the Jazz wrote:If you're going to speak critically about something, please save us some time and check your facts.
that rant wrote:Who do you think those wig-wearing lacy-shirt sporting revolutionaries were? They were fucking blue-staters, dickhead.
Whether the founding fathers used the word "Democratic Party" to describe themselves or not, the author of the piece is sure implying that they should have.
Last edited by erik on Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
I disagree. What he is saying is that they lived in the states which we call "blue" states, i.e. the Northern states. The idea that he's calling them democrats or republicans is your own interpretation, and as he doesn't use those words even once in the piece, I would call it a misinterpretation.
You quoted me right before I edited my post to try to sound like less of a prick.
The whole tone of the piece is that he hates states based on how they voted in the last presidential election. If the author's only point was a geographical one, that the founding fathers resided in states that are now considered "blue states", that would be one thing. But taken in the context of the rest of the piece, it's hardly a stretch to interpret it the way that I originally did.
I can read it either way, now that you mention it.
ehhh the piece kind of just annoys me... it's useless bitching...
that's democracy get over it... and not everyone can be right or wrong... theres a big ass grey area... just think it made him look stupid...
but that's it...
"You haven't been really bad in a long time." - jim of seattle
When I meet people in faraway places and they find out where I'm from, most tend to laugh, scoff, or act surprised that I'm not a barefoot, bigoted, slack-jawed redneck. And that gets pretty annoying. "Dude--you're from <i>Birmingham</i>??"
Just so you know, there are many people living in the south who aren't assholes.
user wrote:When I meet people in faraway places and they find out where I'm from, most tend to laugh, scoff, or act surprised that I'm not a barefoot, bigoted, slack-jawed redneck. And that gets pretty annoying. "Dude--you're from <i>Birmingham</i>??"
Oddly enough you'd get the same reaction if you were Birmingham, UK, as well. (Ha! That'll annoy a few people )
Leaf wrote:I agree with Hoblit... it is funny... holy shit you guys you're taking this guy seriously??
Just because I don't think he's funny doesn't mean that I think he wants to be taken seriously.
15-16 puzzle wrote:
the Jazz wrote:If you're going to speak critically about something, please save us some time and check your facts.
that rant wrote:Who do you think those wig-wearing lacy-shirt sporting revolutionaries were? They were fucking blue-staters, dickhead.
Whether the founding fathers used the word "Democratic Party" to describe themselves or not, the author of the piece is sure implying that they should have.
Thanks.
You know what... you guys can just take it as a given that I'm going to agree with whatever Erik says on this thread, unless I chime in otherwise. I'm through here.
"Warren Zevon would be proud." -Reve Mosquito
Stages, an album of about dealing with loss, anxiety, and grieving a difficult year, now available on Bandcamp and all streaming platforms! https://jonporobil.bandcamp.com/album/stages
Leaf wrote:I agree with Hoblit... it is funny... holy shit you guys you're taking this guy seriously??
Just because I don't think he's funny doesn't mean that I think he wants to be taken seriously.
I hear (read) ya... and of course, what is funny to one, is funny to another. I certainly don't expect you to find it funny, although I may have difficulty understanding why you don't, I also know that many people have trouble understanding my humour....
Like last week when I was supposed to pick our son up after school, and I get home and "jokingly" say to my wife "Where's Nath?" and she totally freaks out...apparently that wasn't too funny... fortunately she knows me, so the beating was only mild... and , yeah, it wasn't THAT funny.... Nathan thought it was though, so at least he was amused....
To really see how the election results broke down, look at CNN.com's election results page, then click on any state, to see it broken down by county. Even most states that went for Kerry have huge chunks of it that went for Bush. It's not so much North vs. South as it is urban vs. rural. Specifically, look at Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Michigan. All three Kerry states, but once you look at the county breakdown, it's clear where his votes came from.[/url]
Jim of Seattle wrote:To really see how the election results broke down, look at CNN.com's election results page, then click on any state, to see it broken down by county. Even most states that went for Kerry have huge chunks of it that went for Bush. It's not so much North vs. South as it is urban vs. rural. Specifically, look at Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Michigan. All three Kerry states, but once you look at the county breakdown, it's clear where his votes came from.[/url]
Jim, I promise I'm not trying to pick on you or start anything, but what you're implying here is that the Urban areas (Heavily populated by minorities) voted for Kerry, while the Rural areas (Mostly populated by whites) voted for Bush. I guess I'm asking if this point isn't just as offensive (to some) as the website that started this thread?
Jim of Seattle wrote:Specifically, look at Pennsylvania ... once you look at the county breakdown, it's clear where his votes came from.
yeah... it's funny. in the pre-election discussions about predicting the outcomes and everything, i read somewhere a pretty apt description of this state. it's pittsburgh and philadelphia with alabama in between.
Western Massachussetts is mostly suburban, and heavily Republican. How else do you think we keep electing Republican governors? The metropolitan Boston area and cities and towns along the coast are what gives the state its reputation for liberalism.
Jim of Seattle wrote:To really see how the election results broke down, look at CNN.com's election results page, then click on any state, to see it broken down by county. Even most states that went for Kerry have huge chunks of it that went for Bush. It's not so much North vs. South as it is urban vs. rural. Specifically, look at Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Michigan. All three Kerry states, but once you look at the county breakdown, it's clear where his votes came from.[/url]
Jim, I promise I'm not trying to pick on you or start anything, but what you're implying here is that the Urban areas (Heavily populated by minorities) voted for Kerry, while the Rural areas (Mostly populated by whites) voted for Bush. I guess I'm asking if this point isn't just as offensive (to some) as the website that started this thread?
Not to put words in JoS's mouth, but I doubt his comment had anything to do with minorities.
However, if it did, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's well known that most people who fit into an often mistreated minority aren't conservatives. Of course it's a generalization, but I'd be willing to bet a whole lot of money (without seeing the stats) that the majority of American blacks, Jews, and homosexuals didn't vote for Bush. Why is that offensive?
I guess the point could be offensive to some conservatives, but that would be silly since it's true.
Jim of Seattle wrote:To really see how the election results broke down, look at CNN.com's election results page, then click on any state, to see it broken down by county. Even most states that went for Kerry have huge chunks of it that went for Bush. It's not so much North vs. South as it is urban vs. rural. Specifically, look at Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Michigan. All three Kerry states, but once you look at the county breakdown, it's clear where his votes came from.[/url]
Jim, I promise I'm not trying to pick on you or start anything, but what you're implying here is that the Urban areas (Heavily populated by minorities) voted for Kerry, while the Rural areas (Mostly populated by whites) voted for Bush. I guess I'm asking if this point isn't just as offensive (to some) as the website that started this thread?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Urban areas voted more for Kerry, rural ones for Bush, generally. But I'm not saying anything about minorities at all. Look at the map I linked to. Click on a state to see it broken down by county. Most of the states have a bunch of red counties, with little blue islands in them right where the highly populated areas are.
Do you think it's remotely possible that a nation like the US could ACTUALLY have a civil war in this day and age? The more I think about, the more I think not. People are generally physically comfortable, so they might bitch and complain and post silly nasty rants, but to actually start killing each other over "red" and "blue" and "norht" and "south" seems.... archaic.
Leaf wrote:Do you think it's remotely possible that a nation like the US could ACTUALLY have a civil war in this day and age? The more I think about, the more I think not. People are generally physically comfortable, so they might bitch and complain and post silly nasty rants, but to actually start killing each other over "red" and "blue" and "norht" and "south" seems.... archaic.
Just a question/thought....
yea that'd just be completely rediculous(sp)... i'd have to say i'd be in the southern fight... but that's just cause guns are easier to come by around these parts... and we know how to use 'em
haha j/k...
"You haven't been really bad in a long time." - jim of seattle
Leaf wrote:Do you think it's remotely possible that a nation like the US could ACTUALLY have a civil war in this day and age? The more I think about, the more I think not. People are generally physically comfortable, so they might bitch and complain and post silly nasty rants, but to actually start killing each other over "red" and "blue" and "norht" and "south" seems.... archaic.
Just a question/thought....
Not a chance. For starters, there's no specific issue that could divide the caountry enough to even start one. What would a civil war be about, exactly?
There seemed to be a little bit of hype about it.. granted, it came from Jon Stewart, (at least that's where I got the notion) but the funny thing is, it got me wondering. I have this belief that our current society is better than that, however, as we all remember,9/11 ish events can sure completely tear down a person's perceptions. So thus I asked the American's in the house... my question.
Definitely a funny essay. Although the author confuses "RNC talking points designed by marketers to appeal to white southern voters still bitter about their disenfranchisement by the Democratic party in the 60's" and "the South," the vitriol is warranted.
No, the founders weren't Democrats. But they were wealthy, educated intellectuals dedicated towards binding states under a single national identity with legal mechanisms for sharing resources. And they lived in the northwest which has consistently valued the type of person they were. And the RNC marketers ignore that so the poor, rural, anti-intellectuals can feel more patriotic.
Nice to hear it said so loudly. Too bad the DNC doesn't know how to make arguments like that.
"We don’t write songs about our own largely dull lives. We mostly rely on the time-tested gimmick of making shit up."
-John Linnell
Leaf wrote:Do you think it's remotely possible that a nation like the US could ACTUALLY have a civil war in this day and age? The more I think about, the more I think not. People are generally physically comfortable, so they might bitch and complain and post silly nasty rants, but to actually start killing each other over "red" and "blue" and "norht" and "south" seems.... archaic.
Stages, an album of about dealing with loss, anxiety, and grieving a difficult year, now available on Bandcamp and all streaming platforms! https://jonporobil.bandcamp.com/album/stages
)
