• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Which Of These Two Realities Would You Want To Leave Your Grandchildren?

Your false dichotomy is just that. A false dichotomy.

1) I specifically stated that the reason these places look the way they do has nothing to do with politics but because of the kind of people living in them.
2) Poor people can and do have towns which attract good business and shady business regardless of their politics.
3) Liberal bastions (big cities) tend to look far more like the picture on the right while conservative bastions regardless of their wealth look a lot like the ones on the left.

The case I made was that people attract the business they want. It has nothing to do with poverty but the attitude of the people living in them.

It has nothing to do with politics but you differentiate between the two environments by describing one as liberal and one as conservative. That sounds an awful lot like saying politics plays a large part. I've got an idea. Show me a rich community(one where the affluent live in large numbers not just own businesses) that looks like the one on the right and I might by your analysis. Why not just say urban vs. rural then? I still wouldn't agree since I've seen plenty of small towns that had all the appeal of a week old dead dog and guess which way almost all of them leaned in their politics ? I'd also ask how a low income person living in a depressed urban environment is supposed to attract the businesses they desire. Are they supposed to single handedly support a Bed, Bath, and Beyond? Sorry, but an upscale coffee house can't survive in a market where no one can afford $5 cups of coffee.
 
It has nothing to do with politics but you differentiate between the two environments by describing one as liberal and one as conservative. That sounds an awful lot like saying politics plays a large part. I've got an idea. Show me a rich community(one where the affluent live in large numbers not just own businesses) that looks like the one on the right and I might by your analysis. Why not just say urban vs. rural then? I still wouldn't agree since I've seen plenty of small towns that had all the appeal of a week old dead dog and guess which way almost all of them leaned in their politics ? I'd also ask how a low income person living in a depressed urban environment is supposed to attract the businesses they desire. Are they supposed to single handedly support a Bed, Bath, and Beyond? Sorry, but an upscale coffee house can't survive in a market where no one can afford $5 cups of coffee.

It can sound like whatever you want. I clearly stated that it had nothing to do with politics but the actual people in those communities:

The weirdest part about this image is that liberal enclaves like Chicago are more likely to look like the right part of this image than the left. Meanwhile conservative enclaves look like those on the left far more than they do those on the right. It has nothing to do with politics but the people living in them. I've found more credit unions in small town America and far more payday loan places in big cities. While there is some merit to the argument made by this image - the current reality is far different.
 
something of a false dichotomy there. currently, there aren't many republicans that i support, but in a duopoly, it's hard to argue that we could be better off with single party rule long term. the system requires some measure of oscillation.

the republicans have brought deficit / debt problems into the national debate, and for this i give them credit. however, their absolute refusal to consider increasing taxes as part of the solution is entirely unrealistic.

It's not unrealistic... It's unrealistic for people to be stapped into raising income tax rates as the only means of driving up revenue...

The revenue will increase with more people employed... Obama currently has a number of policies which are preventing the economy from booming... the stagflation of this economy would easily be remedied by removing just a handful of them... once that growth and hiring boom kicks off revenue will climb again...

Romney also proved in MA that you can close loopholes to help close the revenue gap... as he closed $300M of such loopholes in balancing the $3B deficit he faced when entering office... He also indexed fees to match the rise in inflation, which helped generate revenue to cover the cost of the services those fees were placed on...

In MA Romney used a very balances approach, from cutting spending on both programs and cutting the size of the government, to generating new revenue by closing loopholes and indexing fees to match the rise of inflation... very same approaches he would likely use in Washington as well...

However, the Democrats are unwilling to cut spending, which is the more unrealistic position to be in... Currently there is a $1.2T deficit... The Dems have proposed what would only generate between $150B to $350B in tax hikes... Aside from how potentially crippling to the economy those could be, and how avoidable they would be for the rich (who would just use tax loopholes to their advantage, or just take their capital overseas), those tax increases don't even cover 1/4th of the deficit... and if they're unwilling to look into cuts to spending, and have consistently increased spending, we will never bridge that gap..

What Republicans have also brought to the table, that most Democrats are unwilling to discuss, or have no intention of doing, is revising the overblown exponential increases in the entitlement programs... there are like $86T in unfunded liabilities today... nevermind how else that could grow exponentially moving forward... If we do not do something to revise those programs we will not survive as a nation in the long-term... Currently 5 of the top 6 budgetary items are entitlement programs... and Obama has done things to increase spending in 3 of them... Whereas Romney has plans to reduce/revise all 5...

The other thing Romney did in MA was to bring sides together to get things done, and get things done they did, from balancing a $3B deficit, to finishing the largest construction project in us history, to creating the first ever government healthcare program which increased coverage to nearly all without raising costs on the taxpayers... That involved working with both parties, independents, outside agencies, private partnerships, etc. It is that approach which he could use in Washington to actually solve the problems we need addressed... Thus far, Obama has been unwilling or unable to do that... and has been a lame duck over the past 2 years... His derision of the other side, his closed door approach and running away with the lead in the Senate when he first came in further alienated the opposition party in an already divisive Congress, and he has done nothing but blame and point fingers further destroying his ability to get anything through a split Congress...

Therefore Mitt Romney is the far more suited candidate to solve our current problems... for not only is he willing to address the more important issues, he has proven success at being able to find cooperative collaboration to achieve success...
 
Here you go:

Tycoon industry:

screenshot0006_zps5330bd58.jpg


screenshot0002_zpsae6f64db.jpg


Used to keep this city running

screenshot0005_zps2e2952cd.jpg


Eco city

screenshot0008_zpsc87e983b.jpg


Fed by

screenshot0010_zpse409780f.jpg


And industry
 
Alas, one of the downsides of being on a mac is how few quality games are ported to it.

Well, you could use Bootcamp (but I'm not that sure if it works properly with Steam. But I would recommend getting the game on Amazon, anyways, it's cheaper) or get a separate Windows partition.
 
Good graphics before you make your choice.

grandchildren.jpg

LOL - oh indeed . . . we're just going to shift to one of those or the other, eh?

Right now we have all of that - every bit of it - all smooshed together in some places and parceled out in others . . . we're a blended nation and so we just have to take under our wing all that blended ****.

Our nation's **** shake - if you will.
 
Good graphics before you make your choice.

grandchildren.jpg

Is this the back cover of Highlight's magazine?

Are we supposed to circle the things wrong with it? (for those of you too young to know Highlights)

The trouble with the Democrat area, is it had no industry in it... So how was it powering anything that went on within it? The Republican side has the ore mining, but the Democrat side has the train (that is mistakenly labeled as "light rail" eventhough that's a full fledged rail system), the rail, etc. made with all that ore... Where are those massive amounts of carbon fiber HAWT being manufactured at?

The Republican side has "The Projects", eventhough projects are the creation of Democratic urban planners and social engineers, and are mainly inhabited by those who vote Democratic in most elections...

The liberals are the ones who more often support the base behaviors of strip clubs and gambling... and yet those institutions are on the Republican side... right in between the liquor store and the churches (something the Democratic side is devoid of)... You do realize, the Republican side actually looks like what most urban areas that are inhabited by Democrats look like in reality, right?

The "Too Big Bank" vs the entire lack of a bank on the other side is hilarious... wasn't it the Democrats position that the banks were "too big to fail"??? Democrats dont believe in money, though, right... everything happens by purple stars, yellow moons, pink hearts, and green clovers, right? (Hence again, the lack of any viable industry with which to work create anything that could be used in the Democrat side...

The community garden is equated to as good, and yet the city park is viewed as bad? :roll: okay...

There are 15 indicators of the existence of people on each side of the picture...

On the Democrat side, there are 7 motor vehicles, all hybrids or EVs... not a single one used for work... additionally there are 9 people displayed, and not a single one appears to be working... They all just happened to have time for leisure activities... and yet there's a fully functioning society around them, somehow... Then there is a rail system, ready to take passengers to somewhere... but since its all pretty small scale and residential, there's not much place to go, not a real way to fund the system... and despite this rail system, the 7 cars, the 4 bikers, the 2 hikers, the 2 coffee drinkers, the bird watcher, and whoever is taking the rail and working in any buildings, there are just 4 single family homes in the picture...

On the Republican side there are 16 motor vehicles, mostly pickups, and SUVS which have multiple uses to them, there are also 4 work vehicles to build things, which are actively at work... there is one man pictured at leisure, and he is hunting, having shot a bird to eat... another is scrounging through the trash actively looking for something... the only one not actively trying to do something is the guy who was hit while riding his bike... There is ample housing in the picture, given the 4 larger homes and the project building...

Yet, on the Democratic side there is a job placement center... and the Republicans had to find work on their own (which apparently they did a better job of)... No wonder the job numbers have been that attrocious since the Democrats took over Congress in 2007...

The biggest problem with the entire picture... Despite it being 72 on the picture on the left, and it being 99 on the picture on the right... The people on the left are in short sleeves... while the people on the right are all bundled up as if its late fall or the dead of winter...

Enjoy your love of fiction...
 
Actually there is 7 houses in total on both sides, but the republican side has two foreclosures.

Still that doesn't make much sense. The 5 states with the highest foreclosure rate in America (2011) was Florida, New Jersey, Illinois, Nevada, and New York. That seems like mostly liberal states to me. Still, the republican side was the one with foreclosures.

And who is producing all the cars they are driving on the liberal side. IdependentCentrist is making a good point. Who is working? Everyone just seem to be on vacation, and all the goods magically appear. The worst part is that many liberals will look at this picture and think it makes sense because they are so entrenched into their own mindset.
 
Last edited:
Good graphics before you make your choice.

grandchildren.jpg

You know I didn't know who I was going to vote for in November, but after seeing this and the cogent and incisive arguments contained therein I believe I have no choice but to support the President in his grand vision to turn my neighborhood into a well colored and drawn municipal utopia.
 
Hmm, the town on the left actually reminds me of a small town 12km south of Hanover where I spent three weeks two years ago. Real nice place except there was NOTHING to other than riding your bike around and eating ice cream. If you wanted to do something you had to take the bus to the city.
 
Good graphics before you make your choice.

grandchildren.jpg

I like the image ... as always there is some truth in political humor and the point is clearly communicated in this image. I think it is badass!

I will say the image on the left looks like Ashland, Oregon ... a liberal yet politically diverse city in Oregon. The right image looks like the few conservative cites in Oregon ...filled with fast food, megachurches, crime, meth and people on disability watching Fox News.

I will take the city on the left any day to reside and live ...

That is not to say my conservative friends that are more moderate do not enjoy those left supported perks and values as well ... they are just hoping if Rpmney is elected he will trickle down his uber millions in the offshore accounts and some how it will them. They are misguided.

Honestly though ... all joking aside ...while I am left leaning ... I am truly politically ala carte.
 
Honestly though ... all joking aside ...while I am left leaning ... I am truly politically ala carte.
No you are not.

If you think the image represent reality then you are so biased towards Democrats that it clouden your vision.

What the image represent is what liberals would want the world to look like. It's their dream, not reality.
 
I like how only half the river is polluted.
 
No you are not.

If you think the image represent reality then you are so biased towards Democrats that it clouden your vision.

What the image represent is what liberals would want the world to look like. It's their dream, not reality.

You tell em Camlon! Thinking there is some truth to this illustration and believing in liberalism is pure bull**** and you should be ashamed of yourself! I ain't lettin no libruls clouden my vision!!!
 
I hate to resort to personal experience but here:

When I lived full time in Vermont, I lived near a pretty small town that was not all that conservative but hardly liberal. They weren't rich. As a matter of fact, I was amongst the people considered "well off" in the town. The rest of the town fell somewhere between low middle class and bellow. The laws enacted by the people in that town were conservative but not socially conservative. Their type of conservative beliefs meant they sought to retain the small town charms of the place. They had a small library, a credit union etc. Again, these people socially were not liberal and yet they had managed to create an environment similar to the one depicted on the left side of the image even with their conservative beliefs.

The point of me telling you this is simple. People are partly responsible for the environment that is created around them. If you create a community where people are bothered to have these things, they will have them. However, the biggest responsibility falls on the shoulders of politicians who allow these environments to flourish. A small town concerned with community values will have these things even if money is an issue. A city that cares more about who they're going to tax is going to let televangelists, gun shops and liquor stores take over and pray on the people in poor communities.

The community you describe is one that is definately not economically driven, but one that values society over and above the dollar.
 
I like how only half the river is polluted.

LOL - or how no liberals go to strip joints . . . and no conservatives have abortions. LOL

If memory serves correctly a lot of pesky reps have been pushing against my porn . . . for countless years. Like they don't like it so I can't either.

If someone actually tried ot take mine away I really don't know what I'd do - I wouldn't be nice, that's for sure.
 
No you are not.

If you think the image represent reality then you are so biased towards Democrats that it clouden your vision.

What the image represent is what liberals would want the world to look like. It's their dream, not reality.

I do know a few places wehre the image represtents reality.

Although bravo Camion ... in bold you spoke the absolute truth ... it is a progressive dream in which many people and myself include work for ... and what progressives would like to happen to our cities ... thriving ,clean, self sustaining and meaningful business that is for we the people and indoctrination by corporate "news" so a few people can go offshore while the masses live in the city on the right.
 
It can sound like whatever you want. I clearly stated that it had nothing to do with politics but the actual people in those communities:

Now highlight your first sentence and make the same claim. It would be like me saying even though Christian extremists are overwhelmingly conservative that there isn't any link between the two. You can't use a criteria to distinguish between the two communities and then pretend you didn't.
 
Now highlight your first sentence and make the same claim. It would be like me saying even though Christian extremists are overwhelmingly conservative that there isn't any link between the two. You can't use a criteria to distinguish between the two communities and then pretend you didn't.

Yes, I highlighted where you're more likely to find those kinds of environments. Correlation =/= causation. Thanks for playing.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060944683 said:

I'm curious, if you were wealthy, would you consider paying lots of taxes "what you can do for your country", or do you consider acquiring that money what you did?
 
Maybe next time when the tea party gives us a candidate that can win.
 
Back
Top Bottom