The Goat Pen

Dem's have to explain the urban decay in many major cities they run.

But R's have to explain the near-Armageddon they left America's economy in after they ran it for 8 years.

yep. But their still not gonna let a negro tell them what to do.

We've come so far they would have you believe but we really haven't. Money still buys politics. Nothing really changed.

Professor Tiger wrote:Dem's have to explain the urban decay in many major cities they run.

But R's have to explain the near-Armageddon they left America's economy in after they ran it for 8 years.

"after suffering the loss of the world trade center via terrorist attack & the unfortunate fact that the dumocrats held sway in Congress the last 2 years under Bush..."

There, fixed your typo. No charge!

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Mayors of America's 50 largest Cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:M ... _US_cities

34 Dems, 12 Republicans, 4 Independents. I imagine all the Dem-run places are horrible places to live.

Its not that they are horrible DSL.

But Dems don't typically make the place any better after they've left it.

gule wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:Dem's have to explain the urban decay in many major cities they run.

But R's have to explain the near-Armageddon they left America's economy in after they ran it for 8 years.

"after suffering the loss of the world trade center via terrorist attack & the unfortunate fact that the dumocrats held sway in Congress the last 2 years under Bush..."

There, fixed your typo. No charge!

Yep, a fact many ignore. The economic downturn started when Dems took over both houses in 2006. Coincidence?

The downturn/housing collapse was birthed in the Carter admin and there's zero gained blaming/praising the Bush II years. I just want to see a dem or their msm sycophants grow some sack and hold Obammer accountable for his putrid record.

So Bush II is unblameable? LOL!!! I love the pubs.

That is Not what I mean. Bush is plenty "blameable" to me. Just not for ruining the economy.

Prof- Here's a list of the "Saddest" cities from the same source. Most of them are in the SOuth

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02 ... ities?lite

1. Beaumont, TX
2. Albany, GA
3. Texas City, TX
4. Shreveport, LA
5. Monroe, LA
6. Flint, MI
7. Memphis, TN
8. Battle Creek, MI
9. Lima, OH
10. Houma, LA

Another list that ranks based on physical and emotional well-being...roughly, where are people the healthiest, physically and mentally? Not surprisingly, the North/Midwest is well ahead of the South there too.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161483/linco ... yndication

Anyone following the Virginia Governor race? I guess the ultra-conservative Republican candidate, Ken Cuccinelli, threw current Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) under the bus during a debate. Said he should resign

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013 ... ome-drama/

Speaking of McDonnell...another former Republican/Tea Party darling that appears to be crashing back to earth, this one under serious corruption charges. Virginia's laws allow politicians to accept gifts of an unlimited amount so long as they are disclosed. I'm not sure that's a good law, but Mr. McDonnell forgot to disclose more than $150,000 in gifts from tobacco companies, donors, etc.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... cians.html

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013 ... ate-police

The Dems could be running away with this race had they not chosen a putz of their own, former Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe.

Prominent corporate donor gives $70,000 to a corporation owned by McDonnell and his sister. Also gave $50,000 to McDonnell's wife. Also gave $10,000 as a "wedding gift" to the Gov's daughter. None of this was reported or disclosed. The CEO who gave all this money owns a company that makes nutritional supplement pills. Shockingly enough, McDonnell and his wife have publicly praised the pills, which are not yet regulated by the FDA. The McDonnells claim that why these were personal loans, not gifts. Virginia law on these matters is pretty shitty and apparently you can give as much money as you want to a politician's business (in this case, a mere LLC owned by Gov. Bob & his sister) and it is not required to be reported.

Gov. Bob is currently under FBI investigation and the State is considering bringing him up on corruption/ethics charges as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va- ... ml?hpid=z1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc- ... story.html

me thinks those "saddest" cities made the list because they are in the Bible belt and do not favor butt fugging faggatism?

What eloquence.

So you favor it?

Those are the saddest cities because they have lots of poverty, joblessness, and are full of fatasses with low self-esteem

and black peeples

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Prof- Here's a list of the "Saddest" cities from the same source. Most of them are in the SOuth

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02 ... ities?lite

1. Beaumont, TX
2. Albany, GA
3. Texas City, TX
4. Shreveport, LA
5. Monroe, LA
6. Flint, MI
7. Memphis, TN
8. Battle Creek, MI
9. Lima, OH
10. Houma, LA

Another list that ranks based on physical and emotional well-being...roughly, where are people the healthiest, physically and mentally? Not surprisingly, the North/Midwest is well ahead of the South there too.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161483/linco ... yndication

No, it's not the same source. One is Forbes and the other the University of Vermont where sadness is having to work a 40 hour week.

The true test is migration statistics.

gule wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:Dem's have to explain the urban decay in many major cities they run.

But R's have to explain the near-Armageddon they left America's economy in after they ran it for 8 years.

"after suffering the loss of the world trade center via terrorist attack & the unfortunate fact that the dumocrats held sway in Congress the last 2 years under Bush..."

There, fixed your typo. No charge!

The 2006 election didn't give dems control of Congress until Jan/2007- the Great Recession aka Armageddon began in the summer of 2007 with the steep decline of home values and had nothing to do with the 110th Congress whatsoever.

The WTC reference was asinine. As was "fixed your typo."

sardis wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Prof- Here's a list of the "Saddest" cities from the same source. Most of them are in the SOuth

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02 ... ities?lite

1. Beaumont, TX
2. Albany, GA
3. Texas City, TX
4. Shreveport, LA
5. Monroe, LA
6. Flint, MI
7. Memphis, TN
8. Battle Creek, MI
9. Lima, OH
10. Houma, LA

Another list that ranks based on physical and emotional well-being...roughly, where are people the healthiest, physically and mentally? Not surprisingly, the North/Midwest is well ahead of the South there too.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161483/linco ... yndication

No, it's not the same source. One is Forbes and the other the University of Vermont where sadness is having to work a 40 hour week.

The true test is migration statistics.

The South is popular for the same reasons that Walmart is popular. It's cheap and they're always looking for workers. Doesn't mean the quality of life is the best. Poverty rates are also higher across the South on average.