ASN

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

We have given Justice and "his" ideas a chance. For 85 years. The One Party Government took over in 1932. And in 1932 WV was the average state. 26th in most social and economic measures. Your JJ-god and his masters MADE WV 50th.
.

Nope. West Virginia was hit hard by The Recession far before the rest of the country. In the '20s, during Republican rule in WV, those in agriculture, textile, lumber, and coal ended up struggling in the state. The end of WWI had an effect on it, but more importantly, abusing the environment and a non-existent plan in agriculture stripped the state of its lumber and farming. The Republicans who led the state for 28 of the 32 years during those decades are to blame for their lack of vision.

By the time the '20s came around, many subsidized farmers and those in lumber went to work elsewhere since the lack of vision by the Republicans in power caused overproduction of the lands. Their new industries - coal and textiles - had a strong anti-union stance which was supported by the Republicans in office. Problems from that and the end of WWI ended up crushing those two industries, which sent the old farmers and lumberjacks back to their original professions. Of course, that created overpopulation in already unproductive land, which was further crushed by the great southern drought in 1930.

By the time your 1932 time-frame of Democratic leadership took office, the state economy was already destroyed. And that destruction was entirely caused during Republican leadership of the state.

Oh, and over the last 60 years, one-third of that time was led by a Republican governor.

Stick to discussing specifics of TV deals. Less people are knowledgeable about that on here, so your bullshit won't be called out as easily.

expidited

Nope. Expedited. Yep.

endorced
.

Nope. Endorsed. Yep.

rediculious

Holy shit. That's a definite "nope." Baby Jesus is even talking shit about that attempt.
Ridiculous. Yep.

Do you read?

I can't answer for the person to whom you directed that question, but unfortunately, I read some of your posts. Based on your butchering of the spelling of basic words, I think you should worry about your own reading instead of somebody else's.

 

[The Real SamC]

Go away troll.

 

[oldeherd]

Nope. West Virginia was hit hard by The Recession far before the rest of the country. In the '20s, during Republican rule in WV, those in agriculture, textile, lumber, and coal ended up struggling in the state. The end of WWI had an effect on it, but more importantly, abusing the environment and a non-existent plan in agriculture stripped the state of its lumber and farming. The Republicans who led the state for 28 of the 32 years during those decades are to blame for their lack of vision.

By the time the '20s came around, many subsidized farmers and those in lumber went to work elsewhere since the lack of vision by the Republicans in power caused overproduction of the lands. Their new industries - coal and textiles - had a strong anti-union stance which was supported by the Republicans in office. Problems from that and the end of WWI ended up crushing those two industries, which sent the old farmers and lumberjacks back to their original professions. Of course, that created overpopulation in already unproductive land, which was further crushed by the great southern drought in 1930.

By the time your 1932 time-frame of Democratic leadership took office, the state economy was already destroyed. And that destruction was entirely caused during Republican leadership of the state.

Oh, and over the last 60 years, one-third of that time was led by a Republican governor.

Stick to discussing specifics of TV deals. Less people are knowledgeable about that on here, so your bullshit won't be called out as easily.



Nope. Expedited. Yep.



Nope. Endorsed. Yep.



Holy shit. That's a definite "nope." Baby Jesus is even talking shit about that attempt.
Ridiculous. Yep.



I can't answer for the person to whom you directed that question, but unfortunately, I read some of your posts. Based on your butchering of the spelling of basic words, I think you should worry about your own reading instead of somebody else's.

Uh, YAGNuts, talk about a pile of misinformation and total "drek", when did the Republicans destroy the state? Umm, could it have been from around 1900, when the state's population was about 945,00 to around 1940, when it GREW to 1,901,000? Guess all those farmers and lumberjacks just "disappeared" somewhere down South to suffer "the great drought", as you put it. That extra million that came to WV over 4 decades must have found something to do besides twiddling their thumbs. Or else they just came here to struggle with all those in the "destroyed" industries like lumber, coal, textiles, and agriculture!! Yeah, right! Something positive must have been going on till 1932 under you know who, Yagi!!

As for the one third period under Republican leadership that you mention, just exactly when did Republican Governors like Moore and Underwood have control of their respective legislatures? Umm, I think if you knew anything at all, you would know which JACKASS party controlled that branch of state government during those terms!!

And you want to take SamC to task for "misinformation"?? Laugh of the year on this board, for sure!!!!!!

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

when did the Republicans destroy the state?

When did I say that Republicans destroyed the state? Don't spend too much time looking for it; spend more time reading.

What I did say was that Republicans caused destruction of the state economy by the time of Sam's time-frame (1932). Population growth can persist for decades after a downturn in economy. The entire country saw population growth during this time, including during and after the great depression. How is that correlation between population growth and economy doing for you?

Guess all those farmers and lumberjacks just "disappeared" somewhere down South to suffer "the great drought", as you put it.

Where did I say they disappeared or even left state? Are you just making things up again? Don't spend too much time looking for it; spend more time reading.

What I did say was that many went back to farming which wasn't fruitful. The already subsidized industry was now even harder to make a living. That, originally, was what sent farmers into different industries while their wives/children led the farm.

Something positive must have been going on till 1932 under you know who, Yagi!!

Nope. Since you like to look at population growth, check out what was happening before Democrats took control. From 1870-1880, there was 40% population growth. From 1880-1890, there was 23% growth. From 1890-1900, there was 26%. 1900-1910, there was 27% population growth. The next decade, it dropped down to 19%. The following decade, it dropped to 18%. The following decade, it dropped to 10%. As you can see, before Democrats took over, there was already a drastic downturn in population growth in the state.

Why? It was the aftermath of an economy that was being destroyed by Republicans.

It's no different than those who blamed Obama for the economy when he took office. Statistics clearly show that it was already falling during the end of Bush's tenure.

As for the one third period under Republican leadership that you mention, just exactly when did Republican Governors like Moore and Underwood have control of their respective legislatures? Umm, I think if you knew anything at all, you would know which JACKASS party controlled that branch of state government during those terms!!

That would be relevant if Sam had made his complaints about the legislature. But he didn't. His complaints, which is what I was responding to, mentioned the Democratic governors: Manchin, Rockefeller, Justice.

 

[The Real SamC]

Go away troll.

 

[TheGreenhouseEffect]

Must be hard being a Marshall obsessed eerbilly.

 

[oldeherd]

YAG ye Nuts, what part of state government don't you understand? Governors do NOT operate in a vacuum. The legislature is an equal partof the state government. I'm sure you will be the first to use the excuse that Justice can't achieve anything, etc., because the other party controls the legislature. Yet you apparently find no fault with the party controlling the legislature when Moore and Underwood were in the Governor's Mansion.

If you didn't say the Republicans didn't "destroy" anything, then reread your first paragraph. Republicans in power for 28 out of 32 years essentially stripped the state of "lumber and farming". Essentially putting said vocations out of existence, or "destroying" them, I take it. Good grief, YOU need big help in reading comprehension, Yagi!!

When did you say the Republicans destroyed the economy, Yukky? Try your 3rd paragraph from the bottom of your piece of fiction: By the time the Democrats took control in 1932, "the state economy was already destroyed"! Oh, and for any "recovery" that took place after 32 through the mid to late 40s, history truly indicates that World War II more than any leftist economic policies brought the economy back.

And as for population growth, slower growth under the Republicans was certainly better than the stagnant to no growth we have had for 40+ years, wouldn't you think, Y.A.G.Si? And who was mostly in charge during that period of time, Hmmmm?

And as for Republicans having NO plan for improving the economy back in the 20s, just give us the specifics of all those positive detailed plans for changing and improving WV put forth, and implemented, in last twenty years or so by the likes of the clog dancer clodhopper, Bob Wise, Mojo Manchin, and Jimmy Ray Earl Bob Tomblin, Jackass stalwarts ALL?

 

[A Cousin From Richmond]

Must be hard being a Marshall obsessed eerbilly.

You realize that Y.A.G. is not only a Marshall fan (and not an "eerbilly") but also a former Marshall football player, right?

You didn't know that? Huh.

 

[alphasig1053]

Sinclair just bought out Tribune.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

YAG ye Nuts, what part of state government don't you understand? Governors do NOT operate in a vacuum. The legislature is an equal partof the state government. I'm sure you will be the first to use the excuse that Justice can't achieve anything, etc., because the other party controls the legislature. Yet you apparently find no fault with the party controlling the legislature when Moore and Underwood were in the Governor's Mansion.

I've already explained this. Sam's comments were about the governor in charge. He listed 3-4 Democrat governors in support of his statement. Hence, I refuted his claim by showing that 1/3 of the time, it was a Republican governor in charge.

The veracity of the legislature being a key component is irrelevant, as Sam was going after the governors in charge which is why I refuted it with the same thing.

It isn't about understanding how governments work. It is about understanding how you refute somebody's argument. I took his exact argument and used it against him. Bringing the legislature's party in it would have presented a different argument to challenge him on; one in which I wouldn't have been able to use due to them usually being Democratic.

If you didn't say the Republicans didn't "destroy" anything, then reread your first paragraph.

No, you're the one who needs to "reread." What you just claimed I contested is not what I contested. What I said was "when did I say that Republicans destroyed the state." You claimed that I said that. So, I challenged that by saying "when did I say Republicans destroyed the state." So, you were wrong in your first attempt to put words in my mouth. Then, after I challenged that, you've now done it again.

So, again I ask you, when did I say that that Republicans destroyed the state (which was your first accusation that you claimed I made)? Then, you just did the same thing a second time by asking claiming that I asked something (challenged it) that I didn't ask.

You can't just make shit up.

Republicans in power for 28 out of 32 years essentially stripped the state of "lumber and farming". Essentially putting said vocations out of existence, or "destroying" them, I take it. Good grief, YOU need big help in reading comprehension, Yagi!!

No! I said that they destroyed the economy! I didn't say that they destroyed the state. Not only are you changing what I said, but now you are even changing what you incorrectly accused me of saying. Then, after I challenged you on that error, you did the same exact thing by claiming that I denied saying they destroyed anything. You've done the same thing twice! And you claim I am the one with reading comprehension issues?

Here, look at the proof:

Me: "By the time your 1932 time-frame of Democratic leadership took office, the state economy was already destroyed. And that destruction was entirely caused during Republican leadership of the state."

You: "Uh, YAGNuts, talk about a pile of misinformation and total "drek", when did the Republicans destroy the state?"

Can you now see that you accused me of saying something that I didn't say? You claimed that I said the Republicans destroyed the state. In reality, I said that Republicans destroyed the economy in that time period. There is a huge difference.

And I called you out for that mistake and false claim:

Me: "When did I say that Republicans destroyed the state? Don't spend too much time looking for it; spend more time reading."

Instead of acknowledging that you incorrectly attributed a comment to me that I didn't make, you doubled down on your dumbness by doing the exact same thing:

You: "
If you didn't say the Republicans didn't "destroy" anything, then reread your first paragraph."

So, now you are claiming that I denied saying that the Republicans destroyed anything. But that isn't what I denied. I denied saying what you originally accused me of saying: that the Republicans destroyed the state. I didn't say that the Republicans destroyed the state. Then, I didn't deny saying that the Republicans destroyed anything.

Truly, as I said before, read better. It's that much worse when you are accusing me of the one with comprehension issues.

Here, let me play: Christ, OldeHerd. Talk about a pile of shit. When did I have sex with an alligator?

Then, you come back and say "I never said you had sex with an alligator."

Then, I would play your game and respond "if you didn't say you never had sex with a human, go back and read your first paragraph."

When did you say the Republicans destroyed the economy, Yukky?

You've done it a third time! When did I ever deny or ask where I said that? I said that. I never backed away from it, never denied it, and never alluded that I didn't say that. In fact, in my last post, I twice reiterated my argument about the Republicans having destroyed the economy. So, why are you attempting to say that I denied saying that or that I questioned you on when I ever said that?

Christ. I almost feel like somebody is pranking me with this post.

I'd keep refuting your last two paragraphs, but I don't know if you are able to read at this point.

Please, read slower. I can't wait to hear your explanations for doing the exact same logical fallacy three times in a row.

 

[oldeherd]

I've already explained this. Sam's comments were about the governor in charge. He listed 3-4 Democrat governors in support of his statement. Hence, I refuted his claim by showing that 1/3 of the time, it was a Republican governor in charge.

The veracity of the legislature being a key component is irrelevant, as Sam was going after the governors in charge which is why I refuted it with the same thing.

It isn't about understanding how governments work. It is about understanding how you refute somebody's argument. I took his exact argument and used it against him. Bringing the legislature's party in it would have presented a different argument to challenge him on; one in which I wouldn't have been able to use due to them usually being Democratic.




No, you're the one who needs to "reread." What you just claimed I contested is not what I contested. What I said was "when did I say that Republicans destroyed the state." You claimed that I said that. So, I challenged that by saying "when did I say Republicans destroyed the state." So, you were wrong in your first attempt to put words in my mouth. Then, after I challenged that, you've now done it again.

So, again I ask you, when did I say that that Republicans destroyed the state (which was your first accusation that you claimed I made)? Then, you just did the same thing a second time by asking claiming that I asked something (challenged it) that I didn't ask.

You can't just make shit up.



No! I said that they destroyed the economy! I didn't say that they destroyed the state. Not only are you changing what I said, but now you are even changing what you incorrectly accused me of saying. Then, after I challenged you on that error, you did the same exact thing by claiming that I denied saying they destroyed anything. You've done the same thing twice! And you claim I am the one with reading comprehension issues?

Here, look at the proof:

Me: "By the time your 1932 time-frame of Democratic leadership took office, the state economy was already destroyed. And that destruction was entirely caused during Republican leadership of the state."

You: "Uh, YAGNuts, talk about a pile of misinformation and total "drek", when did the Republicans destroy the state?"

Can you now see that you accused me of saying something that I didn't say? You claimed that I said the Republicans destroyed the state. In reality, I said that Republicans destroyed the economy in that time period. There is a huge difference.

And I called you out for that mistake and false claim:

Me: "When did I say that Republicans destroyed the state? Don't spend too much time looking for it; spend more time reading."

Instead of acknowledging that you incorrectly attributed a comment to me that I didn't make, you doubled down on your dumbness by doing the exact same thing:

You: "
If you didn't say the Republicans didn't "destroy" anything, then reread your first paragraph."

So, now you are claiming that I denied saying that the Republicans destroyed anything. But that isn't what I denied. I denied saying what you originally accused me of saying: that the Republicans destroyed the state. I didn't say that the Republicans destroyed the state. Then, I didn't deny saying that the Republicans destroyed anything.

Truly, as I said before, read better. It's that much worse when you are accusing me of the one with comprehension issues.

Here, let me play: Christ, OldeHerd. Talk about a pile of shit. When did I have sex with an alligator?

Then, you come back and say "I never said you had sex with an alligator."

Then, I would play your game and respond "if you didn't say you never had sex with a human, go back and read your first paragraph."




You've done it a third time! When did I ever deny or ask where I said that? I said that. I never backed away from it, never denied it, and never alluded that I didn't say that. In fact, in my last post, I twice reiterated my argument about the Republicans having destroyed the economy. So, why are you attempting to say that I denied saying that or that I questioned you on when I ever said that?

Christ. I almost feel like somebody is pranking me with this post.

I'd keep refuting your last two paragraphs, but I don't know if you are able to read at this point.

Please, read slower. I can't wait to hear your explanations for doing the exact same logical fallacy three times in a row.

 

[oldeherd]

OK, if the state's economy was destroyed by the Republicans, as you say, by the time the Democrats came to power in 1932 as you stated, then the economy was the main topic of the discussion. Semantically, we can argue whether the state would have continued exist as a viable entity if its economy was truly "destroyed" for a significant period of time as you seem to suggest. Of course the state wasn't "physically" destroyed was it? Apparently not, as it is still physically here, and inhabited, or do you contest that fact also. Since you do seem to have a problem grasping facts. Go ahead and defend around 8 decades of one party rule that, as a whole, has severely crippled the state, socio-economically primarily. Oh, if it was destroyed by captains of industry, as you would seem to infer, then you should know that both parties have curried favor with said industrialists over the years; coal, timber, chemical interests, have also used their influence, wealth, etc., to woe Democrats in elected state government positions as much, probably more so, since Democrats have overwhelmingly occupied said positions in the time period spanning several decades.

Go back and play word games, or play with yourself, Y.A.G,si, Obviously, you have nothing to offer to support your penchant of just wanting to argue. I'll suppose you'll now say that "lumber and farming" are or were not PARTS of the economy that you say the Republicans destroyed!

Have a nice evening, night, or perhaps day, whichever you choose to argue that it is!!

 

[beefcake0520]

lol Glad I can't read his posts, he/she just wants to argue, nothing more.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

OK, if the state's economy was destroyed by the Republicans, as you say, by the time the Democrats came to power in 1932 as you stated, then the economy was the main topic of the discussion. Semantically, we can argue whether the state would have continued exist as a viable entity if its economy was truly "destroyed" for a significant period of time as you seem to suggest. Of course the state wasn't "physically" destroyed was it? Apparently not, as it is still physically here, and inhabited, or do you contest that fact also. Since you do seem to have a problem grasping facts.

Ohhh! So you were only referring to the economy when you false claimed I said that Republicans destroyed the state? That MAY be a halfway plausible out for you if you hadn't had done the exact same thing two other times by attributing comments I never made to me.

When somebody says "the economy was destroyed," they do not mean there is an absolute void of any commerce. It doesn't mean a guy isn't buying a pack of gum at the corner store. The U.S. economy was destroyed during the Great Recession, but it doesn't mean an entire absence of commerce or the economy. If somebody says that the environment has been destroyed in a region, it doesn't mean there is no more environment.

Since you do seem to have a problem grasping facts. Go ahead and defend around 8 decades of one party rule that, as a whole, has severely crippled the state, socio-economically primarily. Oh, if it was destroyed by captains of industry, as you would seem to infer, then you should know that both parties have curried favor with said industrialists over the years; coal, timber, chemical interests, have also used their influence, wealth, etc., to woe Democrats in elected state government positions as much, probably more so, since Democrats have overwhelmingly occupied said positions in the time period spanning several decades.

See, most of that is nothing I challenged. This is where you continue to fail; reading comprehension.

What I claimed was that the economy was destroyed by Republicans before Sam's timeline of blaming the Democrats. The economy was destroyed before the Great Recession hit the rest of the country. The state was led by Republican governors (and legislature) during that time.

If you would like sources that state exactly as I claim, I am more than happy to provide them.

Go back and play word games, or play with yourself, Y.A.G,si, Obviously, you have nothing to offer to support your penchant of just wanting to argue. I'll suppose you'll now say that "lumber and farming" are or were not PARTS of the economy that you say the Republicans destroyed!

This just shows you lack basic reading comprehension. Why would I say that lumber and farming were not parts of the economy? I am the one who showed those two industries being ruined by Republican leadership before the Great Recession hit.

I'm not the one who can't follow a basic argument here. I am not the one who is fabricating arguments and attributing to the other side here in order to save face. You're the one doing both of those things.

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

lol Glad I can't read his posts, he/she just wants to argue, nothing more.

Tell us again how Lambert should be fired after this season if he doesn't get them on the right track.

Then, after I disagree with that statement, tell us why you vehemently disagree with my comments only to then change your argument to agree with mine by claiming Lambert should be gone if he doesn't get Charlotte on the right track in the next TWO seasons.

Then, after I show that you just changed your argument to more closely align with mine, go back and change your word again. Claim that you're now going back to your original word, but that you can understand an argument that he needs more time (which was what you had vehemently disagreed with me for saying).

Then, to top it off, claim that a coach should improve the team each year and it isn't too much to ask for at least one more win each season. Then, after being shown that Lambert actually doubled that (going from 2 wins to 4 wins), cry and block people.

 

[herdalicious]

It has nothing to do with political affiliation. 150 years ago this state was brimming over with what was, at the time, one of the most valuable natural resources in the world. Now neither case is true, nor will it ever be true again (unless they figure out a way to fuel spaceships with river mud or spent chewing tobacco), but our entire population literally just voted "Please make it that way again."

When I was growing up, I said that until WV got its head out of its ass, we were doomed. Now I'm cresting four decades of this shit, and I'm realizing its never going to happen. Pretty much all of our three-digit IQs leave the state before their 24th birthday, while the ones in the low 60's have 3 kids by time they turn 21. Self-perpetuating model that I don't see any way it ever changes.

 

[TheGreenhouseEffect]

Pretty much all of our three-digit IQs leave the state before their 24th birthday, while the ones in the low 60's have 3 kids by time they turn 21. Self-perpetuating model that I don't see any way it ever changes.

Yes most Marshall people leave while the eerbilly skoal stained walmart t shirt wearers stay. It's why Hamrick said our fans travel a long ways to see our games. My take the state is going to have to go right to work to compete with the KYs and the NCs of the world. That is a tall order as the union stronghold allows the union folks to eat fat and the rest of the state that wants to work starves.

 

[UBeenThunderStruck]

regardless of which party controlled the state, it was all directed by primarily USPAM educated hilljacks that sat in Charleston all these years... change the course of the state by changing those types of people. Nothing good ever comes out of the state flagship, but blow-hard attitudes and greed!