Interesting article.. the freest states..

[Milo Hobgoblin]

Still, when taking into account all of their factors, the study ends up naming primarily "red" states as the nation's freest, with New Hampshire, Colorado, South Dakota topping the list. All three voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 except for New Hampshire in the latter year. New Hampshire also went to Obama in the 2008 Presidential race.

On the other end of the spectrum, it was traditionally Democratic states that earned the title of "least free," according to the study. Rhode Island, New Jersey, and New York-all of whom voted Democratic in the past three presidential elections-came in at 48th, 49th and 50th, respectively.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20090529/cm_rcp/america039s_freest_states


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/lists/freest-least-free-states/south-dakota.html?state=play

[Badem]

who gives a flying monkeys

we got animal porn going on here

off with you and your policital shit

[DocGonzo]

ain't looked at their methodology yet...but the source of the "study" is suspect...imo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercatus_Center

[Aacevedo]

who gives a flying monkeys

we got animal porn going on here

off with you and your policital shit

This.
I'm done with Democratic People's States of America threads. :D

[StainlessSteelRat]

ain't looked at their methodology yet...but the source of the "study" is suspect...imo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercatus_Center

The results match the methodology, so they didn't 'fudge' the results at least. Now, the methodology is obviously debatable but they 'seem' to have been fairly objective based on the limited amount of info provided in the article.

This set of metrics was used to determine each state's ranking, which the authors of the study describe as the "ability to dispose of one's own life, liberty, and justly acquired property however one sees fit, so long as one does not coercively infringe on another individual's ability to do the same." Such indicators, which could prove controversial based on their potentially partisan associations, include citizens' right to educate one's child as well as the right to possess and carry guns "and be free from unreasonable search and seizure." Based on state gun laws, this metric would be more likely to favor conservative states, and the authors of the study concede as much when they note that freedom is defined differently by different people. However, liberties such as the right to smoke marijuana and same sex partners are factored in as well, which would lend weight to states with a more liberal sociopolitical bent

Really, it boils down to the metrics they used for which no info is provided. For example, are gun restrictions weighted more heavily than marijuana restrictions?

In the end though, the results make sense and seem perfectly reasonable if you accept their definition of freedom. There's nothing really shocking in the study.

[Empty Pockets]

not surprising, considering the average american is overwhelmingly conservative in their lifestyle, even if they vote differently. Conservatives may care too little about our civil rights, but they haven't had as much chance to act on that as liberal indifference for free economy and other "social reform" agendas such as gun control.

[DocGonzo]

...if you accept their definition of freedom.

aye...there's the rub...

[Empty Pockets]

aye...there's the rub...

from what I gathered through skimming the article, they're considering states with the smallest amount of government interference as free, which other than social rights tips things in the conservative's favor. Liberalism's defining attribute is its heavy use of the government's power to push their social goals.

[Butcher]

Free as in the amount of incest and pedophillia that goes on in there?

[Empty Pockets]

Free as in the amount of incest and pedophillia that goes on in there?
but...california is a blue state?

[Jezrith]

This.
I'm done with Democratic People's States of America threads. :D

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out... ;)

[Silverhandorder]

This reinforces my belief that we need to go back to following the constitution. Take away all federal power that they "expanded" on. Let the states handle it. We would have 50 different set of systems people can pick and choose from.

[DocGonzo]

from what I gathered through skimming the article, they're considering states with the smallest amount of government interference as free, which other than social rights tips things in the conservative's favor. Liberalism's defining attribute is its heavy use of the government's power to push their social goals.

you last sentence makes all the previous pure bullshit...

once again we hit the point where partisans are trying to frame/define the opposition by definition , rather than the objective or self identified criteria, thus skewing the equation in pure orwelian fashion

"other than social rights"...do they not count?

so, if you can have a firearm you are more free even if the same state tells you what you can or cannot do in the privacy of your bedroom?

from the article, the skew of criteria is obvious, imo

[Empty Pockets]

Never said they didn't count

and I never said I was conservative.

Actually, the wording of my post counterdicted itself, conservative ideology believes in minimal government involvement in almost everything, the one exception being our rights for "national security" which is their worst flaw, and their religious elements that push the party into an anti-gay marriage direction. That includes civil rights; modern conservatism disagrees with affirmative action, believing the government should keep out of private life in most circumstances. Minimal government in everything.

Liberalism believes in sharing the wealth, affirmative action, gun control, and so on, and that all requires heavyhanded government involvement. Your or my views on those issues and how good or bad they are doesn't matter; maybe it's a good thing but it's not as free as small government no matter how you spin it.

oh, and nobody cares what you do in the bedroom anymore. That's not even on the public mind other than a few religious nuts.

[DocGonzo]

ok..at least you admit your previous contradicted itself

yet you still commit the fallacy of trying to define things by some nebulous and partisan appearing, loaded set of terms

so, i still call bullshit...but can easily agree to disagree

however, that being said...the article's source is still flawed , fundamentally, due to purposefully skewed criteria, loaded in such a way to get the results they wanted in the first place, rather than an actual empirical study with no preconceived notions..

[Milo Hobgoblin]

so, if you can have a firearm you are more free even if the same state tells you what you can or cannot do in the privacy of your bedroom?



This is what I was waiting for..

[[O]_Fawkes]

This reinforces my belief that we need to go back to following the constitution. Take away all federal power that they "expanded" on. Let the states handle it. We would have 50 different set of systems people can pick and choose from.

We're one nation, not fifty. If you divided the states like they were when America was young you'd have a chaotic mess that's a sorry excuse for a country.

Separating people based on preference and interests will get you another Civil War.

[Empty Pockets]

I'm not completely sure what you meant by my "nebulous and partisian" comments, considering we ARE talking about partisian politics and opposing views on social issues. In many ways republican vs. democrat is a matter of small government vs. big government, with ideological offshoots leading back to that basic difference between parties.

and how would you determine a free government?

even if you just count the different "free" parts to either side of politics, conservatism comes ahead in the dictionary definition of "free". Almost all of the liberal agenda requires more government involvement in everyday life, while on the republican side that's the exception rather than the rule. The liberal platform requires strong government without exception, it doesn't take a "biased" poll to determine that.

[Helgeran]

I'm not completely sure what you meant by my "nebulous and partisian" comments, considering we ARE talking about partisian politics and opposing views on social issues. In many ways republican vs. democrat is a matter of small government vs. big government, with ideological offshoots leading back to that basic difference between parties.

and how would you determine a free government?

even if you just count the different "free" parts to either side of politics, conservatism comes ahead in the dictionary definition of "free". Almost all of the liberal agenda requires more government involvement in everyday life, while on the republican side that's the exception rather than the rule. The liberal platform requires strong government without exception, it doesn't take a "biased" poll to determine that.
One could argue that one is more free when you aren't restricted to your starting position.

[Silverhandorder]

One could argue that one is more free when you aren't restricted to your starting position.

Freedom is ability to do as you want. If you are not restricted to your starting position then you are restricted to the fact that you have to be like everyone.

[DocGonzo]

I'm not completely sure what you meant by my "nebulous and partisian" comments, considering we ARE talking about partisian politics and opposing views on social issues. In many ways republican vs. democrat is a matter of small government vs. big government, with ideological offshoots leading back to that basic difference between parties.

and how would you determine a free government?

even if you just count the different "free" parts to either side of politics, conservatism comes ahead in the dictionary definition of "free". Almost all of the liberal agenda requires more government involvement in everyday life, while on the republican side that's the exception rather than the rule. The liberal platform requires strong government without exception, it doesn't take a "biased" poll to determine that.

i refute your assertion that one of the dichotomies is between "small and big government" - due to simple objective facts

check since Nixon..look at the POTUS and the size/cost of government before they came in, and when they left

W wins easily for the largest expansion and increase of cost...Clinton wins for biggest shrinkage

you appear to be laboring under the confusion of what politicians say they stand for, as opposed to what they actually do...

as for a liberal platform requiring "strong" gov't..i put it to you that at no time outside of ww2 has out gov't been as "strong" as it got between 01-07 under W's and the GOP's "conservative" rule

the facts bear me out on this one...and i have been a registered Independent for 30 years this November

hence my point, the metrics and methodology are skewed towards the desired results, thus rendering the entire study fallacious by definition

@ Milo - of course that is one of the points...show me the place that allows firearms, and doesn't give a shit what you do in the bedroom and we can talk about "free"....what we have here in Maine is both, yet on the article's "study" we don't come out so well...more empirical data to show how flawed the methodology was

find out who paid for the study, and you are halfway there, imo

[Helgeran]

Freedom is ability to do as you want. If you are not restricted to your starting position then you are restricted to the fact that you have to be like everyone.
Yes that is true. I think the main problem here is liberals often confuse freedom with justice or freedom to realize your potential, as if family money wasn't a part of inheritance or that having superior genes is somehow more worth than having good parents.

[Durindana]

lol OP you should have bolded

the study ends up naming primarily "red" states as the nation's freest, with New Hampshire, Colorado, South Dakota topping the list. All three voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 except for New Hampshire in the latter year. New Hampshire also went to Obama in the 2008 Presidential race.

cause it doesn't make any fucking sense. "I'm a child molester except when I'm not." Not bothering to read further

[Empty Pockets]

i refute your assertion that one of the dichotomies is between "small and big government" - due to simple objective facts

check since Nixon..look at the POTUS and the size/cost of government before they came in, and when they left

W wins easily for the largest expansion and increase of cost...Clinton wins for biggest shrinkage

you appear to be laboring under the confusion of what politicians say they stand for, as opposed to what they actually do...

as for a liberal platform requiring "strong" gov't..i put it to you that at no time outside of ww2 has out gov't been as "strong" as it got between 01-07 under W's and the GOP's "conservative" rule

the facts bear me out on this one...and i have been a registered Independent for 30 years this November

hence my point, the metrics and methodology are skewed towards the desired results, thus rendering the entire study fallacious by definition

@ Milo - of course that is one of the points...show me the place that allows firearms, and doesn't give a shit what you do in the bedroom and we can talk about "free"....what we have here in Maine is both, yet on the article's "study" we don't come out so well...more empirical data to show how flawed the methodology was

find out who paid for the study, and you are halfway there, imo

and I reject your basic assumption that every person that has ever been elected to political office under the term "conservative" is really what they say they are.

GWB, for example, was the president that conceived the socialist porkbarrel "stimulus" plan that Obama has picked up on and expanded, which is in direct contradiction with actual conservative beliefs.

Despite what several conservative politicians have done while in office, my point still stands as to what the basic core values of republicans vs. democrats are; big vs small. Even through the changing times, we're still fighting over the exact same questions that the Democrat-Republicans and the Federalists argued at the beginning of the 19th century.

You're right, what politicians say and what politicians do are two different things, but that doesn't change the blanket party platforms that those politicians were elected under.

[Sharuk]

Never said they didn't count

and I never said I was conservative.

Actually, the wording of my post counterdicted itself, conservative ideology believes in minimal government involvement in almost everything, the one exception being our rights for "national security" which is their worst flaw, and their religious elements that push the party into an anti-gay marriage direction. That includes civil rights; modern conservatism disagrees with affirmative action, believing the government should keep out of private life in most circumstances. Minimal government in everything.

Liberalism believes in sharing the wealth, affirmative action, gun control, and so on, and that all requires heavyhanded government involvement. Your or my views on those issues and how good or bad they are doesn't matter; maybe it's a good thing but it's not as free as small government no matter how you spin it.

oh, and nobody cares what you do in the bedroom anymore. That's not even on the public mind other than a few religious nuts.

True Conservitives should support Gay rights, but being a christan i would not like it called marriage rather a Civil Union, but that is my preference, and Gay "marriage" should be left up to the voters imo

[Sharuk]

and I reject your basic assumption that every person that has ever been elected to political office under the term "conservative" is really what they say they are.

GWB, for example, was the president that conceived the socialist porkbarrel "stimulus" plan that Obama has picked up on and expanded, which is in direct contradiction with actual conservative beliefs.

Despite what several conservative politicians have done while in office, my point still stands as to what the basic core values of republicans vs. democrats are; big vs small. Even through the changing times, we're still fighting over the exact same questions that the Democrat-Republicans and the Federalists argued at the beginning of the 19th century.

You're right, what politicians say and what politicians do are two different things, but that doesn't change the blanket party platforms that those politicians were elected under.


Republicans=/=Conservitives

Republicans are not right wing, and havnt been for decades really, they are left center, its just a different name then Democrat

[Sharuk]

as for a liberal platform requiring "strong" gov't..i put it to you that at no time outside of ww2 has out gov't been as "strong" as it got between 01-07 under W's and the GOP's "conservative" rule




Im gonna have to disagree with that, During Wilsons Term (1909-1913) If you disagreed with the Gov you were put in jail, it was the farthest left we have ever gotten it was pretty scary, and also during Lincolns Time in Office the Gov also got vey big, trumping States rights, which we can still feel the effects of today

[DocGonzo]

and I reject your basic assumption that every person that has ever been elected to political office under the term "conservative" is really what they say they are.

GWB, for example, was the president that conceived the socialist porkbarrel "stimulus" plan that Obama has picked up on and expanded, which is in direct contradiction with actual conservative beliefs.

Despite what several conservative politicians have done while in office, my point still stands as to what the basic core values of republicans vs. democrats are; big vs small. Even through the changing times, we're still fighting over the exact same questions that the Democrat-Republicans and the Federalists argued at the beginning of the 19th century.

You're right, what politicians say and what politicians do are two different things, but that doesn't change the blanket party platforms that those politicians were elected under.

please point out where i made such an "assumption"

i do not, i offered an example based on self identified parameters, rather than what a partisan opposition defines...big fucking difference, imo

my point stands just as valid for the Reagan administration, actually...check the numbers for yourself, i don't expect you to believe me

and there were NO "republicans" at the beginning of the 19th century..Lincoln was the first Republican POTUS, learn2history, imo

i think what you are referring to is not "big versus small" but the original dichotomy from which the US gets it's "Left vs Right" - goes back to France after their revolution

the Left were folks who thought that Individual Liberty was paramount...the original Liberals

the Right thought that Property Rights were most important - the Conservatives

our Congress is divided Left v Right from that very root

now, when it comes to Libertarian thinkers..from Locke onwards...you have closer to what you are talking about, i think...but until we can agree on defined terms, which it appears we cannot since i use objective values and you appear stuck on GOP leaning talking points...there's just not much point

[DocGonzo]

Im gonna have to disagree with that, During Wilsons Term (1909-1913) If you disagreed with the Gov you were put in jail, it was the farthest left we have ever gotten it was pretty scary, and also during Lincolns Time in Office the Gov also got vey big, trumping States rights, which we can still feel the effects of today

you refer to the "alien and sedition act"..yes?

do please look up how many people were arrested/jailed.convicted under that term

now, compare it to...gitmo, warrantless wiretapping of ALL internet traffic for datamining, the PATRIOT Act, and a host of other atrocities committed between Jan 01 and Dec 06, then get back to me when you have a fucking clue

[holychicken]

This reinforces my belief that we need to go back to following the constitution. Take away all federal power that they "expanded" on. Let the states handle it. We would have 50 different set of systems people can pick and choose from.
Unless you think the amendment process is not part of the constitution, there is little constitutional argument against the federal government trumping the state governments because that expansion of federal powers was gained through the 14th amendment.

[Sharuk]

you refer to the "alien and sedition act"..yes?

do please look up how many people were arrested/jailed.convicted under that term

now, compare it to...gitmo, warrantless wiretapping of ALL internet traffic for datamining, the PATRIOT Act, and a host of other atrocities committed between Jan 01 and Dec 06, then get back to me when you have a fucking clue

Umm dude, it was pretty bad then, sure tha Patriot Act was ay out of line and so was the wiretapping, but im gonna have to give the Alien and Sedition Act as being worse, even if you dont think so, thats a tie when the government was pretty big

[DocGonzo]

Unless you think the amendment process is not part of the constitution, there is little constitutional argument against the federal government trumping the state governments because that expansion of federal powers was gained through the 14th amendment.

you forgot he can only count to 10 with his shoes on

[DocGonzo]

Umm dude, it was pretty bad then, sure tha Patriot Act was ay out of line and so was the wiretapping, but im gonna have to give the Alien and Sedition Act as being worse, even if you dont think so, thats a tie when the government was pretty big

again, learn2history...look the shit up

i say that according to your statement, you don't have a fucking clue but rather are repeating something some source with an agenda fed you

the actual facts do not support your assertion, the size of the Fed then does not even come close to comparing to it now...just as one example of how fucking clueless you actually are

[Sharuk]

again, learn2history...look the shit up

i say that according to your statement, you don't have a fucking clue but rather are repeating something some source with an agenda fed you

the actual facts do not support your assertion, the size of the Fed then does not even come close to comparing to it now...just as one example of how fucking clueless you actually are

Who pissed in your Corn Flakes?

Im agreeing with you, and i was just pointing out that the Government was BIG before

[Empty Pockets]

please point out where i made such an "assumption"

i do not, i offered an example based on self identified parameters, rather than what a partisan opposition defines...big fucking difference, imo

my point stands just as valid for the Reagan administration, actually...check the numbers for yourself, i don't expect you to believe me

and there were NO "republicans" at the beginning of the 19th century..Lincoln was the first Republican POTUS, learn2history, imo

i think what you are referring to is not "big versus small" but the original dichotomy from which the US gets it's "Left vs Right" - goes back to France after their revolution

the Left were folks who thought that Individual Liberty was paramount...the original Liberals

the Right thought that Property Rights were most important - the Conservatives

our Congress is divided Left v Right from that very root

now, when it comes to Libertarian thinkers..from Locke onwards...you have closer to what you are talking about, i think...but until we can agree on defined terms, which it appears we cannot since i use objective values and you appear stuck on GOP leaning talking points...there's just not much point

Democrat-Republicans, not fucking Republicans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat-Republicans this. Ended up becoming the democrat party, the pro-lower class party, which was at the time small government because it supported farmer's interests. Not me that needs history lessons.

I think our biggest issue here is I see parties as a group of citizens with a specific set of values, which nominates individuals to office, and these individuals more or less (more less than more) follow their party's views. A party changes when its constituents change, not when its current leader does.

You seem to see parties in a more rudimentary way, defined by their officials rather than the people voting the officials into office. You view the politicians as indicators of the party's current views rather than politicians that climbed the latter through superior media coverage, campaign spending and lying skills.

Going to have to agree to disagree here, because my entire argument is based on a concept of a basic ideology for the parties, one that is rarely followed to the letter by it's elected officials, but one that's still there.

[DocGonzo]

Who pissed in your Corn Flakes?

Im agreeing with you, and i was just pointing out that the Government was BIG before

and i'm telling you that if you think Wilson's pre-WW2 gov't was big, you are a fucking simpleton who cannot be bothered to look at actual data for yourself and figure out why you are wrong when it is presented to you

now, as i pointed out earlier in this thread, post Nixon, Carter flattened the growth curve a bit but not much...it grew huge under Reagan..flattened a bit under Bush 1, shrank under Clinton and expanded by the largest margin ever (not counting WW2) under W

i also suggested you look up exactly how many people were arrested/prosecuted under the alien and sedition act and told you to compare it to W's regime...hell, it doesn't even compare to the Japanese internment during WW2

since you are fucking clueless, i suggest once more that you learn2history before talking authoritatively about shit that you appear to have no fucking clue about

and, since you are such a fucking nublet, allow me to explain...

this is me being nice

[DocGonzo]

Democrat-Republicans, not fucking Republicans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat-Republicans this. Ended up becoming the democrat party, the pro-lower class party, which was at the time small government because it supported farmer's interests. Not me that needs history lessons.

I think our biggest issue here is I see parties as a group of citizens with a specific set of values, which nominates individuals to office, and these individuals more or less (more less than more) follow their party's views. A party changes when its constituents change, not when its current leader does.

You seem to see parties in a more rudimentary way, defined by their officials rather than the people voting the officials into office. You view the politicians as indicators of the party's current views rather than politicians that climbed the latter through superior media coverage, campaign spending and lying skills.

Going to have to agree to disagree here, because my entire argument is based on a concept of a basic ideology for the parties, one that is rarely followed to the letter by it's elected officials, but one that's still there.

much appreciation for your clarification of how you define the terms

and i will say that if you think what the people in the Party believe it is about has ANY correlation to what those RUNNING the Party KNOW it's about, then you are either blissfully idealistic or cripplingly naive

but, thanks for the sane discourse...

[Sharuk]

and i'm telling you that if you think Wilson's pre-WW2 gov't was big, you are a fucking simpleton who cannot be bothered to look at actual data for yourself and figure out why you are wrong when it is presented to you

now, as i pointed out earlier in this thread, post Nixon, Carter flattened the growth curve a bit but not much...it grew huge under Reagan..flattened a bit under Bush 1, shrank under Clinton and expanded by the largest margin ever (not counting WW2) under W

i also suggested you look up exactly how many people were arrested/prosecuted under the alien and sedition act and told you to compare it to W's regime...hell, it doesn't even compare to the Japanese internment during WW2

since you are fucking clueless, i suggest once more that you learn2history before talking authoritatively about shit that you appear to have no fucking clue about

and, since you are such a fucking nublet, allow me to explain...

this is me being nice


You really just dont get it

[Empty Pockets]

much appreciation for your clarification of how you define the terms

and i will say that if you think what the people in the Party believe it is about has ANY correlation to what those RUNNING the Party KNOW it's about, then you are either blissfully idealistic or cripplingly naive

but, thanks for the sane discourse...

it has more effect than you give it credit; it funnels the candidates into a certain criteria that the voters will approve. The candidate is rarely ideal, but it does keep them somewhat near the range the constituent is looking for.

[DocGonzo]

You really just dont get it

then Enlighten me, O wise and wonderful nublet...

make your point, the one you have presented so far is not factually accurate...as i have demonstrated, so make your fucking point

or pop your binky back in your mouth and wait for mommy to change your fucking diapers again

[DocGonzo]

it has more effect than you give it credit; it funnels the candidates into a certain criteria that the voters will approve. The candidate is rarely ideal, but it does keep them somewhat near the range the constituent is looking for.

and you think the Candidate ...matters?

ever work on or with a real campaign?

the "candidate" is a prize cow...a wax doll for the cameras and on the stump, some actually think they are in charge, but those folks are delusional as well

rarely more than puppets, a ventriloquist's dummy...look behind the curtain for the real Answers, and then you may understand my innate cynicism on the subject

[ZeaL-]

ain't looked at their methodology yet...but the source of the "study" is suspect...imo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercatus_Center

Lol, I was about to do an internship at the Koch Foundation. Good thing I abandoned that idea.

[Silverhandorder]

Unless you think the amendment process is not part of the constitution, there is little constitutional argument against the federal government trumping the state governments because that expansion of federal powers was gained through the 14th amendment.

If the founders wanted redistribution of wealth and federal standards for industries they would have made a clause for that. Get a super majority and put that back in.

Furthermore all 14th did was recognize more people as citizens. It did not give them power to take away my freedoms. I would do without this amendment tho if it was me. Birthright citizenship is bullshit.

[DocGonzo]

If the founders wanted redistribution of wealth and federal standards for industries they would have made a clause for that. Get a super majority and put that back in.

Furthermore all 14th did was recognize more people as citizens. It did not give them power to take away my freedoms. I would do without this amendment tho if it was me. Birthright citizenship is bullshit.

so mercifully free from the ravages of intelligence...

[PirateGlen]

If the founders wanted redistribution of wealth and federal standards for industries they would have made a clause for that. Get a super majority and put that back in.

Furthermore all 14th did was recognize more people as citizens. It did not give them power to take away my freedoms. I would do without this amendment tho if it was me. Birthright citizenship is bullshit.

Haha. Try again.

[StainlessSteelRat]

so, if you can have a firearm you are more free even if the same state tells you what you can or cannot do in the privacy of your bedroom?

from the article, the skew of criteria is obvious, imo

Not that skewed. I though gay marriage was mentionned as one of the criteria that weighted the state towards 'freer'.

[Razel]

ain't looked at their methodology yet...but the source of the "study" is suspect...imo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercatus_Center

Mercatus' stated mission is to integrate theory and practice to produce solutions that sustainably advance a free, prosperous, and civil society.

I call bullshit.

I happen to know about that particular organization and your correct doc, yes there i said it, i agreed with you.

The Koch brothers charles and david are both billionaires and are part of the bilderberg group, so was their father. How do i know all this? Well... lets just say i've been studying chucky.

If you do a quick google search on the Koch family you'll find a treasure trove of corruption, organized crime, political organizations, foundations, non-profits, they use for their own fun... like... buying politicians.

The Mercatus Center, Cato and CSE are three of their little groups and thats just off the top of my head. Charles is the owner of koch industries, they buy and sell corporations, recently acquired georgia pacific and are heavy in oil. He helped fund they bushies as well.

At first glance the Kochs seem like freedom loving people, however after closer inspection you'll find they only care about Profits above all else. The only 'freedom' they wish is to not be taxed and to manipulate fed legislation in order to increase profits.

These people are a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the govt, they buy it.

[DocGonzo]

Not that skewed. I though gay marriage was mentionned as one of the criteria that weighted the state towards 'freer'.

it's the weights given to each Variable that get skewed, not the Variables themselves

as i said before, the best way to Lie is to tell the Truth, just not all of it

@Razel - i knew CATO was related...and each of those scumsucking vats of pus organizations are anathema...AEI is another one i keep track of as the money machine for the neocon faithful

but i digress...

[Razel]

have a Koch and a smile

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jason_mi_060426_have_a_koch_and_a _sm.htm

@Doc, pm'd yah

[Incanam]

Hey. I live in New Jersey, and I'm perfectly happy. We have some of the top test scores (I know they're useless, buti t does say something) in the nation. Towns here are consistently voted best place to live.

There is corruption here, but meh. I'd rather live here than Texas.

[StainlessSteelRat]

it's the weights given to each Variable that get skewed, not the Variables themselves

Oh, yeah. I agree. That's the missing link in their methodology: the coefficeints.

[Tibernicus]

That's the hysterical irony. "Liberals" want the government to regulate everything and put out MORE rules, while Republicans want to rule their own lives, and are more in favor of freedom.

[Silverhandorder]

That's the hysterical irony. "Liberals" want the government to regulate everything and put out MORE rules, while Republicans want to rule their own lives, and are more in favor of freedom.

No it is the product of extreme jealousy for your fellow man. We need to send them to Urope and see how they like their diminished standard of living and Americas big fat dick :D.

[DocGonzo]

That's the hysterical irony. "Liberals" want the government to regulate everything and put out MORE rules, while Republicans want to rule their own lives, and are more in favor of freedom.

and this is the Orwellian lie that gets pushed rather than actually examining the objective facts

or do you think that after 01-07 you were more "free" due to GOP rule?

fucking idiots...

[ZeaL-]

I'd rather live here than Texas.

how come?