Is there an APP for that?

That may be the only way to find any common sense among the general populace.

I love it, now Norman Rockwell is offensive and Donald Trump is admired for his personality.

Your world is upside down.

The clown car will be on the track tonight!!! Stay tuned for the brain trust's ideas on how to
A- drag us into another war
B- continue to enrich the 1% while stagnating wage growth for the middle and lower classes.
C-try to turn over social security to Wall Street and defund at the same time
D- using religion as a tool to gain votes to support their corporate based agenda !!!!

MURIKA!!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's not offensive. But it's divisive.

Look, if next to that painting, he had another painting of white Americans marching alongside Dr King, that would be different.

But he doesn't. And the fact that he only has that one painting, even though segregation ended 50 years ago and he never once experienced it, says something about Obama. Nothing surprising, it just reinforces what non-brainwashed people already knew.

I don't admire Trump's personality, kindly refrain from those false claims.

I've told him that in the past.

I view the painting as giving a middle finger to all the racists out there who called him the N word, a ganster or the new one "You people".

Let's lie about his religion, his country, etc and then when we are upset say he is divisive.

If there's one trait I have witnessed amongst conservative republicans, it's bad taste in art :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep going, this is starting to get good.

:lurk:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What was sitting in Rev Wright's church for decades? Just a way to give the finger to racists? Because his sermons seemed to cast the net pretty wide, in terms of defning the enemies of that congregation (which seem to include all honkeys, not just the bad ones). And that, seems very consistent, with the mindset of someone who would want that painting, of all the painitngs in the world, to hang outside the oval office.

All the tea leaves say the same thing. Remember the "bitter clingers" comment, when the Great Uniter thought the mike was off. He also claimed that all Republicans do, the only thing they do, is "hate all the time".

After all that, I'm supposed to believe he gives a fig about my aspirations? He has absolutely no idea what motivates huge numbers of Americans. So he assumes were are motivated by racism. It can't be that our ideas are better (after all, liberalism is working SO WELL in CT, RI, Mass, IL).

Easier to paint me as a hater, than to refute what I'm saying, given the empirical evidence available to us.

Well, to be fair to us slack-jawed hillbillies, we can't all be as cultured as Obama, with Jay Z on his ipod, and Beyonce on his speed dial.

Funny,

America's top states to live in 2015 (CNBC)

Hawaii
Vermont
Minnesota
New Hampshire
Maine
Oregon
Washington
Massachusetts
Colorado
Iowa

That's a riot, Spence. In those top states, what's the percentage of black and Mexican residents, compared to the rest of the country? Was that poll done by the Klan?

Liberalism might work fine in Greenwich CT, or on Nantucket. That doesn't mean it works in normal places.

I can see Jim's house on Sunday mornings

Jim's wife - Dear, we're going to be late for church.

Jim - Yes, don't forget I'm sch. to be an usher today.

Jim thinking to himself - I gotta hurry up and call the Pres. a POS and Hillary a FCOTUS.

Paul, let's get to the heart of this...

It's indisputable that Obama said that middle-Americans are bitter people who cling to religion/guns because they are racist.

It's also indisputable that he said that Republicans "gotta stop just hatin' all the time".

He's talking about me, and people like me.

How would you like me to describe him? How would you honestly describe someone who spoke about you that way? If I describe him in insulting terms (and of course I do), perhaps he has earned no better from me. Respect is to be earned, no?

Being Catholic, doesn't mean I'm supposed to let someone say hateful (and demonstrably false) things about me, and then thank him for the priviledge.

I hope you don't vote for trump then. 😝
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who cares about that poll. This is the only 1 that counts. You're from RI, right?

http://www.ctpost.com/living/article...en-6593163.php

Me? I have zero respect for Trump, he's not close to worthy of POTUS. Fair enough?

I looked it up. According to wikepedia, the US population, on average, is 12.6% black. Here are the %'s of blacks by state, for the states you and CNBC admire as the top states.

Hawaii - 3.1%
Vermont - 0.9%
Minnesota - 4.6%
New Hampshire - 1.2%
Maine - 1.0%
Oregon - 2.0
Washington - 3.7%
Massachusetts - 8.1%
Colorado - 4.3%
Iowa - 2.7%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...can_population

Wow. Those 10 states from your poll, have a combined black population, that's about one-quarter of the national average. Maybe Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr conducted the poll for CNBC.

So should all the other states emulate those top states, and kick out 75% of their black residents? Is that what you and CNBC and the liberals, are suggesting?

You have to admit, you teed that one up nicely for me.

You were right, this is getting good.

It's interesting (i.e. telling) that you jumped from liberal policy to black people.

What's on the brain Jim?

Sounds like you're voting for Hillary then :faga:

Oh, I see! I pointed out that your poll equates "best" states with "overwhelmingly white" states, and that makes ME the racist. Because I pointed it out. That's what you're saying?

Here's what's on my brain - liberalism is catastrophic for black people. I can claim that with 100% confidence, because most urban areas have a large % of blacks, most have been under liberal Democratic rule for a generation, and most are far worse off than they were 50 years ago, before the Democratic party embraced whacko, San Fraancisco liberalism.

Your poll supports this claim, as with the exception of Mass, none of the states in your "top 10" have large urban areas.

Conclusion - it's easy to say liberalism isn't stupid, when you are examining a controlled population that is homogeneously white, and has no urban influence, and shares no open border with a place called "Mexico". That's why liberalism works in Norway (also because every Norwegian has an oil well in their backyard), and why it's asinine to suggest that if liberalism works in those places, it can work across the US as well. I happily concede that liberalism might work if we made th ewhole country look exactly like the 10 states you listed. But unless we can figure out a way to do that, most of the country is very different than those 10 states, and the differences are exactly what make liberalism a horrible idea.

Not in a million years. She has all the hate-filled, character issues Trump has. The difference is that in addition to being a jerk, Hilary has a proven track record of gross incompetence in high-level federal jobs (Secstate). Trump doesn't. So if the choice is between 2 a-holes, and the difference is that one hasn't shown that he'd be a flop in a senior government role, and the one who is a flop also has never met an abortion that she didn't like, then I can plug my nose and vote for Donald.

Moot point, he's about to drop like a brick and go away. Too late, but he's hopefully on his way out.

Spence, based on the racist poll you posted of the bst states to live in, who are you voting for? Margaret Sanger? I guess Hilary is the next best thing, right? After all, she has said she admires Sanger. Two peas in a pod.

Why did you post that then? I thought the remark was about liberal policy. You don't have to go blaming the blacks and mexicans.

Is that because of liberal policy or urban demographics.

I'd note that rural poverty among children is much worse among whites, and that's focused in southern states that are largely more conservative.

Conclusion = You're just making things up.

So you're saying that it's the absence of minorities that makes liberalism work? First, I'm surprised you're admitting liberalism works anywhere, but then bringing it back to race again.

It's like I'm talking to Donald Trump.

Isn't that like calling yourself cool? :scratch:

"Why did you post that then?"

Because it's funny that you ( a liberal) posted a study by CNBC (liberals) saying that the best "liberal" states, are the most white states. You got awfully defensive when I said that, and I haven't heard you offer an explanation as to why that is.

"You don't have to go blaming the blacks and mexicans.

Again, you post a poll saying white=good, and I'm the one blaming them. All I did, was point out that your favorite states, sure don't have a lot of blacks and Mexicans. Am I wrong there? Please explain. I did post my supporting facts (unlike you).

"liberal policy or urban demographics"

Both. The more urban the area, the worse a place it is for liberal policy. Which do you think it is, and why?

"I'd note that rural poverty among children is much worse among whites". Hmm, that's a head scratcher. Maybe because rural areas are predominantly white?

"So you're saying that it's the absence of minorities that makes liberalism work?"

Are you feeling OK? You said that, when you listed the best liberal states.

"I'm surprised you're admitting liberalism works anywhere"

Why are you surprised? I am honest. Liberal economics works where there is almost unlimited money, and very few low-income people who need to take more than they contribute. Common sense suggests liberalism works there. I admit that. Common sense also suggests liberalism can't work when the ratio of takers and taxpayers reaches an inflection point. I admit that, too. But you don't. I wonder why that is?

"It's like I'm talking to Donald Trump."

Except I live paycheck to paycheck, I am bald, I back up my opinions with irrefutable fact, and I am respectful until people give me a genuine reason not to be. Other than that, sure, why not.

Mont, ND, SD, Utah. All more white than some of those states listed.

Face it, you just have African American's on your mind.

Paul, the states he listed as the "best", have a combined black population that is one-quarter the national average. He was the one who claimed those were the best states. I pointed out, correctly, that his "best" states are overwhelmingly white.

If my pointing that out makes me the racist, I fail to see how.

I'd argue, quite convincingly, that the people who put that poll together, are the ones focused on blacks. Specifically, they are focused on not living anywhere near them.

One point to Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your cherry picking the states to fit your narrative. Many other states have higher % of whites but where not listed.

Jim doesn't cherry pick, he just jams things together, pronounces an infallible conclusion and then declares victory.

It's like this.

Rhode Island consumes more donuts per capita than Ohio which has the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. So logically Rhode Islanders are too fat to dance and hate music. Try making that wrong.

2 points to Spence !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you know what "cherry-picking" is?

I looked at all 10 states in the poll that Spence posted. Together, combined (meaning, no cherry picking), they are overwhelmingly white.

I included all 10 that were in his poll, and made an observation about all 10 in aggregate. That necessarily means, I did not cherry pick.

Nice try.

"He can't be right! What can we accuse him of?!"

Spence, if I say that "your 10 best states are overwhelmingly white", please point out the fallacy. If you can't (and I provided the data, so you are free to fact check), then it was infallable.

Your analogy of donuts and dancing has no conceivable correlation. The fact that your best states happen to lilly-white, in my opinion, is correlated.

Just because 2 htings exist together, doesn't mean there is a correlation.

Every single one of yoru ten best states, had a far lower % of minorities than the national average. Since you declined to post the study, and we therefore have no idea what the criteris for "best" was, we are forced to speculate. But 10 for 10 is a pretty big coincidence.

And it makes sense that liberal supporters would predominantly live in places, where they aren't as effected by the disasterous impacts of their idiotic policies.

Like the liberal NY judge who freed a 3-time convicted drug dealer so that he could then murder a cop. The judges don't care, because where they live, drug dealers don't roam free.

Aren't all states overwhelmingly white?

http://www.americashealthrankings.org/

The healthiest states are mostly liberal.

Liberal states have higher taxes which they put into social services which makes poor people's lives better. Cons. states have lower taxes which is reflected in the poor having worse lives. Basically, the conserv. states have no compassion for anyone worse off then themselves bc they think the taxes are going to lazy Blacks who are just looking for handouts. This is why cons. want vouchers - they know the poor Blacks will never be able to afford a private school anyways, so they might as well take $ from the public schools and give it to themselves so they can go a private school.:)

Like how prisons turn people gay?

"Aren't all states overwhelmingly white?"

Getting desperate. Yes, all states are majority white. Some states are more white than others. Still with me? His list of the best states, are 75% less black, than the national average. That's not a trivial difference. Perhaps you might benefit from taking a math class.

"{Liberal states have higher taxes which they put into social services which makes poor people's lives better."

Says who? I reject that it makes their lives "better" (or I would be liberal). Take a stroll through the biggest cities in CT (Hartford, Bridgeport). These cities have been under liberal control for 50 years, no one would say the quality of life is better than it was when I was a kid. The empirical evidence absolutely rejects your conclusion that liberal welfare helps these people in total. It helps some, of course.

"Cons. states have lower taxes which is reflected in the poor having worse lives"

Wild assumption on your part. Why do poor people stay in those states?

"the conserv. states have no compassion for anyone worse off then themselves"

Ah, the pathetic, and demonstrably false statement, that liberals have a monopoly on compassion.

Try reading this study on this issue...shows that conservatives actually are slightly more generous, than liberals. This from the New York Times, worth noting...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...stof.html?_r=0

All you have are baseless, ridiculous insults.

Haven't we discussed the fact that much of that $ is going to churches - which is self serving. I've admitted that myself. My church has a nice hall and is building a gym which you won't be able to use unless you join my church.

Pulling that out shows how desperate you are.

You demonstrate your compassion here every day :)

Tell us again what you think of Hillary - FCOTUS - nice and classy.

What you rchurch does with its donations, doesn't say anything about what other churches do. Many churches give huge %'s of donations to services for the poor. Ever heard of Catholic soup kitchens or homeless shelters or hospitals or adoption services?

"You demonstrate your compassion here every day "

Like respect, that has to be earned. You say that I'm racist for pointing out facts, you say that conservatives aren't compassionate when it's demonstrably false, then don't expect much grace from me in response. Just facts, with some spiking of the football. I never claimed I was above that.

I can support most of what I say with facts, empirical evidence, and comon sense. All you can counter with, are claims of racism and lack of empathy. One only doe sthat, when one knows they have no other cards to play, because they have been clobbered.

Yes, I've heard of those charities - but they are a small part of the overall donations/deductions. Take out the donations that don't go for those things and the results would be vastly different.

The fact is your analysis is wrong. It would be like my saying those 10 states had more than the average amount of "N"s in them. Without knowing the data or criteria that was used in the development of the ranking, you came up with an off the wall response.

Look at the link to the Kaiser family foundation and you'll see states that are more liberal have better health outcomes while states that are more cons. have worse health outcomes.

correlation does not necessarily imply causation

It's not that the analysis is wrong, it's that there really isn't any analysis.

"Take out the donations that don't go for those things and the results would be vastly different. "

Here is what the New York Time shad to say...

"if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes."

So according to the NYT, removing donations to churchjes (even if that's appropriate, which I would say it's not), that doesn't make conservatives out to be the heartless penny pinchers you wish they were. Ignoring donations to churches, if you look at donations relative to income, conservatives are still more generous. Look, I'm not saying that all conservatives are generous, many are not. Nor am I saying that liberals are all stingy, many are quite generous. What I am saying, is that's it's insane for liberals to claim they have a monopoly on charity and generosity. There is zero data to support that statement, all the data rejects that statement. And you made that statement in your last post.

Not all church donations go to build lavish facilities for the church members.

"The fact is your analysis is wrong. It would be like my saying those 10 states had more than the average amount of "N"s in them"

No, it would not be the same. Because the fact is, those states have far fewer blacks than the national average. Yet CNBC, and Spence, consider them to be the "best" states to live in. I find that interesting, considering that in additoin to claiming that they have a monopoly on charity, liberals also like to claim that they have a monopoly on caring about blacks. As long as it's from far away, I guess.

"Without knowing the data or criteria that was used in the development of the ranking, you came up with an off the wall response. "

I speculated, to be sure. I specifically said that. But the fact is, all 10 of those states are far more white than the national average. As someone who studies statistical correlations for a living, I can say there's agreat chance that the whiteness of those states is somewhat related to the qualities that make liberals claim they are the "best" states. If not, that would be one hell of a coincidence. Possible, though. I am speculating. But it's a good bet. Just because it doesn't support your agenda, doesn't make my guess less valid.

"states that are more liberal have better health outcomes while states that are more cons. have worse health outcomes"

That may be true, I wouldn't doubt that. But I don't think life expectancy of one's neighbors is the only thing that goes into determining quality of life.

Funny, you criticize me for speculating about the criteria that went into the poll of best states. Yet you are more than comfortable speculating that "health" was all that matters.

How come you can specuate, but I can't? Sorry, what's good for the goose...