Why Kerry won the majority of his states:

[NeedsABetterName]

http://images.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/elections2004/_images/2004countymap3.gif

[NeedsABetterName]

Take a look at this map.Take a look at where the blue(Kerry) counties are.Speaks for itself,doesn't it...

[usa320]

RED NATION!

[Hoplite_V]

Laugh if you will i find that map pretty interesting.

[Sir Zach of R.]

My county is STILL undecided. rofl

[Secret Squirrel]

Take a look at this map.Take a look at where the blue(Kerry) counties are.Speaks for itself,doesn't it...

Are you refering to the places physically effected by 9/11?

[szr]

Take a look at this map.Take a look at where the blue(Kerry) counties are.Speaks for itself,doesn't it...

Are you refering to the places physically effected by 9/11?Or that the areas where most of this nation's income is generated, voted blue?

[FallenAngel]

coincidence MA is the only state that's entirely Dem? ;)

[Sir Zach of R.]

Good ole' country boys and girls always vote republican. woot

[walford]

From another thread:

The map illustrates dramatically the correlation of population density and ideology.

I saw a discussion about how the Hispanic population is growing in the US while at the same time, the percentage of those voting Demo is shrinking. It was explained that many of these Hispanics are settling into the suburbs and rural areas and increasingly voting GOP.

IMHO, the reason is clear. If you are living outside a city, you are more likely living a self-sufficient lifestyle [rather than a gov't dependent one]. Thus the constituency to maintain a large Welfare system [most associated with the Demos] is eroded as well.

[mobster]

effected

AFFECTED.
<puts head in hands, wonders if French can ever spell>


Jesus.

Just once Faggot Squrirell can you get something right?

Your Loser Pussy long faced boy didn't fare so well did he?

What a ****in' suprise.

[NeedsABetterName]

No,my point was,that even though the majority of most of the counties are red(Republican),a major city is there,and that state goes Democrat because that city or cities make up most of the population.I don't exactly get why most major cities go Democrat...

[Vihta]

effected

AFFECTED.
<puts head in hands, wonders if French can ever spell>


Jesus.

Just once Faggot Squrirell can you get something right?

Your Loser Pussy long faced boy didn't fare so well did he?

What a f***' suprise.

The word is surprise.

[scm77]

effected

AFFECTED.
<puts head in hands, wonders if French can ever spell>


Jesus.

Just once Faggot Squrirell can you get something right?

Your Loser Pussy long faced boy didn't fare so well did he?

What a f***' suprise.

The word is surprise.

And the word is Squirrel ;) not Squrirell

[szr]

I don't exactly get why most major cities go Democrat...I don't exactly get why the rural areas go Republican... Wait, ya I do. Two totally different ways of life. For one thing, in the cities we have to live around tons of people of every type, so we're more tolerant of diversity and lifestyles that don't match our own. If we weren't tolerant, there'd be a chaos, as we fought over petty differences. This kind of lifestyle - living your own life, in the presence of many others, whithout encroaching on another's personal sovereignty - lends itself to being a Democrat.

...At least that's why I've become a Dem.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I don't exactly get why most major cities go Democrat...I don't exactly get why the rural areas go Republican... Wait, ya I do. Two totally different ways of life. For one thing, in the cities we have to live around tons of people of every type, so we're more tolerant of diversity and lifestyles that don't match our own. If we weren't tolerant, there'd be a chaos, as we fought over petty differences. This kind of lifestyle - living your own life, in the presence of many others, whithout encroaching on another's personal sovereignty - lends itself to being a Democrat.

...At least that's why I've become a Dem.

Gotta disagree with you on this. Confiscatory tax policies and the forced redistribution of wealth most certainly qualify as "encroaching on another's personal sovereignty". The fact that producers children may only attend schools with government approved curriculum unless they want to pay for it twice (once via taxes, and again via tuition) also qualifies. Or how about the rampant violent crime rate that exists in urban areas - is that an expression of tolerance? And where is the evidence that those in the red areas are any less tolerant? Do a comparison of crime rates between Idaho or Montana and downtown Detroit, Chicago, or any big city.

There are more police in urban areas precisely to encroach on people's personal sovereignty...because it's necessary. As egalitarian principles are advanced, and a society becomes more liberalized, a larger and larger central control infrastructure is needed to maintain control. In other words - if people's personal behavior demands acceptance of all behaviors, no matter how deviant - they must be externally controlled to maintain order.


Nope, IMHO it is as simple as this - urban areas (and other very poor areas such as the Mississippi delta region, parts of the Texas border with Mexico etc.) are the recipients of tax money. The poor or recipients of tax revenues far outnumber the "producers" in these areas.

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury".

[aartamen]

Cities also have HUGE violent crime rates and welfare, drug use, prostitution. I love not having to live in one of those cloakas. Well, may be with the exception of prostitution.

[Meph]

I don't exactly get why most major cities go Democrat...

More diversity and universities in major cities. Hell, Boston alone has about a million colleges and universities.

[szr]

I don't exactly get why most major cities go Democrat...I don't exactly get why the rural areas go Republican... Wait, ya I do. Two totally different ways of life. For one thing, in the cities we have to live around tons of people of every type, so we're more tolerant of diversity and lifestyles that don't match our own. If we weren't tolerant, there'd be a chaos, as we fought over petty differences. This kind of lifestyle - living your own life, in the presence of many others, whithout encroaching on another's personal sovereignty - lends itself to being a Democrat.

...At least that's why I've become a Dem.

Gotta disagree with you on this. Confiscatory tax policies and the forced redistribution of wealth most certainly qualify as "encroaching on another's personal sovereignty". The fact that producers children may only attend schools with government approved curriculum unless they want to pay for it twice (once via taxes, and again via tuition) also qualifies. Or how about the rampant violent crime rate that exists in urban areas - is that an expression of tolerance? And where is the evidence that those in the red areas are any less tolerant? Do a comparison of crime rates between Idaho or Montana and downtown Detroit, Chicago, or any big city.

There are more police in urban areas precisely to encroach on people's personal sovereignty...because it's necessary. As egalitarian principles are advanced, and a society becomes more liberalized, a larger and larger central control infrastructure is needed to maintain control. In other words - if people's personal behavior demands acceptance of all behaviors, no matter how deviant - they must be externally controlled to maintain order.


Nope, IMHO it is as simple as this - urban areas (and other very poor areas such as the Mississippi delta region, parts of the Texas border with Mexico etc.) are the recipients of tax money. The poor or recipients of tax revenues far outnumber the "producers" in these areas.

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury".


Confiscatory tax policies and the forced redistribution of wealth most certainly qualify as "encroaching on another's personal sovereignty".Gotta disagree with you on this. When I pay taxes, I'm paying for the police and fire departments that serve my community so well. I'm paying for the rehabilitation of the Hudson River waterfront, just down the street, which - when completed - will be a massive amount of new park and recreational space that I will use. I'm paying for expanded LIRR train service and and the eventual construction of the 2nd avenue subway line, which will make this city even more efficient. I'm paying for the upkeep of my streets, bridges and tunnels. I'm paying for a new stadium and convention center at in the heart of Manhattan, that will bring new events and entertainment to New York, as well as new jobs and income for the city. Taxes pay for the things that make my life so comfortable.


and where is the evidence that those in the red areas are any less tolerant?
I'll try and clarify what I mean by tolerant. Civilization works as long as in general, people are content with what they have. Being a Democrat means I'm empathetic of other people and the issues that matter to them, even if those issues don't matter to me in particular, because in some way their issues do eventually effect me.
Example: If my higher taxes go to helping 1 homeless person get their **** together, that's one less homeless person peeing on the sidewalk that I have to walk on. If my higher taxes go to providing a decent education for a poor kid from "da hood", that's 1 kid who is less likely to rob someone/graffiti a subway car/become an inmate that will cost me more a year than his highschool education would have cost me/become a homeless guy later that will be peeing on my sidewalk.
By "tolerance" I mean me understanding and caring about the plights and circumstances of those around me, because I believe that helping them makes civilization run smoother and more efficiently. Conversely, ingoring them while I focus on personal gain, marginalizes those people and leads to things like crime, unemployment, homelessness, and poor health, which costs me even more money.


The fact that producers children may only attend schools with government approved curriculum unless they want to pay for it twice (once via taxes, and again via tuition) also qualifies.That may be true where you live, but in New York City, the city is required to pay for the school that fits your child best... Even if it is a private school. You just have to prove that that school is appropriate for your kid.


Or how about the rampant violent crime rate that exists in urban areas
Do a comparison of crime rates between Idaho or Montana and downtown Detroit, Chicago, or any big city.Show me this rampent violent crime. I live IN the most built up urban area in the country, and I don't see this "rampent violent crime". Despite what some may think, it is NOT gang land in NYC. For a city of 8 million with millions more, who visit/work/and pass through this city each day, our crime rate is comparatively much lower than in places like Dallas where taxes are lower. Why? With our taxes, we pay for the largest and best(IMHO) Police Department in the country (our Fire Department ain't too shabby either). I dare you to do a comparison of the places you named; crime per capita - I think you'll be surprised.


There are more police in urban areas precisely to encroach on people's personal sovereignty...because it's necessary. As egalitarian principles are advanced, and a society becomes more liberalized, a larger and larger central control infrastructure is needed to maintain control. In other words - if people's personal behavior demands acceptance of all behaviors, no matter how deviant - they must be externally controlled to maintain order.That made about as much sense as some of the philosophical crap they tried to force down our throats in college. :|
There are more police in urban areas because there are more people in urban areas.


urban areas (and other very poor areas I think your confusion about this whole topic stems from your misconception of "urban areas." I live in an urban area. I live in downtown New York City, which is about as urban as urban gets. Houses here (Brownstone townhouses), cost 2mil+. I own such a house. I rent the lower 2 floors out (called a duplex) which fetches me an extra $3,800 a month and I consider my home, modest. There are penty of other homes in this neighborhood, which make my head spin when I think about how much thhey must be worth. A neighborhood like mine couldn't exist if urban areas were by default, "poor". If "Urban" equaled "Poor", large cities would not be the centers of business, commerce and culture, in their regions.

[FallenAngel]

I don't exactly get why most major cities go Democrat...

More diversity and universities in major cities. Hell, Boston alone has about a million colleges and universities.

Yes and as a University student, I can personally vouch that such places are a cesspool of liberal thought. ;)

[FallenAngel]

Gotta disagree with you on this. Confiscatory tax policies and the forced redistribution of wealth most certainly qualify as "encroaching on another's personal sovereignty". The fact that producers children may only attend schools with government approved curriculum unless they want to pay for it twice (once via taxes, and again via tuition) also qualifies. Or how about the rampant violent crime rate that exists in urban areas - is that an expression of tolerance? And where is the evidence that those in the red areas are any less tolerant? Do a comparison of crime rates between Idaho or Montana and downtown Detroit, Chicago, or any big city.

There are more police in urban areas precisely to encroach on people's personal sovereignty...because it's necessary. As egalitarian principles are advanced, and a society becomes more liberalized, a larger and larger central control infrastructure is needed to maintain control. In other words - if people's personal behavior demands acceptance of all behaviors, no matter how deviant - they must be externally controlled to maintain order.


Nope, IMHO it is as simple as this - urban areas (and other very poor areas such as the Mississippi delta region, parts of the Texas border with Mexico etc.) are the recipients of tax money. The poor or recipients of tax revenues far outnumber the "producers" in these areas.

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury".

w0rd.

On clarification, when he says "recipients" of tax money, I am certain he means beyond the typical public services/projects. Things like welfare, housing subsidies, etc. which are given to the poor and uneducated dramatically increase in urban areas. This egalitarian practice of goverment hand-outs is right up the Democractic party alley. Republicans, in general, have more of a "if you want it, earn it yourself" attitude.

[szr]

w0rd.

On clarification, when he says "recipients" of tax money, I am certain he means beyond the typical public services/projects. Things like welfare, housing subsidies, etc. which are given to the poor and uneducated dramatically increase in urban areas. This egalitarian practice of goverment hand-outs is right up the Democractic party alley. Republicans, in general, have more of a "if you want it, earn it yourself" attitude.First off, this is the funniest thing I've read all day, considering the red states recieve a disproportionately large sum of federal money; money that's redistributed from blue states. Second, have you ever heard of workfare? Or how about this Republican favorite; job training and retraining?

;)

[OldRecon]

http://images.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/elections2004/_images/2004countymap3.gif

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/fringe/2004/images/JESUSLand%7E1.jpg_sml.jpg

:lol: (I know it's a bit "Paganly Eurocuzzily intolerant" but just couldn't restrain myself).

As for the election result, I would as an "Europuppy" rather say I'm resigned than dissappointed. Have nothing against Bush in particular as an individual.
Rather it's some of the big decisions on matter of foreign policy under his previous term that I'm not in sync with.
And in particular the decision to invade Iraq at that, which I think is singularly the dumbest decision in American politics since the Tonkin gulf incident (though 30 years after the end of the Vietnam war era, there seems you're able to reap some benefits out of your efforts back then after all, with regards to improved trade relations with "the commie regime of the republic of United Vietnam", but does it balance the cost in waste of human lives both US and Vietnamese?).
Just the codename for the operation of invading Iraq, "Iraqi freedom" is enough to give me the creeps. Not much hint to the original reason for invading Iraq, the search for WMD's, there, and not much talk about hard finds of Iraqi WMD's nowdays either.
But of course then those WMD's "are hidden away in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon nowdays" according to some (though privately I don't put much reliance in that blah, blah either).
But if the WMD's had been the main issue, why did one not give a **** in Iraq and launch get in - get out operations to fetch the WMD's located in those 3 countries instead?
I don't think that would have been more militarily difficult than invading Iraq if you really gave it a hard try.
After all though coalition forces are not capable of keeping law and order in much of Iraq, neither the Saddam regime army nor the present insurgents are strong enough to keep you out of Iraq for as long as you want to stay there.
Besides, in my opinion, going WMD hunting in those 3 other mentioned countries wouldn't have made you any more impopular in the region than what you allready have become with the Iraqi option.
Not that I'm a particular fan of Saddam. That shure's one rascle.
But official reason for invading Iraq, was to look for WMD's, not to topple its government.
Yet you topled the government, but did not find any WMD's (or at least very little of that to show for it).
Nor that I approve of the hostage takings, hostage executions, suicide bombings, kangaroo courts and assasination tactics employed by the Iraqi insurgents.
But I remember well how some other members of this forum used to mock the Russians in here "for them laying Grozny in ruins" ("cause we have precision guided munitions you know" :lol: ). As to what happen in Fallujah at the moment, I guess that city won't look any less ruined when the battle's over despite precision guided munitions :lol:.
Think I also warned of the likelyhood of things ending into the present mess back in those days before operation "Iraqi f...." started to roll overtly, and got mocked for it by the same people in here that mocked the Russians over Grozny :lol:.
Not that one would have to be a rocket scientist to predict the present mess.
Not that the Bush strategy for achieving his goals are not well thought out, as the recent election win shows it's rather the contrary.
It's rather the soundness of some of his goals I'm concerned about as an "Eurowoffie" (or whatever you call it).
Just food for thought :roll:.

[FallenAngel]

First off, this is the funniest thing I've read all day, considering the red states recieve a disproportionately large sum of federal money; money that's redistributed from blue states. Second, have you ever heard of workfare? Or how about this Republican favorite; job training and retraining?

;)

The red states of course recieve taxes at a federal level, but I doubt one state would give money to another that was generated through state taxes.

As for job training, that's investing in someone who (presumably) will become a productive member of society, which is different from welfare. I don't know how it is in NY, but in LA there's plenty of neighborhoods where housing is subsidized, food stamps are used at the local markets and welfare is given out based on the number of people living in an apartment. Do these poeple try to go out and get jobs? I'm sure some of them do, but I've seen more than an impressive number who do nothing and yet, somehow, find a way to afford enough "bling bling" to make Gatsby envious.

[szr]

I don't know how it is in NY, but in LA there's plenty of neighborhoods where housing is subsidized, food stamps are used at the local markets and welfare is given out based on the number of people living in an apartment. Do these poeple try to go out and get jobs?Well we've got the food stamps and public housing, too. My personal feeling is that subsidizing someone's life, so they don't have to get a job -- the way we do with food stamps and such -- is quasi-socialist, and I don't believe in it to the extent that there are people who live their lives, dependent on such things. I believe in giving a "helping hand" to anyone who may need assistance in getting their personal affairs in order so that they might become productive members of society. Things like food stamps and subsidized housing should be availible for people who have fallen on hard times, so they can devote more resources to getting back on track instead of just trying to survive. But it should be temporary and people shouldn't be able to live freely on the taxpayer's dime.