they were kids.

Like Dan Quayle said:

I understand the importance of bondage between parent and child.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,703
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: July 26, 2004, 01:23:00 PM »

Of course we can look at history and see what Democrats have done for blacks compared to Republicans. We know which party has the nastier of the history and it doesn't start with a "R" either.

do you blame the current German government for the Holocaust? That makes as much sense as blaming the modern day Democratic party for slavery.

Their modern policies of the Democratic party try to latch people on to the government for economic benefits. Slavery was pretty close to that.

But 90% of blacks apparentely don't think so.

By the way, what about the 1968 election? Wallace was running because Humphrey was the Democrat most responsible for adding the Civil Rights plank to the Democratic platform. And hence Wallace took more votes from Nixon, something most Republicans here admit. And then came Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to pick up annoyed segregationists.  Oh but wait, I'm talking to someone who says he would've voted for Wallace!

Yes I would have voted for Wallace because I agree with his foreign policy stands and his ways to deal with hippie traitors.

Why hippie traitors? Because they wouldn't fight? Then why not quaker traitors? Or amish traitors? Or mennonite traitors? Or jehova's witnesses traitors?

If your calling them that for other reasons, pay no attention to my remarks.

P.S.--I very much deslike the hippie message myself
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: July 26, 2004, 01:59:19 PM »

Of course we can look at history and see what Democrats have done for blacks compared to Republicans. We know which party has the nastier of the history and it doesn't start with a "R" either.

do you blame the current German government for the Holocaust? That makes as much sense as blaming the modern day Democratic party for slavery.

Their modern policies of the Democratic party try to latch people on to the government for economic benefits. Slavery was pretty close to that.

But 90% of blacks apparentely don't think so.

By the way, what about the 1968 election? Wallace was running because Humphrey was the Democrat most responsible for adding the Civil Rights plank to the Democratic platform. And hence Wallace took more votes from Nixon, something most Republicans here admit. And then came Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to pick up annoyed segregationists.  Oh but wait, I'm talking to someone who says he would've voted for Wallace!

Yes I would have voted for Wallace because I agree with his foreign policy stands and his ways to deal with hippie traitors.

Why hippie traitors? Because they wouldn't fight? Then why not quaker traitors? Or amish traitors? Or mennonite traitors? Or jehova's witnesses traitors?

If your calling them that for other reasons, pay no attention to my remarks.

P.S.--I very much deslike the hippie message myself


No, I disagree with their often violent tactics.
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: July 26, 2004, 02:07:34 PM »
« Edited: July 26, 2004, 02:08:14 PM by migrendel »

For the record, this is the current legal standard on nativity scenes. A government entity can display a nativity scene if placed within a secular context of Christmas being a national holiday, and does not imply endorsment of religion. This was decided in the case of Lynch v. Donelly, 5-4 (O'Connor, Rehnquist, Burger, White, and Powell in the majority, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens in dissent). The Court has further clarified this rule by forbidding the display of a creche it felt to be too religious. This particular creche was ungarnished by any secularizing periphery, as the creche at issue in the Lynch case was, but did have a banner over it reading "Gloria in excelsis deo". This display was held to be unconstitutional in the case of Allegheny County v. ACLU (O'Connor, Brennan, Blackmun, Marshall, and Stevens in the majority, Rehnquist, White, Kennedy, and Scalia in dissent).

My personal position is a categorical opposition to these displays. I believe that we honor the tradition of freedom by keeping our government out of religion, and allowing it to be a matter left to the dictates of our own consciences, and not make pariahs out of certain members of the political community with such aggressive displays of Christianity.
Logged
MarkDel
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,149


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: July 26, 2004, 02:11:55 PM »
« Edited: July 26, 2004, 02:18:10 PM by MarkDel »

For the record, this is the current legal standard on nativity scenes. A government entity can display a nativity scene if placed within a secular context of Christmas being a national holiday, and does not imply endorsment of religion. This was decided in the case of Lynch v. Donelly, 5-4 (O'Connor, Rehnquist, Burger, White, and Powell in the majority, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens in dissent). The Court has further clarified this rule by forbidding the display of a creche it felt to be too religious. This particular creche was ungarnished by any secularizing periphery, as the creche at issue in the Lynch case was, but did have a banner over it reading "Gloria in excelsis deo". This display was held to be unconstitutional in the case of Allegheny County v. ACLU (O'Connor, Brennan, Blackmun, Marshall, and Stevens in the majority, Rehnquist, White, Kennedy, and Scalia in dissent).

My personal position is a categorical opposition to these displays. I believe that we honor the tradition of freedom by keeping our government out of religion, and allowing it to be a matter left to the dictates of our own consciences, and not make pariahs out of certain members of the political community with such aggressive displays of Christianity.

Migrendel,

That's a nice lesson in Con Law, but it actually has nothing to do with what the situation was in Palm Beach. They were excluding Christian displays while openly endorsing and promoting Jewish and Islamic displays...surely you would not agree that it's OK to promote one religion over another?
Logged
bejkuy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 329


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #166 on: July 26, 2004, 03:40:04 PM »

Scranton, PA; Brigdeport, Conn; Buffalo, NY; and Gary, IN.

Watch it! I like the Rustbelt (admittedly Gary proper is a sh*thole, but the other cities you mentioned aren't that bad).

If you want to pick on a Anthracite region town, go with Centralia. What's left of it... Sad

You must mean Centralia Washington, our number one employer(around 1500 people)  is the coal mine and ajoining steam plant.

Yes, there is some coal in the Northwest.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,899
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #167 on: July 26, 2004, 03:50:13 PM »

Scranton, PA; Brigdeport, Conn; Buffalo, NY; and Gary, IN.

Watch it! I like the Rustbelt (admittedly Gary proper is a sh*thole, but the other cities you mentioned aren't that bad).

If you want to pick on a Anthracite region town, go with Centralia. What's left of it... Sad

You must mean Centralia Washington, our number one employer(around 1500 people)  is the coal mine and ajoining steam plant.

Yes, there is some coal in the Northwest.

Nope. I mean Centralia, Pennsylvania. What's left of it anyway... I think a couple of people still live there.
Before the disaster it wasn't a bad little town from what I've heard.
Logged
Schmitz in 1972
Liberty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,317
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #168 on: July 26, 2004, 04:47:49 PM »

There are several states which don't exactly have my affections

Maryland may be my least favorite because it's so disgustingly liberal, has an ugly flag, an ugly motto ("manly deeds, womanly words"), and an ugly city named Baltimore

Massachusetts has become a close second due to senators Kennedy and Kerry
Logged
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #169 on: July 26, 2004, 04:52:14 PM »

There are several states which don't exactly have my affections

Maryland may be my least favorite because it's so disgustingly liberal, has an ugly flag, an ugly motto ("manly deeds, womanly words"), and an ugly city named Baltimore

Massachusetts has become a close second due to senators Kennedy and Kerry

Baltimore is a better city than anything Virginia has. It's not our fault our flag stinks.
Logged
Schmitz in 1972
Liberty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,317
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #170 on: July 26, 2004, 05:05:32 PM »

You may be right, Richmond has a higher murder rate than Manhattan.

Actually I dislike Baltimore a lot because my Cleveland Browns were moved here and were turned into the Ravens in '96 and then went on to win a Superbowl in '01. Since the Browns returned their experiences with the Ravens have been terrible (last year the Raven's Jamal Lewis set the single game rushing record vs. Cleveland).

And regardless of any of that it's still not a city I would particularly like to live in, but then again, neither would I like to live in the city of Richmond
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,305
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #171 on: July 26, 2004, 07:14:29 PM »

I think that [politics] has to be a factor, but there are PLENTY of reasons why I hate Massachusetts that has nothing to do with politics.

Interesting you should say that, since there are plenty of reasons that I LOVE Massachusetts that have nothing to do with politics.
Logged
Brambila
Brambilla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #172 on: July 26, 2004, 09:38:05 PM »

Politically? Massachusetts; Vermont; Conneticut; Rhode Island; Maryland. Otherwise, I wouldn't mind living in any of those states. Boston might be fun.
Logged
cwelsch
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #173 on: July 27, 2004, 06:37:33 AM »

The South and Mid-Atlantic are horrible for me.  I hate strong police powers and my personal experiences in both suggest to me the police are a little extra corrupt in many parts of the South and quite ticket-happy in the Mid-Atlantic.  And on a personal level I wouldn't want to live in Massachusetts because I'm not a Masshole.
Logged
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #174 on: July 27, 2004, 06:56:59 AM »

You may be right, Richmond has a higher murder rate than Manhattan.

Actually I dislike Baltimore a lot because my Cleveland Browns were moved here and were turned into the Ravens in '96 and then went on to win a Superbowl in '01. Since the Browns returned their experiences with the Ravens have been terrible (last year the Raven's Jamal Lewis set the single game rushing record vs. Cleveland).

And regardless of any of that it's still not a city I would particularly like to live in, but then again, neither would I like to live in the city of Richmond

O I see. The Ravens are actually my favorite team. I think the Ravens lead the all-time series vs. the Browns 7-3, although hte Browns did beat the Ravesn twice in 2001. I thank Art Modell for having to courage to come to Baltimore and making a new home for his great football team.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 9 queries.