RE: Politics and the South (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


celticlord2112 -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:57:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And you apparently want to tie Obama voters to freeholders looking for a handout.Could you support that assumption with anything other than your own bias.Perhaps some statistical data ,the writer of the Times article offered statistical data to support his theory's,what do you offer ,other than your own conviction that you are right,therefore everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

His "evidence" is a crock of shit from start to finish.  His "statistics" prove that, in certain regions of the United States, more people voted for McCain, or voted Republican.

The article is a pathetic attempt to demonize and ultimately marginalize those who did not vote for Dear Leader.  It is ugly, bigoted, and wholly indefensible.




slvemike4u -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 10:01:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor

The only thing ther NYT is good for is lining bird cages.  No, I didn't read it, but did read the last thing in the post, which says "There's no other explanation than race."  What other point could the article have? 
I voted for McCain because of the content of his character.  I vote red anyway, but have made exceptions when the candidate lacked said content.  Beyond that, you have no idea what facts I acquaint myself with.  It certainly isn't anything printed by the NYT.
Okay Joenextdoor,this is why we read the damm things.The article in question was written by Adam Nossiter.It is an article dealing with the statistics of voting in the "deep red south" and looks at the fact that despite voting for McCain in larger numbers than they had actually voted for Bush....Obama still won.The point being that the old tried and true formula that says one must carry these areas to win are no longer valid.Changing demographics means the South is no longer a solid voting bloc.Skipping to the end of the article and plucking this line"
David Bositis, senior political analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, pointed out that the 18 percent share of whites that voted for Senator John Kerry in 2004 was almost cut in half for Mr. Obama.
“There’s no other explanation than race,” he said."left you with a false impression of the focal point of the article.Now you do not have to accept Mr.Bositis opinion on those numbers,but the number of former red states that turned blue this time certainly validates the point of the article.Keep lining your bird cage instead of reading....you willhave one smart bird.




Joenextdoor -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 10:07:38 PM)

OK, again, one last time...I did not read the NYT article, would not ever read it,  and would not rely on anything from that paper as fact.  Second, I plainly said what I said based on what the poster used as the last thing in his post.  That, and the title to this thread "politics and the south", and for me, its here we go again.  Lastly, I do not believe that the south is turning blue, but I believe that after 8 years, and the unrest we are having, people wanted change. 




slvemike4u -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 10:14:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And you apparently want to tie Obama voters to freeholders looking for a handout.Could you support that assumption with anything other than your own bias.Perhaps some statistical data ,the writer of the Times article offered statistical data to support his theory's,what do you offer ,other than your own conviction that you are right,therefore everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

His "evidence" is a crock of shit from start to finish.  His "statistics" prove that, in certain regions of the United States, more people voted for McCain, or voted Republican.

The article is a pathetic attempt to demonize and ultimately marginalize those who did not vote for Dear Leader.  It is ugly, bigoted, and wholly indefensible.

And asserting that an argument can be made that those who voted for President elect Obama are poor urban voters looking for a handout is what CL...will you apply the same standard here?




Joenextdoor -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 10:18:07 PM)

Again, I guess for some you have to say it ten times....I did not assert, but posed a question that goes the other way, and asked why didnt the writer also talk about that.




slvemike4u -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 10:23:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor

OK, again, one last time...I did not read the NYT article, would not ever read it,  and would not rely on anything from that paper as fact.  Second, I plainly said what I said based on what the poster used as the last thing in his post.  That, and the title to this thread "politics and the south", and for me, its here we go again.  Lastly, I do not believe that the south is turning blue, but I believe that after 8 years, and the unrest we are having, people wanted change. 
I find it a little beyond curious that you can engage in a conversation concerning  an article you refuse to read.I would find that a barrier too hard to overcome.....Of course at that point I would simply read the damm thing,so as not to appear foolish...Thats just me though,different strokes and all that.As far as what you believe or don't believe...the facts speak for themselves,a simple look at a election map (perhaps a paper other than the Times ,considerring your sensibility's) could clear up your confusion.That and looking at the actual demographic changes ,that above and beyond simple unrest speak volumes.




Joenextdoor -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 10:25:46 PM)

Just because a county or state was blue this election, does not mean it is neccesarily trending blue.  I do know some areas are trending that way, but to say that every blue county or state is trending that way, cannot be supported.




Cagey18 -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 10:32:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Of course at that point I would simply read the damm thing,so as not to appear foolish...

Hasn't stopped him so far...[:D]





slvemike4u -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 10:34:19 PM)

 "think the argument could be made that poor urban voters vote Democrat because they feel that party is the one who will give them the most free stuff out of the treasury"(quote Joenextdoor )
This statement can be supported? But a statement based on actual vote totals can not be supported ?
What criteria do you use when decideing what can and can't be supported.How many election cycles would satisfy you.Do you think the Republican leadership sat up and took notice....or perhaps they just lined their bird cages with the data.




sravaka -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 11:30:27 PM)

quote:


"Political science" is a contradiction in terms.


Purely curious:  Why?  Is any social science a science in your view?




Hippiekinkster -> RE: Politics and the South (11/12/2008 12:19:48 AM)

Cloudboy, certainly "race" is a factor in Southern voting patterns, but that is only one piece of the puzzle. I think the following is worthy of its own thread, personally.

From a moving review of "Deerhunting With Jesus" by the intelligence analyst Robert Steele
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2SRYUYP5P9W0F/ref=cm_cr_pr_mention_2


"It's author does open with the observation that life is so hard among the white poor and working poor that they seek solace in beer, overeating, Jesus, and guns. This is, however, a very serious book, a first-hand deep look into the hearts and minds of the 60% of the country that cannot control its lifestyle, environment, pay check, or future.
Early on I note that the author appears to combine both education and common sense. There are magnificent turns of phrase throughout.
My fly-leaf notes:
+ Parallel world to that of the educated urban liberals
+ Life runs from complete insecurity to looming job insecurity
+ Just over half the poor in the US are white and this is the only group that is growing in number
+ For someone earning $8 an hour, if nothing goes wrong, they have $55 a week for groceries, gas, and incidentals
+ Insurance can cost as much as rent or mortgage
+ One third of working Americans make less than $9 an hour
+ They are inherently anti-union, facts are irrelevant, Christian radio is their primary source of information and viewpoint
+ This is a permanent underclass, two out of five have no high school diploma while all over 50 have major health issues, and low to no credit
+ The leftist middle class does not realize that this group votes right in part out of a feeling of revenge
+ Right owns the bars, the non-Internet real world
+ Left lost the middle when they demonized guns and gun owners--70 million gun owners, 200 million guns, guns are used to protect 60 times more often than they are used to attack
+ Superb multi-page discussion of whitetrashonomics and the trailer mortgage scams
+ Fundamentalists are superbly organized, home schooling leads to select colleges where political indoctrination is part of the deal
+ Sense of Rapture and Left Behind is very real within this group
+ Excellent discussion of how health "non-profits" are a real-estate valuation scam that serve only the well-off and not the poor
+ Television and petroleum have defined us
The author makes it a point to quote and point to a dirty dozen books that he drew on, but overall this is an essay from the heart with a great deal of intellect and a great deal of discipline in the presentation.
I highly recommend this book to both moderate Republicans wondering where their Party went off the rails, and to moderate leftists and to libertarians wondering how best to reconnect to what appears to be a very angry, down-trodden, unheard and unseen majority.
The most compelling insight for me from the author centered on his description of small towns across America, but especially in the South including Virginia, where a network of "elites" controlled the bank, newspaper, city hall, zoning board, and so on. As the author describes it, these fiefdoms and their masters are all too eager to cut deals with corporations and make money off the resulting land transactions, while not spending money on education, localized health care, or anything that might elevate the "local poor" to a point where they might understand the value of unions or tenant boards.
I experienced one major personal insight in reading this: the author takes great care to point out that most members of this group do not read, period. No books, no newspapers, barely use the Internet (except for NASCAR) and--this is the insight--have great disdain for those of us who have the "luxury" of sitting around and reading (not real work, that). This book and this author really communicated to me how little value my education and reading has in this context--what is needed is a long-term hands-on strategy for educating all the people all the time, and that is something neither the Democrats nor the Republicans appear willing to fight for, which is sad, since Thomas Jefferson said so clearly that a Nation's best defense is an educated citizenry."

..So sort of like the Taliban, but much more ass-whupped.




LadyEllen -> RE: Politics and the South (11/12/2008 2:23:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

but I am tired of people thinking that just because we are southerners, we are somehow backwards, lack intelligence, or are racist.

All you have to do is stand and pledge allegiance to Dear Leader and you will be magically transformed into someone who is enlightened, intelligent, and color blind. 



Not at all CL. All one would have to do is understand why the holding of views such as "the urban poor" (good euphemism) are a bunch of freeloaders (lazy, ignorant, stupid) might produce a reaction in some quarters that ascribed such views to backwardness, lack of intellect and racism, and the rest will surely follow.

Its undoubtedly true that some of those identified are lazy, ignorant and stupid - but by no means are all that way, and even those who could be so identified didnt necessarily start off that way. Long term unemployment tends to have such effects on people - and that is more a failure of socio-economic policy than anything innate to segments of the population.

This is a post industrial economy we're in and a competitive market for everything, including labour. When there are no jobs for them - and lets face it we both know that not everyone is cut out for small business (takes a special kind of daft IMO!), how else are these people to do and think, even with the best will in the world? From their point of view, they have been well and truly shafted by suits in the high rise office blocks who offshored any chance they might have of a future under their own power - one can hardly then ascribe moral failings on the grounds of their situation to those so disenfranchised.

E




SilverMark -> RE: Politics and the South (11/12/2008 2:37:13 AM)

Having lived in the South for quite some time I always get a huge kick out how people wish to define the whys involved with the shift from Democrat to Republican voting. Funny how it is they never mention the huge shift in population from North to South and where it is those people come from. One huge break in the traditional Southern voting block took place in 1964 and 1965 over both the civil rights and voting rights acts and those were traditional Southerners.
I live in what most would call the business capitol of the South, Atlanta and yet I rarely if ever hear a Southern accent or speak to a native born Georgian. Aside from South Fla. we are certainly the largest population center located in the South and yet we are one of the least Southern. As far as the statistics quoted, once you get out of the Metro Atlanta area, we do have the worst schools in the USA and right with us are Alabama, Mississippi which accounts for the education or lack there of.. Alabama and Mississippi are still very Southern, no huge migration to those 2 states and they had small populations to start with but, Charlotte, Atlanta, Southern Fla., Raleigh Durham....The South has become the Midwest and parts of the Northeast just with better weather! Watch the population growth especially early 80's when the economy went to hell, it's not too hard to figure out!Just my luck, wouldn't you know those damn Republicans followed me from Indiana!!!!!!!!!




celticlord2112 -> RE: Politics and the South (11/12/2008 4:38:10 AM)

quote:

And asserting that an argument can be made that those who voted for President elect Obama are poor urban voters looking for a handout is what CL...will you apply the same standard here?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  If trafficking in divisive hate is the game, it's only fitting and fair we play in both directions.




OneMoreWaste -> RE: Politics and the South (11/12/2008 6:08:30 AM)

Here are a couple of visual aids-
"Purple America" 2004:
http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ervdb/JAVA/election2004/purple_america_2004_small.gif

"Purple America" 2008:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Emejn/election/2008/countymappurpler1024.png

You can see the Appalachians clearly in both maps. In fact, both maps are pretty damn similar full stop.




rexrgisformidoni -> RE: Politics and the South (11/12/2008 6:18:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sravaka

quote:


"Political science" is a contradiction in terms.


Purely curious:  Why?  Is any social science a science in your view?




haha, was just going to ask this. Political science has its theories and views. There are left and right wing political scientists. We use tons of statistics, direct observation, and do tonnnssss of research. Its just as much science as geology or biology.




colouredin -> RE: Politics and the South (11/12/2008 6:21:23 AM)

Social sciences are the sciences of human behaviour, using empirical quantative research (along with interprative qualative research) and control groups etc etc, so it is in fact a science just misunderstood.




Musicmystery -> RE: Politics and the South (11/12/2008 6:36:30 AM)

quote:

If trafficking in divisive hate is the game, it's only fitting and fair we play in both directions.


Aside from the false premise, so now two wrongs logically make a right.

No wonder these discussions are so often pointless.




popeye1250 -> RE: Politics and the South (11/12/2008 7:32:31 AM)

Ergo proptor hoc.
The term "political scientist" should be interchangable with "waitress."
Every third waitress who waits on me here has a "degree" in "political science."
And they all want to go to law school further adding to the legions of lawyers out here.




HunterS -> RE: Politics and the South (11/12/2008 7:39:33 AM)

quote:

I'm obviously just a big fat racist who doesn't care about the issues [8|]


Your candor is appreciated.
 
H.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875