So what does that say about all but 2 of top 10 richest all being liberal (the exceptions being Raleigh, NC and Anchorage, AK) while the poorest city in America is the notoriously conservative Miami? In fact 6 of the 10 poorest cities have consistently been conservative.

Hell, let me expand my point further, lets go by state. According to the census bureau in 2007 the poorest states based on median household income.

Montana $40,627
Tennessee $40,315
Kentucky $39,372
Louisiana $39,337
Alabama $38,783
Oklahoma $38,770
Arkansas $36,599
West Virginia $35,059
Mississippi $34,473

Out of those states 9 have consistently sided with republicans. Interesting. So how about richest?

Maryland $65,144
New Jersey $64,470
Connecticut $63,422
Hawaii $61,160
Massachusetts $59,963
New Hampshire $59,683
Alaska $59,393
California $56,645
Virginia $56,277
Minnesota $54,023

Quite a large margin, eh? Also of note 8 out of 10 have been consistently liberal.

Don't ****ing lie to me in a debate again you worthless old hag.

But he's just showing the facts, with some unnecessary insults maybe, but still it's the facts, right?

@ wendycal

hes an ass, ignore him.

disclaimer:im an independant/libetarian who doesnt vote and im too tired from work to spell check or even reread what the **** im about to write.

as far as obama wanting to go into pakistan, i believe we are already headed that direction,and i really dont see mccain stopping it. furthermore mccain wants to start another cold war with russia starting with suggesting to kick them out of the g8. you remember russia right? the country who doesnt just have nuclear bombs that someone else taught them how to use, but is capable of launching from russia to the usa... and are big enough *******s to do it. after we saw how 'friendly' russia was to the civilians in georgia, we can only hope they will be as nice. i just have an itching if one was headed our way, they might not exactly aim for military bases.

further more you wanna talk about "those damn democrats raising taxes", and you want "facts". how about the surplus when clinton was in office followed by the biggest deficet ever by bush? who gives a **** if you get tax breaks when it only goes to the top .5% and inflation shoots through the damn roof. id rather have a little less money thats worth more than a little more money thats worth ****. furthermore palin is one of if not the worst and most unexperienced candidates in the history of time.

im not sugesting that obama is the next jfk, im suggesting hes not the next bush... imperial ******* of the new republican order.

anyone up for some coffee and cigarettes?

You're the one ignoring the facts, you have yet to respond to half the arguments against you.

Never heard of government subsidies? Ever been to Europe? Look at the gas prices. They've been much higher than what we have now for a long time.

The first two links are ridiculously biased towards Palin, and the fact that Palin is super fundy-conservative brings huge negative marks from me.

To call the third ridiculous and say nothing about the first link is not that good.

This can be exaggerated, but the fact that she considers creationism as a possibility to be taught along with the Big Bang in our public schools - really, really turns me off. I mean, don't we have separation of church and state for a reason? I know she says it's for debating purposes only...but why even say she would support it? There is nothing, apart from petty discussion that should be held in a philosophy class, good about this idea. She is such a religious bonehead I could never imagine supporting her.

adn.com | elections : 'Creation science' enters the race

She is also against *** marriage...which is silly, really. At least McCain seems moderate about it, Palin has attempted to deny benefits and supported the banning of *** marriage in Alaska.

And this is a good site I think about her advantages and disadvantages.

Sarah Palin on the Issues

I support abortions at the point where the fetus lacks human like consciousness and the fact that she is Christian doesn't necessary appall me. I know people who are Christian yet still support more human rights such as *** marriage, abortion (I will discuss abortions with you if you want :) ), and decriminalization of more drugs. She uses a different moral code than me and it based off of something the first Amendment says is not right.

I don't trust a page if I can tell they are trying to lean on one side. If they show all the significant facts and do it in a fair way I can make a judgment on my own. But the first and second link are clearly biased to the right as is the third is to the left (too lazy to look at the fourth).

What exactly do YOU mean by this? I support ideas that will give us more rights and will restrict government from controlling what we should be able to do. That's all. And since Palin is against these reforms, I am not sure I can support her at all.

Lol, creationism is a belief, you think something with no scientific evidence for it should be taught in schools? Church and state should be seperated, but they're not here. Not really anyway.

Wendy no offense but you cant hold your end in a debate by continuously posting links. Half of which have no respectable sources.

Not true. Adams, Washington, etc. all had doubts, and Jefferson was, at best, an agnostic. Try this text: "Moral minority : our skeptical Founding Fathers."

I wonder how you would react if a majority of Americans were, say, Islamic, and wanted to teach Islamic idealogy in the public schools. As it is, evolution is taught as a theory in science class. There is no science in creationism. Leave it for philosophy classes.


Our country was economically built on slavery and the idea that women, Native Americans, etc. were not real people. Should we revert to that as well? What about child labor, widespread lynchings, etc.?


The fetus is a part of the woman's body. If she wants to cut off her own hand, who am I (or you, or anyone else) to tell her not to? The same goes for abortions.

I like John Lydon's quote on this: "Morals ain't got nothing to do with it. It's immoral to bring a child into the world and not give a toss about it."

They're not really children at all yet. It's not like they kill the baby when the mom is 8 months pregnant. Most states don't perform past 4 months where the baby is less than 6 in long and it's rarely possible to predict the gender. (What happens if you get raped by your close family member and there is a very high chance of mental illness? Do you have the baby that isn't even aware of it's own existence and taking it's toll on your body when you didn't even want it in the first place?) Most abortions happen when it is barely even an embryo. It's not like they kill the baby as it's being born.

Comparing slavery to cheap labor in America is ridiculous, people can leave their jobs any time, take cheap night classes to develop a skill.

And you missed his point about 'In God We Trust'. People were committed to the idea of slavery, oppressed women, etc. back in 1789 but changed it doesn't me we should stick with it now because we realize it is wrong. Just because the Founding Fathers believed in Christianity doesn't mean that 200 years later we should be teaching it in our school. Do we teach Hindu ideals in our school during science classes? Of course not.