Author Topic: Red vs Blue (Read 1471 times)

Sixpence · « **Reply #45 on:** November 10, 2004, 12:05:32 AM »

lol, I give up

Nash · « **Reply #46 on:** November 10, 2004, 12:09:53 AM »

Nuke, with the "IQ of 138".... I bow to your overwhelming intelligence. I am out.

I was sincere about this thread. Just looking for some perspective. Something I haven't heard before. I came to the wrong place, or said the wrong things, obviously. Because seemingly nothing can be said without it being bitten at from the angles.

Like bees. One sting is insignificant. You can continue. Hundreds, and you are done for. Dead due to hundreds of insignificant single bee stings.

That's how it works here on a micro level. And it's working out there on a macro level.

The Marabar Caves. The echoes. You continue to win.

DieAz · « **Reply #47 on:** November 10, 2004, 02:03:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash

(Blue states are carrying the red state's sorry arses, yet the red states get to pick the prez).

Red states feeds Blue states. reality,the red states are supporting the blue states "sorry arses".
money is nothing more than a note of debt, that does not have to be paid. meaning; I don't have to trade anything for that note, if I choose not to.
real value is in land, goods, and products.
if ya want to eat paper, go ahead.

I be a Rednecked Farmer who would rather let yall yankee city slicker types starve than tell me what I can and can't do.

ET · « **Reply #48 on:** November 10, 2004, 04:37:34 AM »

Blue states pay more in welfare. Vote buying at its best.

Mighty1 · « **Reply #49 on:** November 10, 2004, 07:15:17 AM »

I wonder if the blue states have a lower divorce rate is because less people in blue states get married?(most can't

)

lazs2 · « **Reply #50 on:** November 10, 2004, 08:06:53 AM »

sheesh nash I explained it all to you a dozen times. It is very simple... women and womenly men vote for liberal candidates... people who live in hippie communities and ocean side property and big city are women and womebly men who have no idea of self suffieciency.

It really is life style. it is the difference of living in a big city or living around nature. It is the difference between riding buses and taxis and having two cars in the driveway. It is the difference of waving at people when they drive by you and trying not to make eye contact while pushing and shoving your way down the crowded sidewalk.

It is about charity being giving a bum a buck as you walk by or getting involved in communityu charity drives with the kids... the former feels that they the government needs to solve the problem and the latter feels they are solving it.

It is the difference tho mostly of the people in cities being acclimated to having their lives regulated in every way and the people in the contry being a little more fond of self suffieciency...

don't know about the IQ thing... most every smart person I know around here voted for Bush. The ones we laugh at voted for kerrie.

lazs

Wotan · « **Reply #51 on:** November 10, 2004, 08:15:00 AM »

Why make guesses when you read the exit polling data?

Here it is from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

The majority of voting Americans who made over $50,000 or more voted for Bush (55%)

Starting from 50-75,000 at 53% Bush to 63% Bush at highest income level ($200,000 or more)

Between $30-50,000 (22%) it was 49 / 50 Kerry.

Under $15,000 (8%) 63% Kerry

DO YOU WORK FULL-TIME?

No (40%) - 50 / 49 Bush (Kerry closes gap on unemployed voters!!!)

Yes (60%) - 53 / 45 Bush

VOTE BY EDUCATION

No High School (4%) 49 / 50 Kerry

High School and up Bush wins (52% for high school grad and 52% college grad)

Post Grad Kerry wins 55% (professional students)

Blue States may or may not have a higher then average IQ then the red states but not every one in a blue state voted Kerry. A majority of the uneducated, poor, single and non-church goers in all states did.

We all know they are geniuses...

lazs2 · « **Reply #52 on:** November 10, 2004, 08:30:22 AM »

I still think that the democrats should use the "vote for us because we are smarter than you pissants" slogan in 08...

I think they ought to have michelle moore deliver his "the dumbest euro is smarter than the smartest American" speech across the nation to gather democrat votes.

I think anyone who believes our lives should be run by the higthest IQ should have to spend a lot of time with a professional student or professor (same thing I guess)...

How bout this nash... 4 million NRA members and maybe another 10 million gun owners got off their butts to vote to safeguard their rights.

The democrats either need to ban guns and the second amendment entirely so that guns are a non issue or they need to stop trying to take em away from us if they ever want to get any meaningful gun owner votes... gun owners vote.

lazs

Nash · « **Reply #53 on:** November 10, 2004, 08:39:07 AM »

Yeah Wotan, we all know how accurate the exit polling data was... I'd rather look at the actual results, then compare them with the stats of the states.

But I'd rather do neither... Again, I'm quite certain you could demonstrate the difference in hundreds of ways that vilifies the blue. That would be fine, but in the end only serves to illustrate further the existence of a division - which is what I'm geting at here.

Lazs, it does sound nice...

I guess people make their choices...

I remember a friend of mine in in NYC went to visit her folks in upstate New York for a week. Ended up coming back a couple days early. Weirdest thing. Said she couldn't sleep... the utter lack of any sound at night, the dead silence, whigged her out.

So yeah... there is indeed a difference between the two. Strikingly polar... and it seems increasingly polar.

I guess what I'm getting at is that the red picks one type of person to lead them, and the blue picks a very different type of person to lead them. The result is that a huge percent of the population ends up with a leader who doesn't look anything like them; doesn't have their interests at heart.

The same passion you feel about not having your life regulated in terms of, say, having your guns taken away is the same passion others feel about not having their lives regulated when it comes to abortion or prayer. It is the same thing, just two sides of the coin.

The answer should probably reside with the leader's ability to mesh the two side's concerns and compromise. But it looks to be getting away from that. The #1 liberal vs the god fearing Texan. And Bush, rather than signaling reconciliation between the two, says instead that he's going on a man date and spending capital that basically only half the people in the country gave him.

It could be an abberation, but it just dosn't look anything like the past to me. The split is hardening. It's interesting to think about where it goes from here...

Yeager · « **Reply #54 on:** November 10, 2004, 08:47:57 AM »

someone from the sKerry Scampaign complained BYTTERLY that teh red states were SLAVE states and that a big old cyvil warr was a commin.....look out JEEBUS!

lazs2 · « **Reply #55 on:** November 10, 2004, 08:50:18 AM »

nash.. you are either overthinking it or have no idea what people here are like... the issues like abortion are moot.... most people don't want abortion for birth control or in the latter stages. The very religious care about prayer and most of the rest of us think that saying "godbless" or "god" period in school is harmless and may even be benifiecial.

The second amendment is something that we have that the democrats want to take away from us... more government in our lives. We fear government here in this country... we realize that government can get out of our control... we want our government to fear us... you just said how you realize this too by saying that your countrey is run by a few population centers and BC is treated like peasants at the royal ball. How can't you see how we feel in the country where we feel we don;t need their "help".

Whenever I go to any big city I am facinated for a little while and then depressed... smile at people and they give you dirty looks... everything is dirty and grubby and rushed.... useless noise everywhere and people calling each other names that would get em into a fight in the country... no wonder people in the city are afraid of guns.... they all seem to distrust and hate each other.

The only smiles you see are either smug or condencending... the country has it's problems too but I want nothing to do with the population centers.

lazs

Nash · « **Reply #56 on:** November 10, 2004, 09:12:23 AM »

And what would happen if, tomorrow, everyone in the city decided to hell with it all, we're heading for the hills?

Oooh the country is so nice. So clean. Screw Wall Street, screw the ports, screw manufacturing. We're gonna go work at a dimestore somewhere in Montana instead.

I don't think that'd fly.

City folk and country folk can call eachother every name in the book. You can tell me how bad the cities are over and over again, but the fact is that both need eachother. Simply saying "cities suck" doesn't change or help anything.

And the people in the cities clearly have different agendas for their lives than the people in the country. But instead, it's like trying to force one way on the other.

Gotta head to work.... so I can't wrap this up very well.... maybe from work.

Wotan · « **Reply #57 on:** November 10, 2004, 09:12:34 AM »

Quote

I'd rather look at the actual results

You aren't looking at actual results. You are looking at colors and making assumptions.

Not every one in a blue state voted for Kerry. Show me a state with 100% of the votes going to either candidate. If there’s a divide along IQ lines then you should be able to demonstrate it. The exit polls are the only indication we have of how any one / group voted. You can either believe the exit polls or not I could careless. But they are the only indication we have based on ‘actual results’. I would bet they are far more accurate then your "I think smarter people voted for Kerry, just because...." theory.

I don't care anything about "vilifying the blue". You can talk about how divided America is all you like. Not one thing that you posted proves or is evidence of anything.

The facts are that GWB was the 1st president in 16 years to get more the 50% of the eligible votes. He got more votes then any other president in history. This election almost reached record turn out. Close to 60% of eligible votes bothered to vote.

The problem with your red/blue argument is that you don't account for the other 40% of eligible voters who didn't vote or the 150 million or so Americans who can't vote.

The big split along red/blue is really only a split between the 110 million or so who voted in the last election.

Americans have never 'all agreed' on anything and they never will. Whether the difference is 5 million or 20 it doesn’t really mean anything. If you think America is divided after this election what do you think about the 2000 election? Or the 92 election? Or '60 election...?

Americans don't need to skip through life holding hands. We don't need to 'go along just to get along'. We can disagree and everything will still be fine (War of Northern Aggression not with standing).

soda72 · « **Reply #58 on:** November 10, 2004, 09:18:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
someone from the sKerry Scampaign complained BYTTERLY that teh red states were SLAVE states and that a big old cyvil warr was a commin.....look out JEEBUS!

I guess this makes it more of a blue vs gray instead of blue vs red...

Zippatuh · « **Reply #59 on:** November 10, 2004, 09:42:36 AM »

I think everyone is trying to look too deep into this…

Perhaps it all came down to whom do you trust more?

Kerry was fake and his campaign made it difficult to draw a distinction in his true beliefs. If the democrats would have had a stronger candidate with more conviction and didn’t pander to the current crowd and make contradictions day after day there are several “republicans” that would have voted democrat.

I would have been one of them.

You are choosing to discount the exit polls although “moral values” was used as a talking point. Of the number of Kerry voters on the exit polls most voted against Bush rather than for Kerry. To me that says regardless of who the other candidate was they were getting the vote. That’s ignorant to me.

I said it through out and most others around me did as well. Give me a reason to vote for Kerry not just that I should vote against Bush.

The country may be divided but I don’t think it’s as stark a contrast as described here by the impending civil war that’s been implied by “north and south”. It’s rural and urban. The county map shows that urban counties voted for Kerry in most all of the states.

Why is it not possible to see that the weakness of the democratic candidate was such that it reinforced others to vote for the stronger candidate for fear that the blind would end up selecting our leader.

Question: How is it that the approval rating and direction polls can be against Bush but the same population end up voting him back in?

Answer: For lack of a better alternative.