• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Most backward state in the union?

Which is the most backward state of the USA?

  • Mississippi

    Votes: 14 26.4%
  • Texas

    Votes: 18 34.0%
  • Kentucky

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • Alabama

    Votes: 5 9.4%
  • Tennessee

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • Utah

    Votes: 5 9.4%
  • Iraq

    Votes: 8 15.1%

  • Total voters
    53
Contrarian said:
Well.... true to my name. I am a true Contrarian. I am socially liberal (in most cases), but an all out, cheerleading, big time fan of Capitalism. It is the finest system on the planet, except for the abuses. I have mentioned many times that the Scandanavian form of Social / Capitalism is the way to go. So while I admire your opinions and skilled debate on many of these threads... when it comes to bashing capitalism as a whole... I feel you are dead wrong.
Shall we debate the system? It'd be a privelege debating with someone who has an open mind. Haven't done that in a while. If you care to debate capitalism as a whole I'm up to the challenge. Let me throw some things out there:

Capitalism runs as a result of slave labor in poor countries of the world. Workers there are complete slaves to their company, since, if they choose to quit, there family will not have enough money to survive, and they may starve.

Capitalism has shown throughout history to benefit the fortunate few, while running at the expense of the vast majority of the population.

Capitalism, unregulated (I don't think you're pushing this, though) will naturally increase inequality levels in industrial countries like the USA.

Under capitalism, we see a trickle up pattern, where poor workers can work as long as they can (14, 16 hr days in some cases) and still see no increase in pay. The companies they work for, however, see a tremendous increase in profit thanks to this cheap labor. This profit winds up, of course, in the hands of management.

Capitalism demands an ever increasing market, which clearly isn't possible. Thus, capitalism is subject to great crashes like the one we saw in '29.

As the old cliche goes, under capitalism, in any country, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, inevitably.

Capitalism is only sustainable at the expense of the general public as it will naturally under go economic crashes. Not only will the market continually need to grow, but also capitalism, through such tactics as slave labor, naturally creates a huge surplus of goods. Sometimes this surplus is seen as 'productivity' but when a surplus of goods gets too large, as it inevitably will, capitalism will turn for the worse.

If you wish to debate capitalism, make a thread in the economics forum, possibly with a rebuttle to these points.
 
Definitely Texas, but ya never know.. I could jsut be biased :rolleyes:


Vauge is a cute one though.. I'll give him that hehe.
 
anamoly... while I'd love to debate this with you... I have to go out and earn some money! LOL

If you would should start a thread with this topic and I'll join you after I finish exploiting the masses! I will however give you a few quick snippet answers just to get you going:

Your comments in italics... mine bold:

"Capitalism runs as a result of slave labor in poor countries of the world. Workers there are complete slaves to their company, since, if they choose to quit, there family will not have enough money to survive, and they may starve". While very often, progress corrupts, the simple fact is that many of these people would have starved immediately in their communist society. Please read "China, Inc." by Ted C. Fishman which clearly illustrates that capitalism even in it's diluted form has raised the standard of living for tens of millions of otherwise destitute communist. It doesn't take an economist to see that communism is a dismal failure resulting in more suffering, demotivation and poverty than capatilism. Scandanavian capitalism works because it combines the best of all worlds. There is ZERO poverty in Norway, Sweden and Denmark with cradle to the grave medical, social services and education while promoting free enterprise and personal achievement.

"Capitalism has shown throughout history to benefit the fortunate few, while running at the expense of the vast majority of the population. "

Capitalism has given this country's workers the highest standard of living in the history of the world. People are given more opportunities than they would have if left on there own working communal farms for the glory of the state. You are a very bright person but you are totally blind to this.

Capitalism, unregulated (I don't think you're pushing this, though) will naturally increase inequality levels in industrial countries like the USA.

Anything unregulated will fall prey to human instincts for greed and power. I don't trust my fellow man to always do the right thing.

Under capitalism, we see a trickle up pattern, where poor workers can work as long as they can (14, 16 hr days in some cases) and still see no increase in pay. The companies they work for, however, see a tremendous increase in profit thanks to this cheap labor. This profit winds up, of course, in the hands of management.

Transpose the words "company and management" for "country and party" and you have communism. The answer for everyone is education. As long as there are untrained, unskilled, uneducated people, they will be "exploited" because they have not adjusted to the needs for survival. Sorry to say but it is very Darwinian out here... survivial of the fittest is not a bad thing... it is natures way. That doesn't mean as civilized people we don't take care of the weakest (look at Scandanavia again)

Capitalism demands an ever increasing market, which clearly isn't possible. Thus, capitalism is subject to great crashes like the one we saw in '29.

It can and will increase but only because it shifts to fit the economic environment and hence renews. Ex. switching from an economy based upon agriculture / farming to manufacturing / heavy industry to services / technology. It is an ever evolving animal which presents new opportunities with every shift.By the way, I'll take the crash of '29 against the huge "crash" that communism took after less than 50 years of dominence in eastern Europe and China

As the old cliche goes, under capitalism, in any country, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, inevitably.

By the way the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, looks pretty well fed and happy in his mansion provided by the "people" while children are starving in the countryside...I'll add to your cliche... and many poor become richer, some actually can get rich themselves... that is not possible under communism

Capitalism is only sustainable at the expense of the general public as it will naturally under go economic crashes. Not only will the market continually need to grow, but also capitalism, through such tactics as slave labor, naturally creates a huge surplus of goods. Sometimes this surplus is seen as 'productivity' but when a surplus of goods gets too large, as it inevitably will, capitalism will turn for the worse.

The point you miss, is there is a symbionic relationship. One feeds off the other and vice versa. The beauty is it serves to improve both. The marketing guys have done a great job in creating this consummer society that buys anything that appeals to the market... so you know there is a Ferrari dealership in Shanghai? True intellectual capatalist are not afraid of a "turn", because capitalism is based upon cycles and adjustments to the market. A shift signifies additional opportunity. The point where a poor boy with a good idea and motivation can improve the lot of himself and his family. Sorry my friend... capitalism is a great thing, and communism has proven itself a dismal failure resulting in the impoversiment of generations of people in the countries it has damaged.

Nice chat.. gotta go and whip my slaves... sorry employees!
 
Contrarian said:
While very often, progress corrupts, the simple fact is that many of these people would have starved immediately in their communist society. Please read "China, Inc." by Ted C. Fishman which clearly illustrates that capitalism even in it's diluted form has raised the standard of living for tens of millions of otherwise destitute communist. It doesn't take an economist to see that communism is a dismal failure resulting in more suffering, demotivation and poverty than capatilism. Scandanavian capitalism works because it combines the best of all worlds. There is ZERO poverty in Norway, Sweden and Denmark with cradle to the grave medical, social services and education while promoting free enterprise and personal achievement.
I think you're confused as to what communism actually is. China, along with the USSR, were socialist countries, meaning the gov't runs the economy. This leads to the nature and type of gov't being very important. And I don't know about you, but a vanguard or Mao Zedong running the economy does not sound too promising lol. I support democratic socialism in its purist sense, that the people vote on their gov't and it in turns runs the economy in the people's favor. Communism has never existed, in fact, it is a long ways off. Socialism, where the gov't runs the economy, is simply state regulated capitalism, thus making the transition to socialism from capitalism quite easy. In the Scandinavian region which you bless so heavily, we see very socialistic gov't's, with heavy gov't regulation. In Europe, many, many countries have socialistic 'tendencies', shall we say, but none, as of yet, have completely elevated out of the shackles of capitalism. Sweden, Norway, and others are steadily advancing, though. Perhaps we share common support of socialism?


Contrarian said:
Capitalism has given this country's workers the highest standard of living in the history of the world. People are given more opportunities than they would have if left on there own working communal farms for the glory of the state. You are a very bright person but you are totally blind to this.
I don't think I am. Let us look at countries which, presently, live up to the 'dream' of capitalists, that is, very very little state regulation. You've got Argentina and China which have policies similar to this, along with many other poor countries. It should thus be known that where capitalism is not regulated by the state, workers inevitably suffer. The USA allows and supports this oppression, since our economy currently is being fueled by cheap foreign labor i.e. globalization. Perhaps you are blind to this phenomenon. Again you seem to paint an evil picture of socialism, and I agree that tyrannical socialism and any tyrannical gov't, for that matter, will inevitably fail. But, what I propose, is to simply give a democratic gov't total control, thus giving the people indirect control of their economy. Who currently runs US capitalism? Is it democratic in nature? Hardly! A very, very small percent of the USA population runs our economy, this faact you must be aware of.

Contrarian said:
Anything unregulated will fall prey to human instincts for greed and power. I don't trust my fellow man to always do the right thing.
Nor do I, especially under a system such as capitalism, where we are encouraged to exploit others for personal gain, capital gain, profit.

Contarian said:
Transpose the words "company and management" for "country and party" and you have communism. The answer for everyone is education. As long as there are untrained, unskilled, uneducated people, they will be "exploited" because they have not adjusted to the needs for survival. Sorry to say but it is very Darwinian out here... survivial of the fittest is not a bad thing... it is natures way. That doesn't mean as civilized people we don't take care of the weakest (look at Scandanavia again)
Education is great, but if you can't afford it, like the majority of the world's population, then what do you do? Also, the very nature of the competition of capitalism guaruntees that education will not provide a great increase in living standards for many people, it will only lead to more failure in the job market. You seem to think that 'country and party' are totally akin to 'company and management'. I disagree. If a country is democratic in nature, which any future socialist country will certainly be, we will have the people controlling their own economy. Companies are almost all dictatorships currently! And personally, I'll take democrratic control of the economy over a greedy dictator any day. Perhaps, though, you yourself prefer this dictatorship.

Contrarian said:
It can and will increase but only because it shifts to fit the economic environment and hence renews. Ex. switching from an economy based upon agriculture / farming to manufacturing / heavy industry to services / technology. It is an ever evolving animal which presents new opportunities with every shift.By the way, I'll take the crash of '29 against the huge "crash" that communism took after less than 50 years of dominence in eastern Europe and China
I think you misunderstand the reason for this expanding market. It is not 'evolution' as you suggest, this evolution only allows the expansion, it does not fuel it. A growing market is fueled by, as I later mention, a constant surplus of goods. When companies are constantly pumping ot this surplus, they have to find a bigger and bigger market, or else their company will fail. Also, you again mistake Stalin's USSR and Mao's China for 'communist' gov't. Here is a good website for what communism actually is, if you care to educate yourself: www.worldsocialistmovement.org .

Contrarian said:
By the way the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, looks pretty well fed and happy in his mansion provided by the "people" while children are starving in the countryside...I'll add to your cliche... and many poor become richer, some actually can get rich themselves... that is not possible under communism
Again, communism is not some tyrannical state. I, again, support democratic socialism. I feel communism, or human production for use rather than profit, is something to work towards. Socialism is the first step, and we must make it democratic in order to give the workers i.e. the majority control over their economy. Socialism would be inverted capitalism, so to speak, with gov't regulation in place of an ever fluctuating market, so as to protect the poorer of society. What's stopping anyone from working hard and advancing under democratic socialism? I'm kind of shocked that you don't know what communism is, as opposed to Stalinist policy. You do understand that in '28 Stalin destroyed Lenin's idea of socialism, changing everything to give him complete control over what would become the Soviet empire. This one thing led to the mass of dictatorships that followed in China and North Korea.

Contrarian said:
The point you miss, is there is a symbionic relationship. One feeds off the other and vice versa. The beauty is it serves to improve both. The marketing guys have done a great job in creating this consummer society that buys anything that appeals to the market... so you know there is a Ferrari dealership in Shanghai? True intellectual capatalist are not afraid of a "turn", because capitalism is based upon cycles and adjustments to the market. A shift signifies additional opportunity. The point where a poor boy with a good idea and motivation can improve the lot of himself and his family. Sorry my friend... capitalism is a great thing, and communism has proven itself a dismal failure resulting in the impoversiment of generations of people in the countries it has damaged.

Nice chat.. gotta go and whip my slaves... sorry employees!
Again, you misunderstand communism completely, but then again, you are a capitalist, so this is rather expected! This expanding market you so desire is the cause of mass poverty throughout the third world. We can look at Latin America to see that the expansion of this market has led to peasants losing their land, farmers losing out to businesses, and poor workers making meager wages because of simply bad luck. The global market completely depends on cheap labor to function properly, and it follows that with global capitalism comes mass poverty. You admiration of capitalism is expected, though, since you are pretty wealthy, I'd imagine.
 
Roadmeat said:
Vauge is a cute one though.. I'll give him that hehe.

*does studly dance*

Welcome to Debate Politics. :)
 
The right answer is not on the poll. It is New York/California. This elitist snobbery of a topic is exactly what is wrong with the left. These "progressives" are nothing more than hollow, Manhattan/Hollywood snobs who mindlessly welcome themselves to make fun of people for being poor.

They smear average Americans for believing in God. They call the working man a moron constantly, while claiming to be the party that represents the little man.

When Gore and Bush duked it out in the 2000 debacle, Bush's legal contributions averaged at just over $50, while Gore (who got most of his support from filthy rich aristocrats like Teresa Kerry and Hollywood fanatics) averaged in the thousands. Who represents the little guy?

Left wing snobs conjure up images of Neanderthal evangelicals foaming at the mouth in all the "fly-over" states and tell us of vast, dangerous powers of the Christian coalition while burying all the studies and figures that constantly prove that wrong. The Christian Coalition is on life support and organized religious money is nowhere near as organized or powerful as it is portrayed. And religious people do not mindlessly vote in these gigantic voting blocs, as liberals would have you believe. Studies constantly have the numbers around this area:

Christians who vote Republican-55%
Christians who vote Democrat-45%

Who DOES bloc vote? In a word, liberals. Here is one of many examples:

Blacks who vote for Republicans-4%
Blacks who vote for Democrats-96%

Although women and Hispanics have started voting for this country (Republican) instead of voting for terrorists, dictators, criminals and frivolous lawsuits (Democrats), the left is largely made up of the very kind of "scary bloc voters" they try to portray religious people as.

They say they favor "equality," but somehow find no hypocrisy in smearing whites, males, southerners, anything involving religion, or, ironically, anyone who disagrees with their treasonous, cluelessly destructive ideas.

These people you are ******** on are the ones who fight all our wars so you can be so pomp-ass and side with all our enemies freely.
 
Last edited:
I, too, chose TX before seeing the results...LOL! Same reasoning. Any state that would give the Bush's such power, with such horrid results, has got to be filled with those of...well...diminished mental capabilities.

'Sides...living in Las Vegas, we have the rodeo folk in every year. Spend 10 minutes in conversation, and you can tell they're "not all there", if you get my drift.

As for the women...they look great if you like sleeping with livestock! LOL!

VIVA! :lol:
 
anamskrV said:
I, too, chose TX before seeing the results...LOL! Same reasoning. Any state that would give the Bush's such power, with such horrid results, has got to be filled with those of...well...diminished mental capabilities.

'Sides...living in Las Vegas, we have the rodeo folk in every year. Spend 10 minutes in conversation, and you can tell they're "not all there", if you get my drift.

As for the women...they look great if you like sleeping with livestock! LOL!

VIVA! :lol:

As a proud resident of mesquite, texas, I must say: I can tell you know very little about texas. Please do not judge us by "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice can't get fooled again."

He's not all there. I appear to be a fully sentient being though.

As for the women,

Yes the cattle are nice.
 
anamskrV said:
As for the women...they look great if you like sleeping with livestock! LOL!

VIVA! :lol:

I dare you to goto DFW - watch for an hour.
Then goto Kennedy and watch for an hour.
At Kennedy, you eyes will be sore before you know it.

Texas has the most beautiful women in the world.
 
vauge said:
I dare you to goto DFW - watch for an hour.
Then goto Kennedy and watch for an hour.
At Kennedy, you eyes will be sore before you know it.

Texas has the most beautiful women in the world.

I have to disagree with that. The women at JFK certainly won’t hurt your eyes, though I adamantly disagree with the previous poster as well. The ladies in Texas have nothing in common with the live stock. I’d favor those in DFW or Austin over Houston though. Bottom line is there are great looking women all over this country. I know I’ve had bruises on my arm from my wife while passing through several airports.
 
You guys forgot one of the best places to live good ole Nebraska! Go Huskers lol.... actually Nebraska is a pretty good state you don't have to worry about much crime here. :2wave: *waves to the good state of Nebraska*
 
I can imagine... no terrorism... hell there's nothing to terrorize...
 
You are almost correct Gandhi>Bush but not completely. We do have Offutt Air Force base out here. Other than that Nebraska is a safe place to live, this makes this place so great. :lol:
 
North Carolina is a wonderful target for attacks.

A strike here would devastate all of America.. we have one of the most productive Business areas (RTP, Research Triangle Park). We have so many different military bases here, Wilmington Port. etc
 
Arch Enemy said:
North Carolina is a wonderful target for attacks.

A strike here would devastate all of America.. we have one of the most productive Business areas (RTP, Research Triangle Park). We have so many different military bases here, Wilmington Port. etc
You are forgetting cali. Military, industrial, cities, people, people all crowded into small areas, we are perfect.
 
anomaly said:
Never been to Texas, but any state that could produce the likes of 'W' is backward by any measure. Not to mention the Texan fascination with the death penalty...



Well if you have never been to Texas then your opinion is suspect from the start. People's irrational hatred of the POTUS bleeding over onto the US and his homestate is silly as well.

I have spent months in
London
Hong Kong
Shang-Hai
Tokyo
Belgium
Germany
Paris
And I have spent time in about 80% of the United States.

Worst looking ladies:Washington DC or San Fransisco ( I must admit the many hideous ladies of San Fransisco may have been guys in drag)
Fattest chicks: Missouri
Stinkiest city: Newark, New Jersey
Worst restrooms: Islands in the South Pacific
Rudest people: Chicago(No not Paris)

Best looking ladies: Any mall in Texas or Paris (Yes I enjoy making fun of the french but they have some hot chicks) (Hong Kong was a close third.) Las Vegas has many hot chicks but they are mostly showgirls and strippers which comes with lots of personal problems. In my experience they are far more trouble than they are worth.

Do not go to an airport to find out if the city has good looking girls go to the mall. The ones you see in the airport are likely just passing through anyway.

Best Hotels: Tough call but I have to go with the Hong Kong Hotels over on Kowloon bay over the New York Hilton.

Nicest people: London. Very nice people.
You know their cab drivers are professionals and go to school before they can drive? We need to learn something from that.

Worst cab drivers: New York by far. I had to leave a taxi once when the driver started beating his head repeatedly on the steering wheel in a fit of traffic frustration. I was a block away and he was still doing it. Whatever.

Best food:Both Hong Kong and Belgium have a good variety of dining experiences.

Belgium has some fantastic movie theaters as well.



That all I can think of for now.
 
akyron said:
Well if you have never been to Texas then your opinion is suspect from the start. People's irrational hatred of the POTUS bleeding over onto the US and his homestate is silly as well.

I have spent months in
London
Hong Kong
Shang-Hai
Tokyo
Belgium
Germany
Paris
And I have spent time in about 80% of the United States.

Worst looking ladies:Washington DC or San Fransisco ( I must admit the many hideous ladies of San Fransisco may have been guys in drag)
Fattest chicks: Missouri
Stinkiest city: Newark, New Jersey
Worst restrooms: Islands in the South Pacific
Rudest people: Chicago(No not Paris)

Best looking ladies: Any mall in Texas or Paris (Yes I enjoy making fun of the french but they have some hot chicks) (Hong Kong was a close third.) Las Vegas has many hot chicks but they are mostly showgirls and strippers which comes with lots of personal problems. In my experience they are far more trouble than they are worth.

Do not go to an airport to find out if the city has good looking girls go to the mall. The ones you see in the airport are likely just passing through anyway.

Best Hotels: Tough call but I have to go with the Hong Kong Hotels over on Kowloon bay over the New York Hilton.

Nicest people: London. Very nice people.
You know their cab drivers are professionals and go to school before they can drive? We need to learn something from that.

Worst cab drivers: New York by far. I had to leave a taxi once when the driver started beating his head repeatedly on the steering wheel in a fit of traffic frustration. I was a block away and he was still doing it. Whatever.

Best food:Both Hong Kong and Belgium have a good variety of dining experiences.

Belgium has some fantastic movie theaters as well.



That all I can think of for now.

I don’t know I seen a lot of porkers in Houston last I was there. And I’ll use the restrooms in Tahiti, New Caledonia, Fuji, or Bora Bora any day before heading to the head in the likes of the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand or any where in Africa for that matter.



I think you’re right about the ladies of Vegas. All plastic, all over. Just like L.A. Personally I’d rather have the natural pork of Texas over the silicon of Vegas and L.A. Women with silicon tend to be fake in more ways then one.
 
Pacridge said:
I have to disagree with that. The women at JFK certainly won’t hurt your eyes, though I adamantly disagree with the previous poster as well. The ladies in Texas have nothing in common with the live stock. I’d favor those in DFW or Austin over Houston though. Bottom line is there are great looking women all over this country. I know I’ve had bruises on my arm from my wife while passing through several airports.

Since you guys are talking about girls at airports, Singapore beats them all hands down. Nothing in the U.S. can compare to the girls on JAL or Singapore Air.

As to the topic at hand, our resident Eurotrash is letting her bias show by not give any blue states to choose from. I would have chosen Vermont in a heartbeat. Of the choices given, I took Mississippi.

Texas is a wonderful state with great people and wonderful food.
 
ludahai said:
Since you guys are talking about girls at airports, Singapore beats them all hands down. Nothing in the U.S. can compare to the girls on JAL or Singapore Air.

As to the topic at hand, our resident Eurotrash is letting her bias show by not give any blue states to choose from. I would have chosen Vermont in a heartbeat. Of the choices given, I took Mississippi.

Texas is a wonderful state with great people and wonderful food.

I think all states have something wonderful to offer. I've never been to a state and not found something to like. That's the main reason I choose not to vote in the poll.



Is it really necessary to refer to another member as “Eurotrash?”
 
I am sorry but, there is nothing as beautiful as women in New York City on a warm summer day strolling down 5th avenue... sexy, sophisticated and intelligent. Ever wonder why "Sex in the City" was set in NYC... hands down, keep your Stepford Wives Texas Cowgirls. There ain nothin' like a beautiful woman with style and a brain. I love NY! And it's BLUE to boot!
 
Ever wonder why "Sex in the City" was set in NYC.

No. I have never seen an episode.

I lived in NYC for almost a year. There are some good looking women there as well. They cannot match Q&Q of Texas though.
 
I second Cali. Nothing like a state with a huge tax base that still finds a way to be near bankruptcy, or to have plenty of natural resources and still be victim to brown outs, black outs, and inflated fuel prices. Let's not forget the wonderful L.A. prosecuters office and the fact that police chases have become the new spectator sport. :rofl
 
I vote Cali as well. First of all aren't they supposed to be liberal? Why did they vote for Arnold. It seems to me that they just wanted a movie star to run their State and popularity was all that mattered. I tend to agree with Arnold, but I don't see how he got elected in such a liberal state. Also, they (Los Angeles mainly) have too many gangs and too much polution.
 
Back
Top Bottom