quote:

---

AIG:So, animals that contain hemoglobin (vertebrates) and therefore have red blood can be considered "living" and animals that contain hemocyanin, or other proteins (invertebrates) and therefore have blue (pink/violet or brown) blood can be considered "nonliving". This is further supported by Scripture since the Hebrew for "blood" (dawm) is derived from the Hebrew for "red" (aw-dam). And with Genesis 1:20-22 and Leviticus 11:10, there is a distinction between "living" creatures and "swarming/moving" creatures that teem in the waters. So the logical conclusion can be made that a "living" creature is one that contains red blood.

---

quote:

---

PZ Myers: What I'd really love to see now, though, is the rhetorical squirming they'd go through when it's pointed out that human embryos do not develop red blood cells until about the 5th week of development, and therefore the early embryo, by their own definition, is not living. Heh.

---

quote:

---

So the logical conclusion can be made that a "living" creature is one that contains red blood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by marfknox

Bill wrote:

quote:

---

All you did was try to make a case that all of these aborted lives would not have become voters. I agreed, but then added that the 3:1 ratio was on the ones who WOULD have voted.

Nothing to say on the two sided liberal coin either?

Your being unusually quite here marf....

---

I'm not being "unusually quiet". You are a rather pointless person to debate with. I tried for a long while, but when you started just repeating yourself and making nonsensical statements, it gets frustrating.

On the 3:1 ratio - I fail to see how that conclusion was made using good science. But more importantly, are you saying that liberals should oppose legal abortion so we can increase our numbers? If so, you are asking us to compromise our morals for the sake of political gain.

On the two sided liberal coin:

quote:

---

So you, in essence, have two diametrically opposed segments of society propping up the liberal democratic candidates, at the same time.

---

How are they diametrically opposed? What are the suburban liberals getting out of it? You can't just say political power because they could just as easily join the Republican party. Why are they staying on the side of the poor? Also, tons of poor rural people (many of whom live in highly dysfunctional families) vote Republican. Is that diametrically opposed to wealthy Republicans? I don't see your point at all.

Also, this way of framing the political landscape is horribly simplified. I live in a poor black neighborhood, but I come from a middle class liberal family. Some of my aunts and uncles are working class liberals, who fit into neither of your narrow categories of liberals. My mother-in-law is from and lives in a small rural town and is a liberal, as are many of her friends. It isn't all as neat and clean-cut as you seem to suggest.

---

quote:

---

On the 3:1 ratio - I fail to see how that conclusion was made using good science.

---

quote:

---

marf:

"I come from a middle class liberal family..."

"Some of my aunts and uncles are working class liberals..."

"My mother-in-law is from and lives in a small rural town and is a liberal, as are many of her friends."

---

quote:

---

But more importantly, are you saying that liberals should oppose legal abortion so we can increase our numbers?

---

quote:

---

If so, you are asking us to compromise our morals for the sake of political gain.

---

quote:

---

How are they diametrically opposed? What are the suburban liberals getting out of it?

---

quote:

---

You can't just say political power because they could just as easily join the Republican party. Why are they staying on the side of the poor?

---

quote:

---

Also, tons of poor rural people (many of whom live in highly dysfunctional families) vote Republican. Is that diametrically opposed to wealthy Republicans? I don't see your point at all.

---

quote:

---

Also, this way of framing the political landscape is horribly simplified. I live in a poor black neighborhood, but I come from a middle class liberal family. Some of my aunts and uncles are working clas

quote:

---

Originally posted by marfknox

Bill wrote:

quote:

---

quote: (marfknox)That it (the meaning people give their own lives) is temporary does not degrade its worth at all.

(bill)Sure it does. If we do enter eternity at the point of death then chocies we make here can have an eternal effect, while the choices we make down here are rendered meaningless, if all just ends in oblivian, for everyone.

---

I do not agree with you, Bill. If a conscious being gives meaning to something, even if that meaning is temporary, it had meaning. In the grand scheme of things it had meaning. Period. My grandmother got married and her first husband died very young. Her second marriage lasted nearly 40 years (before he died too). Did the first marriage get rendered "meaningless" because it didn't last a lifetime?

If what we do in this life has consequences in another life, that isn't more meaningful than the meaning we've given our lives here and now. It is an entirely different meaning that is being given by some outside force or by our future selves, or both. Just like my grandmother's two marriages were both meaningful but in different ways. But speculating on such future meaning and states is about as useful as speculating on the existence of fairies or Santa Claus.

---

quote:

---

I do not agree with you, Bill. If a conscious being gives meaning to something, even if that meaning is temporary, it had meaning. In the grand scheme of things it had meaning. Period.

---

quote:

---

My grandmother got married and her first husband died very young. Her second marriage lasted nearly 40 years (before he died too). Did the first marriage get rendered "meaningless" because it didn't last a lifetime?

---

quote:

---

If what we do in this life has consequences in another life, that isn't more meaningful than the meaning we've given our lives here and now. It is an entirely different meaning that is being given by some outside force or by our future selves, or both. Just like my grandmother's two marriages were both meaningful but in different ways. But speculating on such future meaning and states is about as useful as speculating on the existence of fairies or Santa Claus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

quote:

---

Me, I don't know; but the point of the article has just been made....

---

quote:

---

(bill) I agree, here it is:


`I found (the Jack Block study) to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best' Jeff Greenberg University of Arizona

---

I don't care about all that. I was casting my bait upon the waters, as it were.

Bro, you took that bait; hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, arm, and my latest copy of Angling Times.

You need to pay attention around here, Bill. I'll do it again if I see the chance.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

`I found (the Jack Block study) to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best' Jeff Greenberg University of Arizona

---

I don't care about all that.

---

quote:

---

I was casting my bait upon the waters, as it were.

---

quote:

---

Bro, you took that bait; hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, arm, and my latest copy of Angling Times.

---

quote:

---

You need to pay attention around here, Bill. I'll do it again if I see the chance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by marfknox

Bill wrote:

quote:

---

All you did was try to make a case that all of these aborted lives would not have become voters. I agreed, but then added that the 3:1 ratio was on the ones who WOULD have voted.

Nothing to say on the two sided liberal coin either?

Your being unusually quite here marf....

---

I'm not being "unusually quiet". You are a rather pointless person to debate with. I tried for a long while, but when you started just repeating yourself and making nonsensical statements, it gets frustrating.

On the 3:1 ratio - I fail to see how that conclusion was made using good science. But more importantly, are you saying that liberals should oppose legal abortion so we can increase our numbers? If so, you are asking us to compromise our morals for the sake of political gain.

On the two sided liberal coin:

quote:

---

So you, in essence, have two diametrically opposed segments of society propping up the liberal democratic candidates, at the same time.

---

How are they diametrically opposed? What are the suburban liberals getting out of it? You can't just say political power because they could just as easily join the Republican party. Why are they staying on the side of the poor? Also, tons of poor rural people (many of whom live in highly dysfunctional families) vote Republican. Is that diametrically opposed to wealthy Republicans? I don't see your point at all.

Also, this way of framing the political landscape is horribly simplified. I live in a poor black neighborhood, but I come from a middle class liberal family. Some of my aunts and uncles are working class liberals, who fit into neither of your narrow categories of liberals. My mother-in-law is from and lives in a small rural town and is a liberal, as are many of her friends. It isn't all as neat and clean-cut as you seem to suggest.

---

quote:

---

On the 3:1 ratio - I fail to see how that conclusion was made using good science.

---

(bill) One more time, nice and slow. Yes, we can all find a case to point to where a con was raised by lib parents or the other way around. But in a generalization comparison the libs come from a lib upbringing and cons will come from a con upbringing. For example:

quote:

---

marf:

"I come from a middle class liberal family..."

"Some of my aunts and uncles are working class liberals..."

"My mother-in-law is from and lives in a small rural town and is a liberal, as are many of her friends."

---

Most libs grew up under a lib upbringing. The majority of those couples who decided to get an abortion, over raising the child, carry a liberal worldview. Since the majority of those aborted lives would have been raised by a liberal parent/s we can conclude, through statistics, that of the 47.3 million babies aborted since RvW, who would have gone on to become voting citizens, 3:1 would have voted lib over con. GWB defeated Al Gore by a percentage point in 2000, had those voting libs not been terminated in abortion the percentage point could have easily tipped in the favor of Al Gore, now giving him the white house in 2000 and GWB is never heard from again.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But more importantly, are you saying that liberals should oppose legal abortion so we can increase our numbers?

---

(bill) You can come to your own conclusions. I am merrily pointing out the fact that abortion terminates future lib voters over future con voters with 3:1 kill ratio. Combine that with the fact that many non-welfare libs have 1.2 kids per household and the foundation is set for the libs to be in the minority with a with shrinking population.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If so, you are asking us to compromise our morals for the sake of political gain.

---

(bill) I am not asking you do anything. I am telling you that abortion is big factor in the shrinkage of liberalism from the political landscape. That combined with a 1.2 kid per household average from non-welfare libs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by marfknox

Bill wrote:

quote:

---

All you did was try to make a case that all of these aborted lives would not have become voters. I agreed, but then added that the 3:1 ratio was on the ones who WOULD have voted.

Nothing to say on the two sided liberal coin either?

Your being unusually quite here marf....

---

I'm not being "unusually quiet". You are a rather pointless person to debate with. I tried for a long while, but when you started just repeating yourself and making nonsensical statements, it gets frustrating.

On the 3:1 ratio - I fail to see how that conclusion was made using good science. But more importantly, are you saying that liberals should oppose legal abortion so we can increase our numbers? If so, you are asking us to compromise our morals for the sake of political gain.

On the two sided liberal coin:

quote:

---

So you, in essence, have two diametrically opposed segments of society propping up the liberal democratic candidates, at the same time.

---

How are they diametrically opposed? What are the suburban liberals getting out of it? You can't just say political power because they could just as easily join the Republican party. Why are they staying on the side of the poor? Also, tons of poor rural people (many of whom live in highly dysfunctional families) vote Republican. Is that diametrically opposed to wealthy Republicans? I don't see your point at all.

Also, this way of framing the political landscape is horribly simplified. I live in a poor black neighborhood, but I come from a middle class liberal family. Some of my aunts and uncles are working class liberals, who fit into neither of your narrow categories of liberals. My mother-in-law is from and lives in a small rural town and is a liberal, as are many of her friends. It isn't all as neat and clean-cut as you seem to suggest.

---

quote:

---

On the 3:1 ratio - I fail to see how that conclusion was made using good science.

---

(bill) One more time, nice and slow. Yes, we can all find a case to point to where a con was raised by lib parents or the other way around. But in a generalization comparison the libs come from a lib upbringing and cons will come from a con upbringing. For example:

quote:

---

marf:

"I come from a middle class liberal family..."

"Some of my aunts and uncles are working class liberals..."

"My mother-in-law is from and lives in a small rural town and is a liberal, as are many of her friends."

---

Most libs grew up under a lib upbringing. The majority of those couples who decided to get an abortion, over raising the child, carry a liberal worldview. Since the majority of those aborted lives would have been raised by a liberal parent/s we can conclude, through statistics, that of the 47.3 million babies aborted since RvW, who would have gone on to become voting citizens, 3:1 would have voted lib over con. GWB defeated Al Gore by a percentage point in 2000, had those voting libs not been terminated in abortion the percentage point could have easily tipped in the favor of Al Gore, now giving him the white house in 2000 and GWB is never heard from again.

---

This is misapplication of statistics. Liberal vs. Conservative baselines are not considered nor and the assumption that the abortions happen in the same frequency as the breeding statistics is an unsupported assertion. You have taken two unrelated statistics and assigned a meaning that is not there. Add in a little post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and the trifecta of illogic is complete.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But more importantly, are you saying that liberals should oppose legal abortion so we can increase our numbers?

---

(bill) You can come to your own conclusions. I am merrily pointing out the fact that abortion terminates future lib voters over future con voters with 3:1 kill ratio. Combine that with the fact that many non-welfare libs have 1.2 kids per household and the foundation is set for the libs to be in the minority with a with shrinking population.

---

You are pointing out conjecture, not fact.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If so, you are asking us to compromise our morals for the sake of political gain.

---

(bill) I am not asking you do anything. I am telling you that abortion is big factor in the shrinkage of liberalism from the political landscape. That combined with a 1.2 kid per household average from non-welfare libs.

---

I can tell you that I can change the color of my urine at will in mid stream. It doesn't make it so. Got sources?

---

quote:

---

This is misapplication of statistics. Liberal vs. Conservative baselines are not considered nor and the assumption that the abortions happen in the same frequency as the breeding statistics is an unsupported assertion. You have taken two unrelated statistics and assigned a meaning that is not there. Add in a little post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and the trifecta of illogic is complete.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

(bill) You can come to your own conclusions. I am merrily pointing

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starman

Have not seen any thing from Dr Jonathan "Oh what a big PhD I've got!" Sarfati on TWeb for a long time...

PZ Myers has a post about how the AIG claim that Octopi are not alive.

quote:

---

AIG:So, animals that contain hemoglobin (vertebrates) and therefore have red blood can be considered "living" and animals that contain hemocyanin, or other proteins (invertebrates) and therefore have blue (pink/violet or brown) blood can be considered "nonliving". This is further supported by Scripture since the Hebrew for "blood" (dawm) is derived from the Hebrew for "red" (aw-dam). And with Genesis 1:20-22 and Leviticus 11:10, there is a distinction between "living" creatures and "swarming/moving" creatures that teem in the waters. So the logical conclusion can be made that a "living" creature is one that contains red blood.

---

There is an interesting side effect to this definition, however.

quote:

---

PZ Myers: What I'd really love to see now, though, is the rhetorical squirming they'd go through when it's pointed out that human embryos do not develop red blood cells until about the 5th week of development, and therefore the early embryo, by their own definition, is not living. Heh.

---

How could you murder someone/something that is not living?

Edit: Yes I'm fully aware that many (most?) abortions happen after the 5th week, but this definitely affects morning after pills.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by marfknox

Bill wrote:

quote:

---

All you did was try to make a case that all of these aborted lives would not have become voters. I agreed, but then added that the 3:1 ratio was on the ones who WOULD have voted.

Nothing to say on the two sided liberal coin either?

Your being unusually quite here marf....

---

I'm not being "unusually quiet". You are a rather pointless person to debate with. I tried for a long while, but when you started just repeating yourself and making nonsensical statements, it gets frustrating.

On the 3:1 ratio - I fail to see how that conclusion was made using good science. But more importantly, are you saying that liberals should oppose legal abortion so we can increase our numbers? If so, you are asking us to compromise our morals for the sake of political gain.

On the two sided liberal coin:

quote:

---

So you, in essence, have two diametrically opposed segments of society propping up the liberal democratic candidates, at the same time.

---

How are they diametrically opposed? What are the suburban liberals getting out of it? You can't just say political power because they could just as easily join the Republican party. Why are they staying on the side of the poor? Also, tons of poor rural people (many of whom live in highly dysfunctional families) vote Republican. Is that diametrically opposed to wealthy Republicans? I don't see your point at all.

Also, this way of framing the political landscape is horribly simplified. I live in a poor black neighborhood, but I come from a middle class liberal family. Some of my aunts and uncles are working class liberals, who fit into neither of your narrow categories of liberals. My mother-in-law is from and lives in a small rural town and is a liberal, as are many of her friends. It isn't all as neat and clean-cut as you seem to suggest.

---

quote:

---

On the 3:1 ratio - I fail to see how that conclusion was made using good science.

---

(bill) One more time, nice and slow. Yes, we can all find a case to point to where a con was raised by lib parents or the other way around. But in a generalization comparison the libs come from a lib upbringing and cons will come from a con upbringing. For example:

quote:

---

marf:

"I come from a middle class liberal family..."

"Some of my aunts and uncles are working class liberals..."

"My mother-in-law is from and lives in a small rural town and is a liberal, as are many of her friends."

---

Most libs grew up under a lib upbringing. The majority of those couples who decided to get an abortion, over raising the child, carry a liberal worldview. Since the majority of those aborted lives would have been raised by a liberal parent/s we can conclude, through statistics, that of the 47.3 million babies aborted since RvW, who would have gone on to become voting citizens, 3:1 would have voted lib over con. GWB defeated Al Gore by a percentage point in 2000, had those voting libs not been terminated in abortion the percentage point could have easily tipped in the favor of Al Gore, now giving him the white house in 2000 and GWB is never heard from again.

---

This is misapplication of statistics. Liberal vs. Conservative baselines are not considered nor and the assumption that the abortions happen in the same frequency as the breeding statistics is an unsupported assertion. You have taken two unrelated statistics and assigned a meaning that is not there. Add in a little post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and the trifecta of illogic is complete.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But more importantly, are you saying that liberals should oppose legal abortion so we can increase our numbers?

---

(bill) You can come to your own conclusions. I am merrily pointing out the fact that abortion terminates future lib voters over future con voters with 3:1 kill ratio. Combine that with the fact that many non-welfare libs have 1.2 kids per household and the foundation is set for the libs to be in the minority with a with shrinking population.

---

You are pointing out conjecture, not fact.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If so, you are asking us to compromise our morals for the sake of political gain.

---

(bill) I am not asking you do anything. I am telling you that abortion is big factor in the shrinkage of liberalism from the political landscape. That combined with a 1.2 kid per household average from non-welfare libs.

---

I can tell you that I can change the color of my urine at will in mid stream. It doesn't make it so. Got sources?

---

quote:

---

This is misapplication of statistics. Liberal vs. Conservative baselines are not considered nor and the assumption that the abortions happen in the same frequency as the breeding statistics is an unsupported assertion. You have taken two unrelated statistics and assigned a meaning that is not there. Add in a little post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and the trifecta of illogic is complete.

---

Yeah maybe, or maybe the liberals who support abortion are the ones who are having them? I highly doubt cons are having more abortions then the libs.

---

quote:

---

Since the majority of those aborted lives would have been raised by a liberal parent/s we can conclude, through statistics, that of the 47.3 million babies aborted since RvW, who would have gone on to become voting citizens, 3:1 would have voted lib over con.

---

quote:

---

Because if they keep them poor and dependent on the government for free hand outs, then you keep their vote right in your back pocket. The lib dems have mastered this card. They keep the poor poor and therefor dependant on them guaranteeing a vote.

---

quote:

---

Oh I don't know marf, I see plenty of poor country folk voting dem. Here is the key to the poor vote, weather country or inner city. Those who have grown dependant on welfare, city or country, vote lib dem, by default. Not the ones who may collect unemployment for 6 months in-between jobs, but those who live off the government, and have no desire to change this, they vote lib by default. This group, country and city, will have kids and more kids just to collect another check from the government each month, thereby, conveniently, sidestepping this little concept that the rest of us refer to as work. The poor who vote repub still believe in a self-sufficient existence and do not want to depend on uncle Sam for their very existence.

---

---

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starman

Have not seen any thing from Dr Jonathan "Oh what a big PhD I've got!" Sarfati on TWeb for a long time...

PZ Myers has a post about how the AIG claim that Octopi are not alive.

quote:

---

AIG:So, animals that contain hemoglobin (vertebrates) and therefore have red blood can be considered "living" and animals that contain hemocyanin, or other proteins (invertebrates) and therefore have blue (pink/violet or brown) blood can be considered "nonliving". This is further supported by Scripture since the Hebrew for "blood" (dawm) is derived from the Hebrew for "red" (aw-dam). And with Genesis 1:20-22 and Leviticus 11:10, there is a distinction between "living" creatures and "swarming/moving" creatures that teem in the waters. So the logical conclusion can be made that a "living" creature is one that contains red blood.

---

There is an interesting side effect to this definition, however.

quote:

---

PZ Myers: What I'd really love to see now, though, is the rhetorical squirming they'd go through when it's pointed out that human embryos do not develop red blood cells until about the 5th week of development, and therefore the early embryo, by their own definition, is not living. Heh.

---

How could you murder someone/something that is not living?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

quote:

---

[i]

quote:

---

This is misapplication of statistics. Liberal vs. Conservative baselines are not considered nor and the assumption that the abortions happen in the same frequency as the breeding statistics is an unsupported assertion. You have taken two unrelated statistics and assigned a meaning that is not there. Add in a little post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and the trifecta of illogic is complete.

---

Yeah maybe, or maybe the liberals who support abortion are the ones who are having them? I highly doubt cons are having more abortions then the libs.

---

Strawman. Points posited are that you have no baseline from which to make a comparison, you have no data on the political ideology of abortion seekers, and you have assumed that since the make up is this way it was the action of abortion that brought it here.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

(bill) You can come to your own conclusions. I am merrily pointing out the fact that abortion terminates future lib voters over future con voters with 3:1 kill ratio. Combine that with the fact that many non-welfare libs have 1.2 kids per household and the foundation is set for the libs to be in the minority with a with shrinking population.

---

You are pointing out conjecture, not fact.

---

(bill) Call what you want. I am just reminding you that you guys are killing off miilions from your own future lib base.

---

Cry me a fucking river, build a bridge, and get over it. You have the conjecture of this happening but have provided no evidence of it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I can tell you that I can change the color of my urine at will in mid stream. It doesn't make it so. Got sources?

---

(bill) Sure. I will start with 1994 mid-term elections...

---

Not evidence of abortion statistics. You have assumed the result is due to abortion but have not evaluated it. Affirming the antecedent, Bill. Again, I ask you for sources.

---

quote:

---

Cry me a fucking river, build a bridge, and get over it. You have the conjecture of this happening but have provided no evidence of it.


Not evidence of abortion statistics. You have assumed the result is due to abortion but have not evaluated it. Affirming the antecedent, Bill. Again, I ask you for sources.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by marfknox

Bill wrote:

quote:

---

Since the majority of those aborted lives would have been raised by a liberal parent/s we can conclude, through statistics, that of the 47.3 million babies aborted since RvW, who would have gone on to become voting citizens, 3:1 would have voted lib over con.

---

Valiant Dancer already wrote an excellent criticism of this as a misapplication of statistics. I'll put it in even simpler terms for you. Shelly is liberal. Shelly has had 3 abortions. Shelly has also had 5 children. Molly is conservative. Molly has never had any abortions, but only has 3 children. Now, if all their children vote the way they do, who just brought more votes for their political side? Oh yeah, the liberal. The one who had all the abortions. See, abortions say nothing about how many kids you have. Poor people tend to have more abortions because they are less educated about birth control. But poor people also tend to have more kids. And some poor people are liberal, and some are conservative. So you see, the picture is way more complicated than you have described it.

quote:

---

Because if they keep them poor and dependent on the government for free hand outs, then you keep their vote right in your back pocket. The lib dems have mastered this card. They keep the poor poor and therefor dependant on them guaranteeing a vote.

---

That has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The Democratic party isn't especially powerful. Again, I ask you, why wouldn't all those Democratic elitists just jump over to the Republican side? Certainly they'd be welcomed if they had money, and they'd have more power seeing as Republicans are currently the powerful party. Also, most Dems are middle class. They don't gain one goddamn thing from Democratic votes (too rich for social services, and no tax breaks!), and yet they vote Democratic anyway. Why do they do it? See as all the Dems I'm close with are either middle class or from the middle class, I'll tell you, from my experience, we vote Democratic because we think the Democratic stance on issues fit our values. We think Democratic policies are better for society, that they stand a better chance of improving the condition of American living, not just for ourselves, but for everyone. And there is a great deal of sympathy for the poor among Dems. Your demonizing of non-poor liberals is based on nothing but ignorance, and your opinions about people on welfare are insulting.

quote:

---

Oh I don't know marf, I see plenty of poor country folk voting dem. Here is the key to the poor vote, weather country or inner city. Those who have grown dependant on welfare, city or country, vote lib dem, by default. Not the ones who may collect unemployment for 6 months in-between jobs, but those who live off the government, and have no desire to change this, they vote lib by default. This group, country and city, will have kids and more kids just to collect another check from the government each month, thereby, conveniently, sidestepping this little concept that the rest of us refer to as work. The poor who vote repub still believe in a self-sufficient existence and do not want to depend on uncle Sam for their very existence.

---

That is bullshit. You show me the study that reveals that politi