930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: ggw on November 08, 2004, 01:27:00 am
-
Ha ha ha. Ho ho ho.
It looks like I vastly overestimated the foaming slacker vote.
It was nice to have spent the last week reading the same old coastal urban elitist "journalists" bemoaning the fact that the rest of the country doesn't share their "enlightened" views.
Someone needs to put George Mitchell in charge of the Democrats. He had no problem admitting that the problem with his party is that they have turned into a bunch of pompous self-deluding fuckwads who can do little beyond mocking and belittling anyone who doesn't have their same worldview. Those weren't his exact words, but pretty close.
Some great trends came out of this election. Republicans gained in almost every demographic category. College graduates preferred Bush 52% to 46%. So much for the "Republicans are uneducated boobs" argument. The true "uneducated boobs" (defined as the "Not a HS graduate" category) favored Kerry -- not surprisingly.
-
must feel good to be proud of a party winning due to the anti gay vote, even the other educated republican i know, my dad, was a bit ashamed of that
-
let's not forget the fact that you were wrong though.................
i love that fact most of all.............
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Some great trends came out of this election. Republicans gained in almost every demographic category. College graduates preferred Bush 52% to 46%. So much for the "Republicans are uneducated boobs" argument. The true "uneducated boobs" (defined as the "Not a HS graduate" category) favored Kerry -- not surprisingly.
Looks like the turn out the frat vote worked
:roll:
-
The election was overwhelmingly decided by frightened, petty, small-minded people who couldn't stand the idea that gays in states hundreds of miles away might decide to marry, and that this was more of a threat to the country than wars on false premises or soaring budget deficits. Not much to be proud of there.
<img src="http://www.alex.to/images/IQ2.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
dems are elitiest and figure that people will realize there's like, a war going on. republicans don't care about the west coast and northeast. republicans win because the part of the country they disregard has fewer electoral votes than the other guys apathy. yay america
-
And the crying continues......LOL
-
yeah we'll see whose doing the crying when they start jacking up tolls, utility fees and the sin taxes on alcohol and cigarettes to pay for deficiets in budgets. lowering taxes just means they increase a user fee somewhere else.
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
yeah we'll see whose doing the crying when they start jacking up tolls, utility fees and the sin taxes on alcohol and cigarettes to pay for deficiets in budgets. lowering taxes just means they increase a user fee somewhere else.
I'll watch those same people cry with ya Kosmo. :)
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
It looks like I vastly overestimated the foaming slacker vote.Someone needs to put
George Michael
<img src="http://www.channel4.com/media/entertainment/tv/R/richardandjudy/guest_gallery/big/george_michael.jpg" alt=" - " />
in charge of the Democrats. He had no problem admitting his problem with...
-
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
The election was overwhelmingly decided by frightened, petty, small-minded people who couldn't stand the idea that gays in states hundreds of miles away might decide to marry, and that this was more of a threat to the country than wars on false premises or soaring budget deficits. Not much to be proud of there.
statements like this is precisely why democrats cannot win in the south and midwest. you continue to think that because you are, supposedly, intellectually superior to everyone else, you, and only you, must be right. and the fact that the candidate that best represents what you think lost, again, drives you nuts. denial just ain't a river in egypt.
-
I wonder if Doctor Dolt realizes that his nifty IQ chart is a four year old hoax.
-
The education gap has just begun to change this election....for years, Dems were the less educated party overall(you know, that constitutes working class). That's changed as immigrant groups that once were blue collar -- Irish, Italians, etc (heavily populating the northeast) -- have had second, third and fourth generations go on to college and graduate school. Like the republicans aren't pompous -- come on. Not even you Reps are buying this "we're the common man" bullshit. Though you are the common evangelical -- you can have 'em.
-
My point was the opposite. If you looked at the table in yesterday's Week in Review section, the Republicans made inroads in the "Some college", "College degree" and "college degree or more" demographics. The Democrats only held an advantage in the smallest categories at the extremes.
Originally posted by Bags:
The education gap has just begun to change this election....for years, Dems were the less educated party overall(you know, that constitutes working class). That's changed as immigrant groups that once were blue collar -- Irish, Italians, etc (heavily populating the northeast) -- have had second, third and fourth generations go on to college and graduate school.
-
Fuck the South. Fuck 'em. We should have let them go when they wanted to leave. But no, we had to kill half a million people so they'd stay part of our special Union. Fighting for the right to keep slaves - yeah, those are states we want to keep.
And now what do we get? We're the fucking Arrogant Northeast Liberal Elite? How about this for arrogant: the South is the Real America? The Authentic America. Really?
Cause we fucking founded this country, assholes. Those Founding Fathers you keep going on and on about? All that bullshit about what you think they meant by the Second Amendment giving you the right to keep your automatic weapons in the glove compartment because you didn't bother to read the first half of the fucking sentence? Who do you think those wig-wearing lacy-shirt sporting revolutionaries were? They were fucking blue-staters, dickhead. Boston? Philadelphia? New York? Hello? Think there might be a reason all the fucking monuments are up here in our backyard?
No, No. Get the fuck out. We're not letting you visit the Liberty Bell and fucking Plymouth Rock anymore until you get over your real American selves and start respecting those other nine amendments. Who do you think those fucking stripes on the flag are for? Nine are for fucking blue states. And it would be 10 if those Vermonters had gotten their fucking Subarus together and broken off from New York a little earlier. Get it? We started this shit, so don't get all uppity about how real you are you Johnny-come-lately "Oooooh I've been a state for almost a hundred years" dickheads. Fuck off.
Arrogant? You wanna talk about us Northeasterners being fucking arrogant? What's more American than arrogance? Hmmm? Maybe horsies? I don't think so. Arrogance is the fucking cornerstone of what it means to be American. And I wouldn't be so fucking arrogant if I wasn't paying for your fucking bridges, bitch.
All those Federal taxes you love to hate? It all comes from us and goes to you, so shut up and enjoy your fucking Tennessee Valley Authority electricity and your fancy highways that we paid for. And the next time Florida gets hit by a hurricane you can come crying to us if you want to, but you're the ones who built on a fucking swamp. "Let the Spanish keep it, itâ??s a shithole," we said, but you had to have your fucking orange juice.
The next dickwad who says, "Itâ??s your money, not the government's money" is gonna get their ass kicked. Nine of the ten states that get the most federal fucking dollars and pay the least... can you guess? Go on, guess. Thatâ??s right, motherfucker, they're red states. And eight of the ten states that receive the least and pay the most? Itâ??s too easy, asshole, theyâ??re blue states. Itâ??s not your money, assholes, itâ??s fucking our money. What was that Real American Value you were spouting a minute ago? Self reliance? Try this for self reliance: buy your own fucking stop signs, assholes.
Letâ??s talk about those values for a fucking minute. You and your Southern values can bite my ass because the blue states got the values over you fucking Real Americans every day of the goddamn week. Which state do you think has the lowest divorce rate you marriage-hyping dickwads? Well? Can you guess? Itâ??s fucking Massachusetts, the fucking center of the gay marriage universe. Yes, thatâ??s right, the state you love to tie around the neck of anyone to the left of Strom Thurmond has the lowest divorce rate in the fucking nation. Think thatâ??s just some aberration? How about this: 9 of the 10 lowest divorce rates are fucking blue states, asshole, and most are in the Northeast, where our values suck so bad. And where are the highest divorce rates? Care to fucking guess? 10 of the top 10 are fucking red-ass we're-so-fucking-moral states. And while Nevada is the worst, the Bible belt is doing its fucking part.
But two guys making out is going to fucking ruin marriage for you? Yeah? Seems like you're ruining it pretty well on your own, you little bastards. Oh, but that's ok because you go to church, right? I mean you do, right? Cause we fucking get to hear about it every goddamn year at election time. Yes, we're fascinated by how you get up every Sunday morning and sing, and then you're fucking towers of moral superiority. Yeah, that's a workable formula. Maybe us fucking Northerners don't talk about religion as much as you because we're not so busy sinning, hmmm? Ever think of that, you self-righteous assholes? No, you're too busy erecting giant stone tablets of the Ten Commandments in buildings paid for by the fucking Northeast Liberal Elite. And who has the highest murder rates in the nation? It ain't us up here in the North, assholes.
Well this gravy train is fucking over. Take your liberal-bashing, federal-tax-leaching, confederate-flag-waving, holier-than-thou, hypocritical bullshit and shove it up your ass.
And no, you can't have your fucking convention in New York next time. Fuck off.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
My point was the opposite. If you looked at the table in yesterday's Week in Review section, the Republicans made inroads in the "Some college", "College degree" and "college degree or more" demographics. The Democrats only held an advantage in the smallest categories at the extremes.
Haven't read or looked at Week in Review yet...so I'm not sure I get your point, though I'll go take a look. In other words, Reps claim the middle, while Dems claim college professors and Quickie mart employees?
-
Originally posted by Bags:
In other words, Reps claim the middle, while Dems claim college professors and Quickie mart employees?
Exactly.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
He had no problem admitting that the problem with his party is that they have turned into a bunch of pompous self-deluding fuckwads who can do little beyond mocking and belittling anyone who doesn't have their same worldview.
i have found, the exact opposite is true.
I have also known Democrats to be more concerned with whats happening being right and wrong, while Republicans dont seem to give a rats ass as long as they're paychecks are fat and thier SUVs are big.
-
Hey Quickie Mart employee,
It's THEIR.
not they're or thier.
Signed,
Professor Miller
-
yes, thank you. i think i was thinking one thing and typing another.
chili dog?
-
Rhett, excellent rant!!!
-
Too bad Rhett left off his source (http://www.fuckthesouth.com/).
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Which state do you think has the lowest divorce rate you marriage-hyping dickwads? Well? Can you guess? Itâ??s fucking Massachusetts, the fucking center of the gay marriage universe. Yes, thatâ??s right, the state you love to tie around the neck of anyone to the left of Strom Thurmond has the lowest divorce rate in the fucking nation. Think thatâ??s just some aberration?
It is not surprising in the least that the state with the third lowest marriage rate would have the lowest divorce rate.
You can't divorce if you don't marry.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
How about this: 9 of the 10 lowest divorce rates are fucking blue states
9 of the 10 lowest marriage rates are fucking blue states as well.
You can't divorce if you don't marry.
I'm sure this is just a cut-and-paste job, Rhett. But as a junior statistician, you should hold yourself to a higher standard.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
9 of the 10 lowest marriage rates are fucking blue states as well.
You can't divorce if you don't marry.
a rate is a rate, nonetheless. sure lower marriage counts mean less people to get divorced, but the rate is still less.
they must have low marriage rates cause of all those faggot liberals and red sox fans up there.
-
More like Rhett, excellent cut and paste!@
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
Rhett, excellent rant!!!
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
a rate is a rate, nonetheless. sure lower marraige counts mean less people to get divorced, but the rate is still less.
The marriage and divorce rates are calculated as marriage per 1000 people and divorce per 1000 people. The 2000 marriage rate in Massachusetts was 6.0 per 1000 and the divorce rate was 3.0 per 1000. In Virginia, the marriage rate was 9.0/1000 and the divorce rate was 4.3/1000.
In absolute terms, the divorce rate was higher in Virginia. However, relative to people who got married (who are the only people that can get divorced!!!) the divorce rate is actually higher in Massachusetts than in Virginia.
-
Marriage should be something that is given strong consideration before ever being endeavored into, as any neurotic northern Barry Cohen on the block would tell you after proposing to his girlfriend of seven years, Sarah Lonstein.
Marriage should not be something that is done every time some Billy Bob want to get his dick wet,
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Which state do you think has the lowest divorce rate you marriage-hyping dickwads? Well? Can you guess? Itâ??s fucking Massachusetts, the fucking center of the gay marriage universe. Yes, thatâ??s right, the state you love to tie around the neck of anyone to the left of Strom Thurmond has the lowest divorce rate in the fucking nation. Think thatâ??s just some aberration?
It is not surprising in the least that the state with the third lowest marriage rate would have the lowest divorce rate.
You can't divorce if you don't marry.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
How about this: 9 of the 10 lowest divorce rates are fucking blue states
9 of the 10 lowest marriage rates are fucking blue states as well.
You can't divorce if you don't marry.
I'm sure this is just a cut-and-paste job, Rhett. But as a junior statistician, you should hold yourself to a higher standard. [/b]
-
41
-
Wait, wait.
I assumed "divorce rate" meant percent of marriages that end in divorce. That would be a meaningful statistic.
But if you compare it to "marriage rate", which I have to assume means rate of marriages per capita or some such, then either you're a) comparing apples to oranges, or b) comparing per capita numbers in both cases, which I don't think is that meaningful.
Anyone want to shed some light on this? I dunno what the source of these numbers is.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
the divorce rate was higher in Virginia.
the divorce rate is actually higher in Massachusetts.
ok.
-
In the chic salons of Manhattan and the trendy bistros of Los Angeles they are saying they same thing. "How could Bush have won?" ponder the elitist vanguard of the left-wing status quo. "I don't know a single person who voted for him."
On the networks -- 12 hours after the rest of us realized that John Kerry had fallen -- Dan Rather scribbles permutations on colored Post-It notes in an attempt to prove to himself that his chosen man could still take the day.
Surfing about, I noted talking heads all agog over how they missed it. In the aftermath of the election, they behave with professorial demeanor, wondering how their certainty of a Democratic victory went up in flames.
"What we don't realize is that there's a huge segment of the country that doesn't think like us," states one well-coifed anchor, his voice dripping with derision and condescension. "We can never understand the people who like their guns and their pick-up trucks and their Nascar."
That comment, as much as anything else, explains why George Bush was re-elected with the largest percentage of the popular vote since 1968.
The pretty TV man was stating that those such as he - the elites, the sophisticates -- can never comprehend the lowly mental horsepower of folk who shop at Wal-Mart, belong to a bowling league, sometimes attend church and still believe that the United States is far superior to the socialist enclaves of Europe.
To the TV anchor, working stiffs and Joe Six-Packs are the "great unwashed." They don't read the New York Times, utter sly chuckles at the cartoons in the New Yorker or spend $400 bucks on a pair of shoes. They like a beer and a steak, read the funny pages on Sunday morning and think a day of chips and NFL is a dandy ol' time.
Such being the case, they are not worthy of respect.
The election of 2004 was not just a case of Bush versus Kerry. It was a contest of city versus country, blue collar versus white collar, arrogant elitist versus good ol' boy.
It was class warfare in the deepest of trenches, but even after being whipped, dipped and hung out to dry, the high and mighty of the left STILL don't get it. They cannot comprehend how and why they were whomped by a bunch of hicks.
Thus, allow me to enlighten. You see, the people whom America's Brahmins view as yokels and slack-jaws didn't just vote against Kerry the man. They voted against what Kerry stood for.
They voted against arrogant, pseudo-intellectuals who try and mandate how the imbecilic members of the middle-class caste should live, act and think. They voted against pompous, urban know-it-alls who feel they have carte blanche to halt farming, ranching, logging and mining in an attempt to save an endangered species of toad.
They voted against those who want to take their guns...and not just the ones they hunt with. They voted against the snobs, the egocentric, the self-righteous.
They voted against the jerks...and they did it brilliantly.
The "average" citizen of American voted against those whom John Kerry labeled the "heart and soul" of America. They voted against the traitorous pig Michael Moore and that Whoopity Goldberg woman. They voted against Bill Maher, Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Cameron Diaz, Robin Williams, Cher, Rosie O'Donnell and the whole damn cast of "Friends."
They voted against "celebrities" who were rude and crude, those who profaned George Bush and his family with the most foul of commentary at each and every opportunity.
The election wasn't just Bush versus Kerry. It was "Us versus Them."
Oh...there were issues aplenty. And on each one the families from Flyover Country took a stance diametrically opposed to the upper crust.
The latter view Europe as a Socialist utopia which all should strive to emulate. The former view it as a place with bad plumbing and body odor. The latter are enamored with, and a desire to appease, anyone who claims a lineage harboring at least one duke, baron or Third World, French-speaking exporter of bat guano. The former couldn't give a damn what Europe thinks, wouldn't trust Kofi Annan to wash their truck.
Hell, they want to resign from the U.N., boot out the tenants and convert the real estate into a Bass Pro Shop.
When it comes to war, the "normal" American believes in big bombs, not big words. They want country music and armor piercing bullets, whereas the intelligentsia wants to practice diplomacy, hum Kumbaya and surrender.
The Nascar crowd intrinsically realizes Saddam was a terrorist, understands Iraq is part of the bigger war on terror. In case you forgot (and judging by the voting totals, many in the Northeast did just that) they'll remind you the radical Muslims attacked us...not vice versa.
The residents of our two distinct Americas reside within the confines of different economies and social strata. It's not that Flyover Folk disagree with the values of the hoity-toity, it's more that they believe the pampered and feckless are bereft of values, their ethical compass spinning like a narcissistic top.
They see the elites as merely paying lip service to that which is convenient and faddish, proving to the neighbors they sup heartily on the ideological flavor of the week, feeling nothing but a need to impress.
The commoners? They are more traditional. Quite a lot are religious, but many are content to make a living, watch the tube and catch a long nap on Saturday. The "God, guns and guts" contingent is often poor but happy. The cocktail, Commies and Cadillac club is often rich and in therapy.
And the Limousine Liberals STILL don't get it. They think the Bush victory is an anomaly, even though they've been humiliated twice in four years.
They will lose again and again, firm in the resolve that good breeding always wins the day. The clay-eaters, rubes and mouth-breathers of "Flyover Country" will never surpass them, they think, for they lack class, culture and social contacts.
As for the aforementioned po' white trash...they are laughing. They don't have much cash. They don't have health insurance. They don't take cruises. They don't have designer labels.
All they've got is the Senate, the House, the Oval Office and a grin that spreads from ear to ear.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Someone needs to put George Mitchell in charge of the Democrats. He had no problem admitting that the problem with his party is that they have turned into a bunch of pompous self-deluding fuckwads who can do little beyond mocking and belittling anyone who doesn't have their same worldview. Those weren't his exact words, but pretty close.
I don't believe your analysis to be true either. Just about every Democrat memeber of Congress and most of the left-leaning pundits have acknowledged that the party is in turmoil at the moment, having lost key strongholds in the Old South and the mid-west by failing to have a unified message on domestic issues that used to play well in those regions. The party was beaten badly by Karl Rove, not just Kerry.
Hell, Carville was saying exactly this before midnight on Tuesday.
-
Thanks Doc...you have someone in agreement here..
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
The election was overwhelmingly decided by frightened, petty, small-minded people who couldn't stand the idea that gays in states hundreds of miles away might decide to marry, and that this was more of a threat to the country than wars on false premises or soaring budget deficits. Not much to be proud of there.
<img src="http://www.alex.to/images/IQ2.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
As Bill Maher said last week, succession probably wasn't such a bad thing.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
The election was overwhelmingly decided by frightened, petty, small-minded people who couldn't stand the idea that gays in states hundreds of miles away might decide to marry, and that this was more of a threat to the country than wars on false premises or soaring budget deficits. Not much to be proud of there.
statements like this is precisely why democrats cannot win in the south and midwest. you continue to think that because you are, supposedly, intellectually superior to everyone else, you, and only you, must be right. and the fact that the candidate that best represents what you think lost, again, drives you nuts. denial just ain't a river in egypt. [/b]
-
Originally posted by hitman:
As Bill Maher said last week, succession probably wasn't such a bad thing.
i presume you mean secession. big difference there buddy.
and i'll keep my discussion on states rights and nullification theory to myself. :)
-
REJECTED STATE MOTTOS
ALABAMA: Literacy ain't everything
Ya want fries with dat?
ALASKA: Come, freeze your butt off
ARIZONA: Winter home to 150,000 snowbirds
ARKANSAS: At least we're not Mississippi
CALIFORNIA: The Granola State
Nobody's actually from here
The really long state
COLORADO: Too wimpy to cross the mountains so we stopped here
CONNECTICUT: Way too close to New York
DELAWARE: You'll need a map to find us
So close to Washington you can smell it
FLORIDA: The Gunshine State
Elephant Graveyard; where the old Republicans
go to die
Senior citizen discounts available
Come, enjoy the humidity
GEORGIA: Home of the Rednecks
Confederate money welcome
HAWAII: Sure, we've got Interstates... drive on over
Book 'em Danno
Tom Selik, Jack Lord, Don Ho - Paradise!
Come, get lai-ed
IDAHO: Ain't nothing here
We don't care if you spell potato with an "e"
ILLINOIS: Land of the voting dead
Gateway to Iowa
INDIANA: Home of David Letterman
IOWA: Just east of Omaha
It's easy to spell
KANSAS: Hayfever capital of the Midwest
Dole slept here
There's no place like home
Ya want flat, we got flat
KENTUCKY: Tobacco is a vegetable
We're all related
LOUISIANA: Swim the beautiful Bayou
Cancer Alley's just a name, and names will
never hurt you
MAINE: For Sale
You can spit on Canada from here
MARYLAND: If it weren't for Washington, you couldn't find us
MASSACHUSETTS: Home of the young girls from Nantucket,
also the home of Ted Kennedy, hmmmm...
MICHIGAN: Land of the free, home of the Buick
MINNESOTA: Not Sweden, but we try to act like it
Sure beats Canada
MISSISSIPPI: We're lucky we can spell it
Why would you want to come here?
MISSOURI: Gateway to Kansas
Here's mine, Show Me yours
We're better than Illinois
MONTANA: Land of the Big Sky, and very little else
We've got lots of 10'x10' shacks in the woods
It's where you're wanted.
At least our cows are sane.
NEBRASKA: More corn than Kansas
Go to Kansas, turn north
NEVADA: More weirdos than Alaska (warmer too)
2 words - Death Valley
3:5 you'll leave broke
We have our own nuclear testing site
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Like Old Hampshire, only newer
About as exciting as Vermont
NEW JERSEY: You have the right to remain silent,
You have the right to an attorney...
Tell 'em Guido sent ya
NEW MEXICO: Lizards make excellent pets
We have reservations
Alien Welcome Center - Roswell
NEW YORK: At least we're not New Jersey!
We're more than a big city; we're a state
Like we CARE about a motto
English spoken here; sometimes
NORTH CAROLINA: Five million people; Fifteen last names
We're bigger than South Carolina
NORTH DAKOTA: The OTHER South Dakota
OHIO: Don't judge us by Cleveland
Proud polluters of Lake Erie
We're easy to spell
OKLAHOMA: We're OK, you're NOT!
I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto
OREGON: As pretty as California but not as weird
We're not named after a musical instrument
You can see the sunset from here
PENNSYLVANIA: Cook with coal
Free lub job with oil change
RHODE ISLAND: Size ain't everything
Nobody famous came from Rhode Island
SOUTH CAROLINA: Just south of North Carolina
SOUTH DAKOTA: Closer than North Dakota
TENNESSEE: The Educashun State
Thank goodness we've still got Elvis
A great fixer-upper
TEXAS: Si Hablo Ingles
See, EVERYTHING is bigger in Texas!
UTAH: Our Jesus is better than your Jesus
At least our sheep can't talk
VERMONT: Bet ya can't name 2 of our towns
VIRGINIA: Please don't confuse us with West Virginia!
WASHINGTON: We like our state, so STAY OUT!
WEST VIRGINIA: Where "family values" has a different meaning
WISCONSIN: Land of funny accents.
WYOMING: Where men are lonely and sheep are scared
-
The exchange that I saw between Brokaw and Mitchell went well beyond simply saying that the Democrats were in disarray or that they have failed to serve old constituencies or even that they didn't share the "values" of many Americans. Brokaw made the point that Democrats have actively alienated and been overwhelmingly hostile to many Americans.
While Brokaw was making this point, Mitchell was unhesitatingly nodding in agreement. When Brokaw went further and stated that the Democrats have actually engaged in a campaign of "mocking and belittling" Americans of "faith" Mitchell flatly said he was in agreement with Brokaw's point. Only at the end of the interview did Mitchell state - as an afterthought - that "not all Democrats" are like this.
Originally posted by vansmack:
I don't believe your analysis to be true either. Just about every Democrat memeber of Congress and most of the left-leaning pundits have acknowledged that the party is in turmoil at the moment, having lost key strongholds in the Old South and the mid-west by failing to have a unified message on domestic issues that used to play well in those regions. The party was beaten badly by Karl Rove, not just Kerry.
Hell, Carville was saying exactly this before midnight on Tuesday.
-
Originally posted by hitman:
Thanks Doc...you have someone in agreement here..
If you note at the bottom of that chart it says "This data has been published in the Economist." The Economist did run the chart in 2000, (replace "Kerry" with "Gore") when it was originally circulated. What the chart's author fails to note is that a week later The Economist ran a retraction in which they apologized for being taken in by a hoax and stated that the data had been thoroughly discredited.
I hope you and Doctor Dope keep spewing your venom, as it allows the Republicans to keep winning -- even with a candidate who is bogged down in an unpopular war, who has lost over a million jobs and who can barely form a complete sentence.
Just keep pointing and yelling at other people and telling them that they are the problem because they are stupid, lazy, selfish, illiterate, and blinded by faith.
One day, you'll look in the mirror and see where the real problem lays.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Just keep pointing and yelling at other people and telling them that they are the problem because they are stupid, lazy, selfish, illiterate, and blinded by faith.
because Republicans always respect other people's opinions and values?
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Just keep pointing and yelling at other people and telling them that they are the problem because they are stupid, lazy, selfish, illiterate, and blinded by faith.
because Republicans always respect other people's opinions and values? [/b]
2 wrongs = 1 right?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I hope you and Doctor Dope keep spewing your venom, as it allows the Republicans to keep winning -- even with a candidate who is bogged down in an unpopular war, who has lost over a million jobs and who can barely form a complete sentence.
Just keep pointing and yelling at other people and telling them that they are the problem because they are stupid, lazy, selfish, illiterate, and blinded by faith.
One day, you'll look in the mirror and see where the real problem lays.
While I mostly agree with you here, I think people complaining about people blinded by faith is fair game. But Democrats themselves are to blame for the loss. The people blinded by faith would not have been a problem if Democrats could find a message that appealed to the people who voted for Bush and were not blinded by faith. The fact remains that no matter how much of a mandate Bush claims he has, the race was extremely close, and could have been won by the Democrats with some changes to their message.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
2 wrongs = 1 right?
thats not what i was saying.....what i was saying was along the lines of the pot calling the kettle black.
i think they're both stupid. but people call me socialist so whatever.
(see, i used they're right that time)
-
Originally posted by hitman:
Thanks Doc...you have someone in agreement here..
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
The election was overwhelmingly decided by frightened, petty, small-minded people who couldn't stand the idea that gays in states hundreds of miles away might decide to marry, and that this was more of a threat to the country than wars on false premises or soaring budget deficits. Not much to be proud of there.
<img src="http://www.alex.to/images/IQ2.jpg" alt=" - " />
[/b]
The worst thing Democrats could now say is that Republicans won because in most states they carried, average IQs are lower than in the remaining states. This is stupid and won't help at all, actually it might backfire. There is nothing in politics I like less than the GOP (actually tied with the Popular Party in Spain and ARENA in El Salvador), but rather than blaming the loss to the low IQs in the south and midwest, democrats should start looking for a way of re-gaining some of those states in 2006, let's stop crying and let's look for good arguments. It shouldn't be that difficult to get states like New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, or Arkansas, the difference wasn't that huge, there sure are lots of moderate republicans left there who could swing to the Democratic party.
-
Bob Herbert asks a great question...with all this "values" nonsense, what about the ignorance issue? In other words, is wishing that people voted with actual facts in mind, inherently elitist?
Voting Without the Facts
By BOB HERBERT
Published: November 8, 2004
The so-called values issue, at least as it's being popularly tossed around, is overrated.
Last week's election was extremely close and a modest shift in any number of factors might have changed the outcome. If the weather had been better in Ohio. ...If the wait to get into the voting booth hadn't been so ungodly long in certain Democratic precincts. ... Or maybe if those younger voters had actually voted. ...
I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.
This is scary. How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold? No wonder Bush won.
The survey, and an accompanying report, showed that there's a fair amount of cluelessness in the ranks of the values crowd. The report said, "It is clear that supporters of the president are more likely to have misperceptions than those who oppose him."
I haven't heard any of the postelection commentators talk about ignorance and its effect on the outcome. It's all values, all the time. Traumatized Democrats are wringing their hands and trying to figure out how to appeal to voters who have arrogantly claimed the moral high ground and can't stop babbling about their self-proclaimed superiority. Potential candidates are boning up on new prayers and purchasing time-shares in front-row-center pews.
A more practical approach might be for Democrats to add teach-ins to their outreach efforts. Anything that shrinks the ranks of the clueless would be helpful.
If you don't think this values thing has gotten out of control, consider the lead paragraph of an op-ed article that ran in The LA. Times on Friday. It was written by Frank Pastore, a former major league pitcher who is now a host on the Christian talk-radio station KKLA.
"Christians, in politics as in evangelism," said Mr. Pastore, "are not against people or the world. But we are against false ideas that hold good people captive. On Tuesday, this nation rejected liberalism, primarily because liberalism has been taken captive by the left. Since 1968, the left has taken millions captive, and we must help those Democrats who truly want to be free to actually break free of this evil ideology."
Mr. Pastore goes on to exhort Christian conservatives to reject any and all voices that might urge them "to compromise with the vanquished." How's that for values?
In The New York Times on Thursday, Richard Viguerie, the dean of conservative direct mail, declared, "Now comes the revolution." He said, "Liberals, many in the media and inside the Republican Party, are urging the president to 'unite' the country by discarding the allies that earned him another four years."
Mr. Viguerie, it is clear, will stand four-square against any such dangerous moves toward reconciliation.
You have to be careful when you toss the word values around. All values are not created equal. Some Democrats are casting covetous eyes on voters whose values, in many cases, are frankly repellent. Does it make sense for the progressive elements in our society to undermine their own deeply held beliefs in tolerance, fairness and justice in an effort to embrace those who deliberately seek to divide?
What the Democratic Party needs above all is a clear message and a bold and compelling candidate. The message has to convince Americans that they would be better off following a progressive Democratic vision of the future. The candidate has to be a person of integrity capable of earning the respect and the affection of the American people.
This is doable. Al Gore and John Kerry were less than sparkling candidates, and both came within a hair of defeating Mr. Bush.
What the Democrats don't need is a candidate who is willing to shape his or her values to fit the pundits' probably incorrect analysis of the last election. Values that pivot on a dime were not really values to begin with.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
The election was overwhelmingly decided by frightened, petty, small-minded people who couldn't stand the idea that gays in states hundreds of miles away might decide to marry, and that this was more of a threat to the country than wars on false premises or soaring budget deficits. Not much to be proud of there.
statements like this is precisely why democrats cannot win in the south and midwest. you continue to think that because you are, supposedly, intellectually superior to everyone else, you, and only you, must be right. and the fact that the candidate that best represents what you think lost, again, drives you nuts. denial just ain't a river in egypt. [/b]
i'd argue that the notion that the south and certain parts of the midwest (suddenly wisconsin isn't the midwest?) are somehow morally superior to the west coast and northeasterners is just as absurd. the gop ran a superior campaign, framing a couple of issues as a moral the basis for reelection. the democrats did poorly in this regard, they should have made (say) healthcare a moral issue. but they didn't the republicans are supperior in ruthless campaigning and that was that. to further point fingers and say things like 'you people think you're so superior' is going to further divide this country. you have to admit the geographic divisions cannot be good for the future of the country.
-
Originally posted by Barcelona:
The worst thing Democrats could now say is that Republicans won because in most states they carried, average IQs are lower than in the remaining states.
That chart is ahoax (http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQstates.htm)
-
So by your chart, one could say that 18 of the top 37 went to Kerry, whereas only 1 (DC) of the bottom 14 went to Kerry. Certainly, there is some significance to that.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Barcelona:
The worst thing Democrats could now say is that Republicans won because in most states they carried, average IQs are lower than in the remaining states.
That chart is ahoax (http://www.sq.4mg.com/stateIQ-income.htm) [/b]
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
The election was overwhelmingly decided by frightened, petty, small-minded people who couldn't stand the idea that gays in states hundreds of miles away might decide to marry, and that this was more of a threat to the country than wars on false premises or soaring budget deficits. Not much to be proud of there.
statements like this is precisely why democrats cannot win in the south and midwest. you continue to think that because you are, supposedly, intellectually superior to everyone else, you, and only you, must be right. and the fact that the candidate that best represents what you think lost, again, drives you nuts. denial just ain't a river in egypt. [/b]
i'd argue that the notion that the south and certain parts of the midwest (suddenly wisconsin isn't the midwest?) are somehow morally superior to the west coast and northeasterners is just as absurd. the gop ran a superior campaign, framing a couple of issues as a moral the basis for reelection. the democrats did poorly in this regard, they should have made (say) healthcare a moral issue. but they didn't the republicans are supperior in ruthless campaigning and that was that. to further point fingers and say things like 'you people think you're so superior' is going to further divide this country. you have to admit the geographic divisions cannot be good for the future of the country. [/b]
oh, i think you mis-understood me. i was simply pointing out that herr doom believes that he is correct, his beliefs are correct and that the left (which reflects his beliefs) is correct, and that any other beliefs are in-correct, wrong and intolerant. it's in statements like that that upset people.. . .believe it or not, people in the south and midwest do think about things like that. they do not want californians or northeast liberal elites telling them what's right and what's wrong. if you look at a county-by-county map breakdown of this election, it's still the basic rural/urban split - even in states like california. it just happens that there are more people living in the city than in the country in those states.
as for wisconsin. . .both it, iowa and minnesota are trending republican, and unless the democrats are able to reshape their message and do it with conviction, you could probably add wisconsin to the red states.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by hitman:
Thanks Doc...you have someone in agreement here..
If you note at the bottom of that chart it says "This data has been published in the Economist." The Economist did run the chart in 2000, (replace "Kerry" with "Gore") when it was originally circulated. What the chart's author fails to note is that a week later The Economist ran a retraction in which they apologized for being taken in by a hoax and stated that the data had been thoroughly discredited.
I hope you and Doctor Dope keep spewing your venom, as it allows the Republicans to keep winning -- even with a candidate who is bogged down in an unpopular war, who has lost over a million jobs and who can barely form a complete sentence.
Just keep pointing and yelling at other people and telling them that they are the problem because they are stupid, lazy, selfish, illiterate, and blinded by faith.
One day, you'll look in the mirror and see where the real problem lays. [/b]
I wasn't referring to the chart. I could care less about the chart. I was referring to his commentary. My biggest problem is the blinded by their faith part. Religion in this country is completely intertwined with politics when it shouldn't be. And when it comes right down to it, most devout Christians (especially the ones who have to state how devout they are) are mostly hippocrates. These are the same people who are supposed to be so loving of everyone, but end up being the most close-minded especially when it comes to homosexuality, interracial marriage, etc.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Just keep pointing and yelling at other people and telling them that they are the problem because they are stupid, lazy, selfish, illiterate, and blinded by faith.
because Republicans always respect other people's opinions and values? [/b]
2 wrongs = 1 right? [/b]
I respect other people's views if they can back them up. But they shouldn't be slammed down people's throats or become political doctrine.
-
I want to know if they're using the new, padded SAT scores, or the original ones well all had to get into college with.... I coulda gotten in to Harvard with 100 extra points, damn kids.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
So by your chart, one could say that 18 of the top 37 went to Kerry, whereas only 1 (DC) of the bottom 14 went to Kerry. Certainly, there is some significance to that.
Only if you believe that everybody in the state has the exact same IQ and that everybody in the state voted the same way.
Any mention of "average IQ" without regard to the dispersion of the sample is useless, especially when the data is used as a corollary to a non-universal trait, such as presidential vote.
Since most of the states voted within the 60% and 40% range, and you have no indicator of the dispersion, you cannot even begin to make any assumptions about the individual correlation of intelligence and voting patterns.
-
Originally posted by hitman:
And when it comes right down to it, most devout Christians (especially the ones who have to state how devout they are) are mostly hippocrates.
Most devout Christians are a 5th century B.C. Greek physician (http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/Museum/hippoc.html) ????
You don't make much sense, do you?
-
Originally posted by hitman:
And when it comes right down to it, most devout Christians (especially the ones who have to state how devout they are) are mostly hippocrates.
tsk tsk. . .i presume you mean hypocrites. . .as hippocrates was a greek doctor.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
and that any other beliefs are in-correct, wrong and intolerant. it's in statements like that that upset people.. . .
Are we talking about Bush here? It's incredible how Republicans can shape things to the direction they want. Come on, Venerable, at least acknowledge that if there is someone you can identify this way, that is G.W.Bush and his administration.
-
Good points. I don't really buy the whole IQ crap anyway.
Even if there was truth to it, it would be a load of crap anyway. One persons vote is equal to another, whether the person has an iq of 80 or 140.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
So by your chart, one could say that 18 of the top 37 went to Kerry, whereas only 1 (DC) of the bottom 14 went to Kerry. Certainly, there is some significance to that.
Only if you believe that everybody in the state has the exact same IQ and that everybody in the state voted the same way.
Any mention of "average IQ" without regard to the dispersion of the sample is useless, especially when the data is used as a corollary to a non-universal trait, such as presidential vote.
Since most of the states voted within the 60% and 40% range, and you have no indicator of the dispersion, you cannot even begin to make any assumptions about the individual correlation of intelligence and voting patterns. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Barcelona:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
and that any other beliefs are in-correct, wrong and intolerant. it's in statements like that that upset people.. . .
Are we talking about Bush here? It's incredible how Republicans can shape things to the direction they want. Come on, Venerable, at least acknowledge that if there is someone you can identify this way, that is G.W.Bush and his administration. [/b]
that's fair enough. but, the context of this entire conversation has been in regard to the reaction from the left to bush's re-election and how the left keeps wondering how could people vote for bush, especially when the left is all-knowing. this thread, so far, has not been a critique of the policies, et al. of this administration. if you want to have that conversation, go back to the please vote thread.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
The election was overwhelmingly decided by frightened, petty, small-minded people who couldn't stand the idea that gays in states hundreds of miles away might decide to marry, and that this was more of a threat to the country than wars on false premises or soaring budget deficits. Not much to be proud of there.
statements like this is precisely why democrats cannot win in the south and midwest. you continue to think that because you are, supposedly, intellectually superior to everyone else, you, and only you, must be right. and the fact that the candidate that best represents what you think lost, again, drives you nuts. denial just ain't a river in egypt. [/b]
i'd argue that the notion that the south and certain parts of the midwest (suddenly wisconsin isn't the midwest?) are somehow morally superior to the west coast and northeasterners is just as absurd. the gop ran a superior campaign, framing a couple of issues as a moral the basis for reelection. the democrats did poorly in this regard, they should have made (say) healthcare a moral issue. but they didn't the republicans are supperior in ruthless campaigning and that was that. to further point fingers and say things like 'you people think you're so superior' is going to further divide this country. you have to admit the geographic divisions cannot be good for the future of the country. [/b]
oh, i think you mis-understood me. i was simply pointing out that herr doom believes that he is correct, his beliefs are correct and that the left (which reflects his beliefs) is correct, and that any other beliefs are in-correct, wrong and intolerant. it's in statements like that that upset people.. . .believe it or not, people in the south and midwest do think about things like that. they do not want californians or northeast liberal elites telling them what's right and what's wrong. if you look at a county-by-county map breakdown of this election, it's still the basic rural/urban split - even in states like california. it just happens that there are more people living in the city than in the country in those states.
as for wisconsin. . .both it, iowa and minnesota are trending republican, and unless the democrats are able to reshape their message and do it with conviction, you could probably add wisconsin to the red states. [/b]
see, i'm kind of agreeing with you. my point was that the west coast and northeast, cities, whatever don't like to be called immoral, just because you watch them on tv. and we've learned that the right can completely ignore them and still win. i don't want to be dictated that dudes kissing dudes is the reason to reelect someone by evangelical christians either. two wrongs don't make a right. it just looks more division is coming because all of the cities in america don't matter anymore, votewise
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
it just looks more division is coming because all of the cities in america don't matter anymore, votewise
thomas jefferson would be proud. :)
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
...believe it or not, people in the south and midwest do think about things like that. they do not want californians or northeast liberal elites telling them what's right and what's wrong.
Wait, isn't that exactly what those southern and midwestern voters are trying to do -- tell the whole country what's right and wrong based on their beliefs, religion and assumptively superior morality?
Both sides proclaim some sort of superiority -- it's what we do as humans. "My way is the correct way." I do believe, however, that Dems are more generally interested in what can help/work for the most people, while reps have a narrower view. If the reps were still the party of less government, they could protest that characterization, but they aren't that party any more. Less taxes, yes; less government, no way.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Wait, isn't that exactly what those southern and midwestern voters are trying to do -- tell the whole country what's right and wrong based on their beliefs, religion and assumptively superior morality?
i see it more as a rejection of what they are told they are supposed to think. ;)
-
I think there's more push on *what to think* from the conservatives. Just my view, but being told "no one should do this" seems more restrictive and controlling than "people should be allowed to do this."
Oh yeah, unless you count semi-automatic weapons. That's true, libs are telling them "you're not allowed to have that semi-automatic weapon to protect your home."
See, in the end, both parties are doing the exact same damn thing.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
believe it or not, people in the south and midwest do think about things like that. they do not want californians or northeast liberal elites telling them what's right and what's wrong.
This is the difference between 70,000 votes in Ohio, and the Dems have to take the abuse of being intellectually elitists, as opposed to 70,000 votes the other way where we intellectually elitists would be doing the same to the moral elitists on the right. I'm quite certain that the Repubs would be all over Karl Rove and his strategy of staying way to the right had Kerry won, just the same. The questions would be the same - where did the Repubs go wrong?
I will say this though: San Francisco and Mass did what they felt was right for their constituency. They were never out actively campaigning for Gay marraige in every place in the nation much the way the President has said he will introduce a contitutional amendment banning gay marraige in this country, so be careful who you accuse of telling the other side what's right and what's wrong.
One sides morals elitism is not too far different from one sides intellectual elitism. One side just happened to be the winner of this election, effectively by 70,000 votes in Ohio.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
tell[ing people]what's right and wrong based on [one's] beliefs, religion...
isn't this really what law is all about?
-
Originally posted by Bags:
I think there's more push on *what to think* from the conservatives. Just my view, but being told "no one should do this" seems more restrictive and controlling than "people should be allowed to do this."
maybe. . .but again, we haven't been talking about that. we're talking about how steamed the left is that people voted for bush. the "how could so many people vote for bush" crowd.
but, come on, the "people should be allowed to do this" statement is also false...the democrats say that, but it's real application is that people should be allowed to do this, but only if it doesn't interfere with something else. people should be allowed to pray, but not in school, the park in front of city hall, on any federal land, blah blah blah. . .people should be allowed to speak their minds, but only if it agrees with mine. needless to say, both are just as insidious and damaging to this country.
do both parties push orthodoxy among it's denizens, of course. it just turns out that in this election, republicans were able to "turn out the base" more effectively than democrats. and the democrats are peeved.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
This is the difference between 70,000 votes in Ohio, and the Dems have to take the abuse of being intellectually elitists, as opposed to 70,000 votes the other way where we intellectually elitists would be doing the same to the moral elitists on the right. I'm quite certain that the Repubs would be all over Karl Rove and his strategy of staying way to the right had Kerry won, just the same. The questions would be the same - where did the Repubs go wrong?
One sides morals elitism is not too far different from one sides intellectual elitism. One side just happened to be the winner of this election, effectively by 70,000 votes in Ohio.
well, if bush had lost, i don't think that moral values would have been the reason. iraq would have been the reason, and republicans would have been all up in arms about whether going into iraq was right or wrong. talk to any pundit, pollster, or anyone who followed this election - moral values was never an issue, nor brought up until voting took place. the closest either candidate really came to talking about moral values was whether or not kerry was a flip-flopper, or who would make a better war-time leader.
for the record. . this constitutional amendment on gay marriages is stupid. it's not the federal government's role to dictate the private matters and affairs of people, but rather the state's and the people that reside therein.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
. . .people should be allowed to speak their minds, but only if it agrees with mine.
Huh, where is this happening? I think if you compare the campaigns -- the Kerry camp's treatment of protesters (to stand in front of them so they don't get news coverage) versus the Bush camp's treatment (to have them carted away by federally/state/locally funded cops and troopers), one method is more restrictive than the other.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Brokaw made the point that Democrats have actively alienated and been overwhelmingly hostile to many Americans.
While Brokaw was making this point, Mitchell was unhesitatingly nodding in agreement. When Brokaw went further and stated that the Democrats have actually engaged in a campaign of "mocking and belittling" Americans of "faith" Mitchell flatly said he was in agreement with Brokaw's point. Only at the end of the interview did Mitchell state - as an afterthought - that "not all Democrats" are like this.
I would like to know who they were referring to.
If it's "Democrats" like Michael Moore, I couldn't be in more agreement and is precisely why I never saw Farenheit 9/11 and argued to the bone with my liberal friends who did, stating that his movie is more dangerous to the party than it is helpful, unless it does one thing - gets out an overwhleming number of voters between 18-24, which it didn't. And I never expected it to. The problem in today's pop-culture world, is the liberals like Moore took to the attack mode through the industry, whereby Clinton used the industry (MTV, Late Nihgt talkshows, etc.) for positive spins. And it made the Repubs job easier to get out and expand the conservative base with that blowhards face on every street corner.
If they are referring to actual candidates, I don't know who they could be referring to.
And I'm not so convinced that Swift Boat didn't alienate and wasn't perceived as a hostile attack either.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it just turns out that in this election, republicans were able to "turn out the base" more effectively than democrats. and the democrats are peeved.
I would say terrified.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
the Kerry camp's treatment of protesters (to stand in front of them so they don't get news coverage) versus the Bush camp's treatment (to have them carted away by federally/state/locally funded cops and troopers), one method is more restrictive than the other. [/QB]
And Rob Gee's camp says, run them all over. But that's never been popular in this forum, outside the forum it's hugely popular.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well, if bush had lost, i don't think that moral values would have been the reason. iraq would have been the reason
Actually, I think it would have been the economy, but the Dems never made a plausbile issue out of it.
This a problem of the exit poll though: who is not willing to say that moral values is an important issue for them?
-
Yes, there are some statistical outliers such as Ted Nugent and Rob_Gee. Thankfully, they're more talk than action.
Originally posted by Rob_Gee:
Originally posted by Bags:
the Kerry camp's treatment of protesters (to stand in front of them so they don't get news coverage) versus the Bush camp's treatment (to have them carted away by federally/state/locally funded cops and troopers), one method is more restrictive than the other. [/b]
And Rob Gee's camp says, run them all over. But that's never been popular in this forum, outside the forum it's hugely popular. [/QB]
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it just turns out that in this election, republicans were able to "turn out the base" more effectively than democrats. and the democrats are peeved.
I would say terrified. [/b]
exactly.
kerry should have come out for allowing states to decriminalize soft drugs. about the only think that could bring out the young vote ;)
-
Not that i am American but
Here's what needs to be done (http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
This a problem of the exit poll though: who is not willing to say that moral values is an important issue for them?
Not that this is relevant since we are talking about the US, but come to Europe and ask about moral values and religion in an exit poll and most people will tell you that we don't give a shit about these terms.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Yes, there are some statistical outliers such as Ted Nugent and Rob_Gee. Thankfully, they're more talk than action.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
I believe the majority of people are all talk than action, or else the prison population would be in the billions.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
kerry should have come out for allowing states to decriminalize soft drugs. about the only think that could bring out the young vote ;)
the libertarian party is all over that. course, they also want to get rid of the departments of energy, education, health and human services, and the irs, to name a few.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well, if bush had lost, i don't think that moral values would have been the reason. iraq would have been the reason
Actually, I think it would have been the economy, but the Dems never made a plausbile issue out of it.
[/b]
yeah, the economy is another reason, and i agree that the dems and kerry never got that issue off the ground. i mean, on economy alone, bush should have got killed in ohio and michigan, yet he won ohio and lost michigan by like 4 percent.
-
i agree, Kerry was too "bush sucks" and not enough "i'm the one"
a negative approach doesn't get you very far most of the time.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
kerry should have come out for allowing states to decriminalize soft drugs. about the only think that could bring out the young vote ;)
the libertarian party is all over that. course, they also want to get rid of the departments of energy, education, health and human services, and the irs, to name a few. [/b]
yeah, the greens too. haven't republicans talked about getting rid of all of those too in the past decade or two?
-
Originally posted by Barcelona:
Not that this is relevant since we are talking about the US, but come to Europe and ask about moral values and religion in an exit poll and most people will tell you that we don't give a shit about these terms.
that's because europe is full of god-less, heathen socialists!
plus, with a parliamentary system, there is already a party that is geared toward what is important to you, and is provided with representation in that representative body.
but really, god has always stood side-by-side with "america." it's on the currency, it's in the declarations of our independence and founding documents. . .it's in every invocation starting the legislative day. . .and it's in every inaugural oath (except the one taken by franklin pierce). the role of god within america is really unique in the world, and one that a person really has to be here to study and understand. simply standing on the outside looking in and saying that it's a bunch of bunk does not help in an understanding of america.
oh, and as the european historian jacques barzun said: "Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball."
-
the word from is missing from this pair of bumpersticks seen on an suv... "Save the Bay" and "Bush/Chaney"
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
the word from is missing from this pair of bumpersticks seen on an suv... "Save the Bay" and "Bush/Chaney"
at one point, the car the fiancee and i share had the following two stickers on it: Keep Tahoe Blue and Bush/Cheney 2004.
i know.
is that more clear?
-
What the hell is a car fiancee?
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
the word from is missing from this pair of bumpersticks seen on an suv... "Save the Bay" and "Bush/Chaney"
at one point, the car fiancee and i share had the following two stickers on it: Keep Tahoe Blue and Bush/Cheney 2004.
i know. [/b]
-
I had wondered the same thing.... Hmmm, a car fiancee. Does that mean you agree to share the car until some other final arrangement is made...?
-
Originally posted by Bags:
I had wondered the same thing.... Hmmm, a car fiancee. Does that mean you agree to share the car until some other final arrangement is made...?
final arrangement. . i suppose you could say that. :) it's in my name, but she drives it.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
at one point, the car the fiancee and i share had the following two stickers on it: Keep Tahoe Blue and Bush/Cheney 2004.
i know.
is that more clear?
Only if the Fiancee put the Tahoe sticker on the back, because I know where you stand.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
at one point, the car the fiancee and i share had the following two stickers on it: Keep Tahoe Blue and Bush/Cheney 2004.
i know.
is that more clear?
Only if the Fiancee put the Tahoe sticker on the back, because I know where you stand. [/b]
what do you mean? i'm way more green that she is.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by hitman:
And when it comes right down to it, most devout Christians (especially the ones who have to state how devout they are) are mostly hippocrates.
Most devout Christians are a 5th century B.C. Greek physician (http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/Museum/hippoc.html) ????
You don't make much sense, do you? [/b]
Yeah, I'm going to assume that you've never made a spelling mistake either.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
what do you mean? i'm way more green that she is.
And yet people wonder why we can't get the exit polls right in the States these days....
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
i agree, Kerry was too "bush sucks" and not enough "i'm the one"
a negative approach doesn't get you very far most of the time.
but how much more negative can you get than Cheney saying "if Kerry is elected, then we may revert back to a pre 9/11 mindset" inferring that the big one was coming...
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Barcelona:
Not that this is relevant since we are talking about the US, but come to Europe and ask about moral values and religion in an exit poll and most people will tell you that we don't give a shit about these terms.
that's because europe is full of god-less, heathen socialists!
plus, with a parliamentary system, there is already a party that is geared toward what is important to you, and is provided with representation in that representative body.
but really, god has always stood side-by-side with "america." it's on the currency, it's in the declarations of our independence and founding documents. . .it's in every invocation starting the legislative day. . .and it's in every inaugural oath (except the one taken by franklin pierce). the role of god within america is really unique in the world, and one that a person really has to be here to study and understand. simply standing on the outside looking in and saying that it's a bunch of bunk does not help in an understanding of america.
oh, and as the european historian jacques barzun said: "Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball." [/b]
what ever happened to the seperation of church and state? the founding fathers believed in that one too.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
I would like to know who they were referring to.
Brokaw wasn't specific. This was in the wee hours of Wednesday morning when it started to look as though Ohio was lost. Brokaw's intro was about what it would mean for the party if Democrats lost. Mitchell stated the party line -- that Kerry had a better plan for the economy and foreign policy but that people must have believed that "moral values" trumped those issues.
At this point, Brokaw stated that he had heard from religious voters that they felt that "the Democrats" were hostile toward them and their beliefs. Unfortunately, he was no more specific than "the Democrats".
I think Michael Moore, MoveOn and the other non-affiliated 527s made themselves the face and voice of the Dems in this election -- at least in the popular view. Perhaps they don't speak for the Party, but the Party did not make much of an effort to distance itself from those rabidly anti-Bush forces.
-
The Values-Vote Myth
By DAVID BROOKS
Every election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.
In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.
This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.
Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.
It's true that Bush did get a few more evangelicals to vote Republican, but Kohut, whose final poll nailed the election result dead-on, reminds us that public opinion on gay issues over all has been moving leftward over the years. Majorities oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday, 25 percent of the voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters supported civil unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most social issues.
Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.
The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That's hardly the Bible Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums.
He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the war on terror.
The fact is that if you think we are safer now, you probably voted for Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry. That's policy, not fundamentalism. The upsurge in voters was an upsurge of people with conservative policy views, whether they are religious or not.
The red and blue maps that have been popping up in the papers again this week are certainly striking, but they conceal as much as they reveal. I've spent the past four years traveling to 36 states and writing millions of words trying to understand this values divide, and I can tell you there is no one explanation. It's ridiculous to say, as some liberals have this week, that we are perpetually refighting the Scopes trial, with the metro forces of enlightenment and reason arrayed against the retro forces of dogma and reaction.
In the first place, there is an immense diversity of opinion within regions, towns and families. Second, the values divide is a complex layering of conflicting views about faith, leadership, individualism, American exceptionalism, suburbia, Wal-Mart, decorum, economic opportunity, natural law, manliness, bourgeois virtues and a zillion other issues.
But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?
What we are seeing is a diverse but stable Republican coalition gradually eclipsing a diverse and stable Democratic coalition. Social issues are important, but they don't come close to telling the whole story. Some of the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came across recently: The rage of the drowning man.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html)
-
Originally posted by Bags:
See, in the end, both parties are doing the exact same damn thing.
You better watch it Bags, you're starting to sound like me. :p
-
Originally posted by hitman:
what ever happened to the seperation of church and state? the founding fathers believed in that one too.
i've already had this discussion with grotty. i don't feel like finding the link. . .probably on the please vote thread.
basically, the constitution says nothing about separation of church and state, only that the govt. shall not hinder the free practice of religion. the "separation of church and state" statement was devised by jefferson many years after he left office.
the declaration of independence itself contains many references to god (albeit couched as "creator"). . .the founding fathers feared the federal government mandating a certain type of religion (ala the anglican church and england). they would have had no problem, and in fact, had no problem with referring to God (with a capital G) in official documents and ceremonies. the oath of office contains references to God, when you are sworn into any federal office, it's always before God. why are people so afraid of God?
-
Because here's this guy, God, who created himself perfect, and then created us in his image, for the purpose of worshipping him. And then he gets all down on our asses, because we're not as perfect as him. What a fucking egotist.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
why are people so afraid of God?
-
i don't think people are "afraid" of god... it's more what happens when religion and government combine forces to impose the will of god. i.e. the spanish inquistion, the crusades, henry 8th chopping off heads and starting his own church, general oppression of non or the wrong believers, etc. remember the pilgrims first came to country to escape religious persecution and was one of the reasons for the inclusion of right to practice as one sees fit. i think jefferson was attempting to create a firewall to keep religiously zealtry to a dull roar...
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
i don't think people are "afraid" of god... it's more what happens when religion and government combine forces to impose the will of god. i.e. the spanish inquistion, the crusades, henry 8th chopping off heads and starting his own church, general oppression of non or the wrong believers, etc. remember the pilgrims first came to country to escape religious persecution and was one of the reasons for the inclusion of right to practice as one sees fit. i think jefferson was
ahhh the puritans. they left england after being persecuted, but banished those who thought differently than them.
i'll give you the spanish inquisition and the first few crusades, but round the 3rd crusade, it was simply about money, not religion. for example, the 4th crusade was hijacked by the doge of venice to simply plunder constantinople's riches and fill venice's coffers. henry the 8th. . .he wanted a divorce, pope said no, henry said, bollocks with you, left the church, and started his own, and was forced to behead thomas more.
i guess when i said why are people afraid of god, it was in a rhetorical sense. but i was more going after these extreme cases . . .why shouldn't there be a nativity scene out front of a city hall around christmas-time? why can't we say the pledge of allegiance with "under god"? are these really examples so egregious that they must be taken to court? as i pointed out earlier. . .our money says "under god," the start of each legislative day (long before today's religious right take over) began with a prayer, the swearing in of a witness concludes "so help me god." if "under god" is so terrible in the pledge of allegiance, why aren't people going after the same statement that's found on every piece of money in this country?
here's an interesting article on jefferson's letter (and i'll correct myself, it was written by jefferson whilst in office, i apologize for that error): http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/May2003/0503Dreisbach.html (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/May2003/0503Dreisbach.html)
the letter can be found here: http://fact.trib.com/1st.jeffers.2.html (http://fact.trib.com/1st.jeffers.2.html)
-
Because Jesus never asked us to celebrate his birthday. He only asked us to accept him as our personal saviour. The Catholic church co-opted some pagan holidays, and turned it into Xmas, and capitalist pigs have built is up from there. Jesus never said anything about the fact that we should celebrate Xmas, so if we live our lives as he instructed, why the need to give him a birthday party he didn't ask for?
...or at least that's what I would think if I were religious.
...as it is, it's just a nice day to have off from work and spend with family.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
.why shouldn't there be a nativity scene out front of a city hall around christmas-time?
[/b]
-
not that i completely agree with the removal of the naviety scenes from government property, but i believe the point is to nip the displaying of religious icons in the bud before there is cruifix on the grounds at easter, or even all year round, the displaying of the ten commandment, etc give people an inch and they go a mile.
pray in the senate/house is fine because its not imposed and people's faith are important to them. plus politicians have to pander to the faith based voters. the reciting of pledge of allendgence is imposed, and the children who opt out can be scourned.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
why are people so afraid of God?
Which God? Not everybody in this country believes in the same god.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
why are people so afraid of God?
Which God? Not everybody in this country believes in the same god. [/b]
All God's are created equally.....Or something like that.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Because Jesus never asked us to celebrate his birthday. He only asked us to accept him as our personal saviour. The Catholic church co-opted some pagan holidays, and turned it into Xmas, and capitalist pigs have built is up from there. Jesus never said anything about the fact that we should celebrate Xmas, so if we live our lives as he instructed, why the need to give him a birthday party he didn't ask for?
...or at least that's what I would think if I were religious.
...as it is, it's just a nice day to have off from work and spend with family.
yeah, those early christian/catholics were some politicians back then. aside from the easter season, i think all other christian holidays were originally pagan festivals, and co-opted to make the christian religion acceptable to the pagans of the area.
heck, religious scholars believe that jesus was born in the summer, not the winter. . .early christian's decided to put it in the winter cause it coincided with winter solstice festivals.
-
All gods are pretty much the same god. They have just been given different names to create a divisive diversion to keep people separated from each other and not be able to deal with the real problems of the world. Like financial inequity.
Or something like that.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
why are people so afraid of God?
Which God? Not everybody in this country believes in the same god. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Rob_Gee:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
why are people so afraid of God?
Which God?
<img src="http://www.argephontes.com/blog/images/dialgodtruck-thumb.jpg" alt=" - " /> Not everybody in this country believes in the same god. [/b]
All God's are created equally.....Or something like that. [/b]
Not all Gods are created equal. The 'GOD' of monotheism insists that you, at least, accept the tenents of a monotheistic worldview. If you buy into monotheism, then animistic practices are swept by the wayside.
Much like William S.Burroughs, I too prefer the many gods.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
basically, the constitution says nothing about separation of church and state, only that the govt. shall not hinder the free practice of religion. the "separation of church and state" statement was devised by jefferson many years after he left office.
It is very much a doctrine with roots in the Judicial system, not the Constitution.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
The marriage and divorce rates are calculated as marriage per 1000 people and divorce per 1000 people. The 2000 marriage rate in Massachusetts was 6.0 per 1000 and the divorce rate was 3.0 per 1000. In Virginia, the marriage rate was 9.0/1000 and the divorce rate was 4.3/1000.
In absolute terms, the divorce rate was higher in Virginia. However, relative to people who got married (who are the only people that can get divorced!!!) the divorce rate is actually higher in Massachusetts than in Virginia.
Turns out the initial reporting was correct -- fewer divorces in blue states (Massachusetts, at least...). According to the Census Bureau; the rates are based on divorces among married people.
To Avoid Divorce, Move to Massachusetts
By PAM BELLUCK
The New York Times
November 14, 2004
BOSTON â?? If blue states care less about moral values, why are divorce rates so low in the bluest of the blue states? It's a question that intrigues conservatives, as much as it emboldens liberals.
As researchers have noted, the areas of the country where divorce rates are highest are also frequently the areas where many conservative Christians live.
Kentucky, Mississippi and Arkansas, for example, voted overwhelmingly for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. But they had three of the highest divorce rates in 2003, based on figures from the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics.
The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate was Massachusetts, home to John Kerry, the Kennedys and same-sex marriage.
In 2003, the rate in Massachusetts was 5.7 divorces per 1,000 married people, compared with 10.8 in Kentucky, 11.1 in Mississippi and 12.7 in Arkansas.
"Some people are saying, 'The Bible Belt is so pro-marriage, but gee, they have the highest divorce rates in the country,' " said Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. "And there's a lot of worry in the red states about the high rate of divorce."
The Barna Group, a California organization that studies evangelical Christian trends, has produced two studies about divorce that found that born-again Christians were just as likely to divorce as those who are not born-again Christians.
One of the reports, a survey of 7,043 people in 2001, said that: "Residents of the Northeast and West are commonly noted for their more liberal leanings in politics and lifestyle. However, the region of the nation in which divorce was least likely was the Northeast."
The other study, published two months ago, said that even though the Northeast probably had a higher rate of couples living together rather than marrying, the divorce rate would be essentially similar even if the cohabiting couples got hitched. And it said that "relatively few divorced Christians experienced their divorce before accepting Christ as their savior."
George Barna, the head of the organization, said that "a lot of really nice Christian people try to shoot down the research by saying 'Oh, they got divorced and then they became born again.' That's just not true."
What accounts for the nation's divorce dichotomy is the subject of much speculation.
Some people, like Bridget Maher, an analyst on marriage and family issues at the conservative Family Research Council, attribute it almost entirely to the religions in the different regions. "The Northeast and Midwest have high populations of Catholics and Lutherans and they have lower divorce rates than other Christians," she said.
Others, like Patrick F. Fagan, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, say it has nothing to do with differences between faiths.
"People who worship frequently no matter what their faith tend to divorce much, much, much less," said Mr. Fagan, making an argument that might unwittingly suggest that Northeasterners are more devout than other people. "All this talk about this faith, that faith, born again, not born again, to me is irrelevant."
Many experts believe the explanation to be more multidimensional, with high divorce rates tied to factors like younger age of marriage, less education and lower socioeconomic status.
"The higher the educational level, higher the occupational level, higher the income, the less likely you are to divorce," said William V. D'Antonio, a sociologist at the Catholic University of America, pointing out that Massachusetts has the highest rate of high school and college completion. "Kids who drop out of high school and get married very quickly suffer from the strains of not being emotionally mature and not having the income to help weather the difficulties of marriage."
Theodora Ooms, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy, said that a recent Oklahoma study found that when Oklahomans marry, they are on average two and a half years younger than the national average.
Ms. Whitehead, who lives in Amherst, Mass., said that New England is a region that has "more stability" than other regions. "People stay here, their families stay here, and there's more social and family support for people, a more communal versus individualistic culture in New England compared to the cowboy states."
She said religion may underscore those regional differences.
"In states with lots of evangelicals, the more individualistic Protestant religious faiths may actually also encourage more go-it-alone attitudes than communal ones," Ms. Whitehead said. And these are also states where the culture encourages sexual abstinence before marriage, she said.
"If your family or religious culture urges you not to have sex before you get married," she said, "then one answer is to get married, and then you're more likely to divorce."
<img src="http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/11/14/weekinreview/Bell.gif" alt=" - " />