The Official Conservative Political Thread

Tuco_sl said:

Who said that?

Words have specific meanings, Tad.

Click to expand...

I actually think it could be done even more efficiently. Most of the of the major things Nordic countries do get more efficient at large scales (like health care & taxpayer funded higher education).

tad10_sl said:

No sale. Burden of proof is on you for suggesting that country of 316 million can be run as efficiently as 5 million.

So really, how exactly do you plan to get the trains to run on time?

Historically, you socialists resort to fascism.

Click to expand...

as
What the fuck are you talking about? No one in this thread stated that.

Also, there's only one socialist in this thread and it ain't me. Your attempt to construct a straw man to defeat with your mighty conservetard talking points is pathetic and shows how dumb you really are. It might fool other dumb dumbs, but it's not going to get past anyone with an IQ higher than their body temperature.

tad10_sl said:

I'm all for a breakup these days especially if it separates the left coast and New York/NE from the more productive parts.

And yes, a country with 5 million people is vastly different from one with 315 million. Except in illogical up is down liberal world. And you wonder why conservatives think liberals are stupid.

Also employer mandate delayed another year to avoid the elections.

Click to expand...

Wasn't there a map that showed the states that receive more money than they pay out and only something like 3 republican states managed to pay more than they took in? Was a pretty big deal around the time Romney pulled his 47% shit and made him and republicans look like even bigger tards?

tad10_sl said:

The South, Midwest and Rockies could survive and thrive without left coast and NPenn,New York,NJ,New England. The reverse is not true, even if we throw in Illinois and Florida.

Click to expand...

You mean in food production? Because that's all those areas have for them that don't rely heavily on the NE corridor amongst other things for large parts if not all of.

And food can be bought elsewhere if you're generating income, which per square mile the NE dominates handedly and per capita.

Here is a list of all 4 of your productive states Tad.

Tuco_sl said:

Who said that?

Words have specific meanings, Tad.

Click to expand...

Good to see you joining in and supporting the liberal bullshit in thus thread.

Also words don't usually have specific meanings you ignorant slut. They usually have multiple meanings and the author's intended meaning must be interpreted from context. And that interpretation is ultimately subjective so we get things like 200 year old fights about what exactly is meant by the ""the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

TheBeagle_sl said:

Also, there's only one socialist in this thread and it ain't me.

Click to expand...

Actually there are 2 (I think). I am a social democrat and I think Dumar is a marxist? He may be more a social democrat as well.

For the record, I was always a liberal, but I didn't consider myself a full-blown a social democrat until I saw first hand how well it worked.

BurnemWizfyre_sl said:

Here is a list of all 4 of your productive states Tad.

Click to expand...

Lol at debunked chart. Try not using a chart that's based on 2004 data, doesn't break out military v non military spending and doesn't reflect current voting patterns.

Ya if it reflected current voting patterns three of those productive red states would be blue, and the reds would only have one instead of four. GG.

Surely you have some plagiarism to support your position that the chart was debunked.

'Red State Socialism' graphic says GOP-leaning states get lion's share of federal dollars | PolitiFact



The infoisquite out of date though.

tad10_sl said:

Lol at debunked chart. Try not using a chart that's based on 2004 data, doesn't break out military v non military spending and doesn't reflect current voting patterns.

Click to expand...

Uh - the chart is based off of how much money the Federal Government sends TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT - the amount that the Fed spends on the military is a nonfactor for the chart... the only cases that would count is the RARE FEW STATES THAT PAY FOR THEIR OWN NATIONAL GUARD (which from the states that I'm aware that do, are all ones that are Blue and low spenders except for Maryland).

Additionally the voting pattern difference is pretty trivial and oddly all the states I see that I know off my head switched in 2008/2012 are close to the $1 mark - the big takers are consistently red.

tad10_sl said:

Lol at debunked chart. Try not using a chart that's based on 2004 data, doesn't break out military v non military spending and doesn't reflect current voting patterns.

Click to expand...

That's the dumb fuck we know, don't let facts get in your way, keep warping and twisting reality fuck stick.

Conservatives claim the nordic model can't work in larger countries for some arbitrary, non-specified reason, then they tell us the burden of proof is on us to prove otherwise? Is that what happened here?

Easy way to prove that wrong is to start with a few states at a time adopting it and then go from there (as it looks NH or was it VT? Is getting pretty close to soon)

The fed doesn't distribute money for the maintenance of its bases to the state government.

Sebudai_sl said:

Conservatives claim the nordic model can't work in larger countries for some arbitrary, non-specified reason, then they tell us the burden of proof is on us to prove otherwise? Is that what happened here?

Click to expand...

Marx died what....over a hundred years ago? If he was such a genius please show me evidence of his theorys that worked. Lets just see the proof. So this nordic model is the standard? Really? Based on what? Yes, we want to see proof and evidence. That's not to much to ask considering you are telling us to change an entire financial model for a country of 300 million people because "were doing it wrong".