What Blue state ?

[Ozoned]

You know, when you look at that map it comes to mind that if someone wanted to attack and kill a
sh!tload of people, they would in all likely hood hit a Blue county.

Does anyone believe that Bush would willingly let this happen, or are you comfortable in the knowledge that Bush has your back?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
You know, when you look at that map it comes to mind that if someone wanted to attack and kill a
sh!tload of people, they would in all likely hood hit a Blue county.

Does anyone believe that Bush would willingly let this happen, or are you comfortable in the knowledge that Bush has your back?

I'm not sure Bush will willingly let it happen, but he doens't have my back as he showed on 9/11 when he ignored all the warning signs.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: rh71
it amazes me how this looks like a fvckin' sport when it's not. People need to vote for the better man, not for what party they are part of.

Haha, but then they wouldn't be part of "The team". They wouldn't be able to gloat and say the guy on their team won. The same mentality usually (Not always) applies to both.

In 40 years, when liberals are a 2 or 3 % portion of the population, then I will proclaim that my team won. Until then, I will not turn my back to them and will continue to work towards the goal of crushing their party.

A one-party state is not a democracy, it is a totalitarian regime. Like it or not, our republic requires the 2 parties, so I am sincerely glad that your "team" will never succeed in beating the other "team". And why will your "team" never succeed? Because all that is required for the people to go back to voting Democrat is for the Republicans to fsck up. History has proven that control of our nation goes back and forth between the 2 parties, usually every 2-3 presidential elections (i.e. 8-12 years). One side gets control, makes some changes, screws up, and the other side capitalizes on this by winning the elections and gaining control, and the cycle continues as it always has.

In the meantime, for those idiots who keep thinking that this election was some kind of "landslide", how about I point your attention to 1964? LBJ beat Goldwater 44 states to 6, taking 486 to 52 electorals, and a 61% majority of the popular (the most ever). But more importantly, the Dems took a historic record of 293 seats in the House (67%, the most ever for a single party), and control of the Senate. This was a major turning point election, the first time the Deep South states (LA, MS, AL, GA, and SC) ever voted for a Republican candidate, and the issue was purely racism.


edit: Anyway, Red States, Blues States, WTH cares? What I want to know is why they switched the colors...

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Vic

A one-party state is not a democracy, it is a totalitarian regime. ...

I look forward to an ideology that can compete with the republican party. As it stands, there is a multitude that makes it anything except a one-party state. The demise of the democratic party will not be historically notable. Just a change in the phase, if you will...

Could happen to the Republican party also, if they loose their way.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
You know, when you look at that map it comes to mind that if someone wanted to attack and kill a
sh!tload of people, they would in all likely hood hit a Blue county.

Does anyone believe that Bush would willingly let this happen, or are you comfortable in the knowledge that Bush has your back?

I find that almost ironic how it's the blue areas which are at highest risk of terrorist attack but it's the red area that are telling who is better to protect them.

 

[deftron]

Remove the areas where hardly anyone lives, and it's


pretty much even

 

[gopunk]

if you ask me, all this weird map mumbo jumbo is irrelevant if you're trying to show that the country as a whole is one way or another. just look at the total vote counts...

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
:thumbsup: I've seen it brought up so many times as 'proof' that the red states dominate only for it to be shot down repeatedly.

It is sad that this is used as "proof" that red states dominate.

I do think this is a useful illustration of the divide between rural and urban american. Hell, I even see the divide in my own county (King County, Washington) with the passing of the Critical Areas Ordinance. This was basically a 7-6 vote land grab of anyone who lives on 5+ acres. All 7 of the county council who voted for the ordinance live in the city limits of Seattle.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: TuxDave
:thumbsup: I've seen it brought up so many times as 'proof' that the red states dominate only for it to be shot down repeatedly.

It is sad that this is used as "proof" that red states dominate.

I do think this is a useful illustration of the divide between rural and urban american. Hell, I even see the divide in my own county (King County, Washington) with the passing of the Critical Areas Ordinance. This was basically a 7-6 vote land grab of anyone who lives on 5+ acres. All 7 of the county council who voted for the ordinance live in the city limits of Seattle.

This isn't about "proof" about anything to do with state domination.

If anything, it is simply an illustration of Area's where (election) losers tend to congregate, in great numbers.

 

[flexy]

to cite a reader's letter of the chicago tribune today:

The states are not BLUE or RED - but rather purple.

If you consider a state RED because 51% voted for Bush you have a problem. There are still 49% who do NOT think so.

RED/BLUE is a result of the election, that is RIGHT. But a true reflection of the people would be MUCH MORE balanced, and many, many states would be rather be purple or just have a TINY, tiny red domination over blue.

And NOT, like this map wants to make stupid people believe (are YOU one of them ?) that 85% of this country is "RED", supports Bush etc.
You know this is a LIE.

Bottomline: 51% Bush and %49 Kerry/Nader <-- ROUGHLY half half

Eat that.

 

[raildogg]

Vermont

 

[wfbberzerker]

2000 election

guess who won the popular vote then?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: flexy
to cite a reader's letter of the chicago tribune today:

The states are not BLUE or RED - but rather purple.

If you consider a state RED because 51% voted for Bush you have a problem. There are still 49% who do NOT think so.

RED/BLUE is a result of the election, that is RIGHT. But a true reflection of the people would be MUCH MORE balanced, and many, many states would be rather be purple or just have a TINY, tiny red domination over blue.

And NOT, like this map wants to make stupid people believe (are YOU one of them ?) that 85% of this country is "RED", supports Bush etc.
You know this is a LIE.

Bottomline: 51% Bush and %49 Kerry/Nader <-- ROUGHLY half half

Eat that.

Obviously, if you would have clicked the link, you would have noticed that this post IS A COUNTY BREAKDOWN or maybe you would not have noticed, I mean,,, considering the voracity of your post.

 

[flexy]

[/quote]
Obviously, if you would have clicked the link, you would have noticed that this post IS A COUNTY BREAKDOWN or maybe you would not have noticed, I mean,,, considering the voracity of your post.[/quote]
irrelevant

 

[dszd0g]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
What Blue state
Special Thanks to *USA Today*

It looks like Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island are mainly blue if not entirely. Nonetheless, your point is made. It is amazing how much of the country stands by and roots for their team, no matter how bad their team's strategy is. If only people realized how much more important politics is than sports.

 

[EDoG2K]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Vic

A one-party state is not a democracy, it is a totalitarian regime. ...

I look forward to an ideology that can compete with the republican party. As it stands, there is a multitude that makes it anything except a one-party state. The demise of the democratic party will not be historically notable. Just a change in the phase, if you will...

Could happen to the Republican party also, if they loose their way.

Do you even know what the republican party stands for?
Here's how I see it: Republicans stand for smaller government, free market economics, and lots of personal liberties. I can understand that. I can see how those things are appealing, how you want the government to be small and leave you and your gun alone. Hell, that sounds good to me.

But the Republican party of today stands for huge national debt, war-mongering, bigger government (but still no social programs), and catering to big business. The GOP is supposed to be the fiscally responsible party! so why are the democrats saying Pay as U go? Why are they trying to overturn Roe-v-Wade: that's sort of a privacy issue isn't it.. like how you should be allowed to keep your gun and not tell the government about it, you should be able to go into a doctor's office and not have the government bug you about that.

Tell me I'm wrong. What IS your ideology?

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: EDoG2K

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Vic

A one-party state is not a democracy, it is a totalitarian regime. ...

I look forward to an ideology that can compete with the republican party. As it stands, there is a multitude that makes it anything except a one-party state. The demise of the democratic party will not be historically notable. Just a change in the phase, if you will...

Could happen to the Republican party also, if they loose their way.

Do you even know what the republiican party stands for?
Here's how I see it: Republicans stand for smaller government, free market economics, and lots of personal liberties. I can understand that. I can see how those things are appealing, how you want the government to be small and leave you and your gun alone. Hell, that sounds good to me.

But the Republican party of today stands for huge national debt, war-mongering, bigger government (but still no social programs), and catering to big business. The GOP is supposed to be the fiscally responsible party! so why are the democrats saying Pay as U go? Why are they trying to overturn Roe-v-Wade: that's sort of a privacy issue isn't it.. like how you should be allowed to keep your gun and not tell the government about it, you should be able to go into a doctor's office and not have the government bug you about that.

Tell me I'm wrong. What IS your ideology?

exactly, it's sad what the republican party has degenerated into...

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: flexy
to cite a reader's letter of the chicago tribune today:

The states are not BLUE or RED - but rather purple.

If you consider a state RED because 51% voted for Bush you have a problem. There are still 49% who do NOT think so.

RED/BLUE is a result of the election, that is RIGHT. But a true reflection of the people would be MUCH MORE balanced, and many, many states would be rather be purple or just have a TINY, tiny red domination over blue.

And NOT, like this map wants to make stupid people believe (are YOU one of them ?) that 85% of this country is "RED", supports Bush etc.
You know this is a LIE.

Bottomline: 51% Bush and %49 Kerry/Nader <-- ROUGHLY half half

Eat that.

Obviously, if you would have clicked the link, you would have noticed that this post IS A COUNTY BREAKDOWN or maybe you would not have noticed, I mean,,, considering the voracity of your post.

are you aware of what you chose to type in the "Topic" field?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: rh71
it amazes me how this looks like a fvckin' sport when it's not. People need to vote for the better man, not for what party they are part of.

Haha, but then they wouldn't be part of "The team". They wouldn't be able to gloat and say the guy on their team won. The same mentality usually (Not always) applies to both.

In 40 years, when liberals are a 2 or 3 % portion of the population, then I will proclaim that my team won. Until then, I will not turn my back to them and will continue to work towards the goal of crushing their party.

LOL. Good luck Betty. Bring a big stick.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: rh71
it amazes me how this looks like a fvckin' sport when it's not. People need to vote for the better man, not for what party they are part of.

Haha, but then they wouldn't be part of "The team". They wouldn't be able to gloat and say the guy on their team won. The same mentality usually (Not always) applies to both.

In 40 years, when liberals are a 2 or 3 % portion of the population, then I will proclaim that my team won. Until then, I will not turn my back to them and will continue to work towards the goal of crushing their party.

Forgive me if I don't tremble in fear of a "team" that is composed of people who look at the red county/blue county map and the only thought that enters their mind is "Gee whiz, us Bush voters sure have a huge majority." I really can't comprehend the stupidity that results in these arguments being repeated over and over again. It's not that you are simply ignorant, because the reasons why this logic is faulty have been repeated many times in the past few weeks, surely you couldn't have missed ALL of them. It goes deeper than that, I think we are uncovering serious defects in certain Bush voters' brains that prevent them from thinking in any way that normal people would recognize.

I am not worried, because in the long run the stupid people eventually lose. All it takes is the general public realizing what a bunch of knuckleheads they have associated themselves with.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
What Blue state

It's like looking down from space on a dark northern hemisphere and the blue areas are the visible light...

Turn on some lights you freaking farmers!

 

[colonel]

Hint 2: land doesn't vote.

you know is funny, may be you have a county with 30 people in Texas o whatever the Red states has and I dont think they get the news everyday, Yeah land dont vote!!!

 

[no0b]

Originally posted by: colonel

Hint 2: land doesn't vote.

you know is funny, may be you have a county with 30 people in Texas o whatever the Red states has and I dont think they get the news everyday, Yeah land dont vote!!!

what?

ducknuts is that you?

 

[marine73]

Originally posted by: NL5
It amazes me how people think that everyone in a red state voted for bush and everyone in a blue state voted for kerry. OVERSIMPLIFICATION at its finest.

Yep. Sure seems to be quite a bit of blue in those states south of the Mason-Dixon line, for
all the remarks by libs about "stupid" southern voters. So how did the mapsters decide which
color to use for each side? I think the repubs got red because of all the barns and tractors in
those states and I think the libs were given blue to signify the lack of oxygen going to their
brains. But I could be wrong...it happened once before.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: rh71
it amazes me how this looks like a fvckin' sport when it's not. People need to vote for the better man, not for what party they are part of.

Haha, but then they wouldn't be part of "The team". They wouldn't be able to gloat and say the guy on their team won. The same mentality usually (Not always) applies to both.

In 40 years, when liberals are a 2 or 3 % portion of the population, then I will proclaim that my team won. Until then, I will not turn my back to them and will continue to work towards the goal of crushing their party.

Forgive me if I don't tremble in fear of a "team" that is composed of people who look at the red county/blue county map and the only thought that enters their mind is "Gee whiz, us Bush voters sure have a huge majority." I really can't comprehend the stupidity that results in these arguments being repeated over and over again. It's not that you are simply ignorant, because the reasons why this logic is faulty have been repeated many times in the past few weeks, surely you couldn't have missed ALL of them. It goes deeper than that, I think we are uncovering serious defects in certain Bush voters' brains that prevent them from thinking in any way that normal people would recognize.

I am not worried, because in the long run the stupid people eventually lose. All it takes is the general public realizing what a bunch of knuckleheads they have associated themselves with.

The current political makeup of the Map and the physical make up of the Legislative branch of goverment, is the product of 40 years of hard, hard work.

Your attempt at a vitriol response to the op, however, lacked serious effort. Thanks for responding to the Gloat , though.