NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.topalli.com/blue/intro.html


Education: Blue states are better educated than red states.
Degrees: Blue staters are more likely to go to college
Divorce: Blue staters are more likely to stay married
Mothers: Blue staters are less likely to get pregnant in their teen years
Lynchings: Blue staters are less likely to ignore the law
Slavery: The Red States have racism and the victims of racism.
Shootings : Blue Staters are less likely to shoot each other to death
Driving : Blue Staters drive better
Crime and Drunk Driving: Law abiding Blues don't let their friends drive drunk
Income, Success, Big Goverment: Blues make more money, are more successful, and have to carry the Red welfare states on our backs.
Sports - Blues are the kings of baseball and football.
Obesity - Red State voters are fat

I don't know about the rest, but this statement is absurd:
Driving : Blue Staters drive better

I live in California. Worst set of drivers EVER!

-Asylum Nova

Although the points aren't true, I'll give a resounding, "Yes, Blue states own Red states!" And the only president with a PhD was a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. WOOT!

Wow, you are such a troll. Nice set of scewed "facts" I feel like saying things I'd surely get banned for, so I'll just leave now.

Although the points aren't true, I'll give a resounding, "Yes, Blue states own Red states!" And the only president with a PhD was a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. WOOT!
Bush is the only President with an MBA. Can we stop the pissing contest now?

Bush is the only President with an MBA. Can we stop the pissing contest now?

I think it goes to show how useful an MBA is in running a country...not!:D

I think it goes to show how useful an MBA is in running a country...not!:D
Sounds like someone is jealous. :D

Come on, man, this kind of thing just devisive.

Although to make a point, Blue states pay more in taxes then they get in gov funds, and the opposite is true of the Red states. So next time you're pissed about high taxes, blame the military or those cattle ranchers who get gov subsities and cheep cheep gov land to graze their cows, then complaine about the gov being all up in their grill. OK then, buy youre own damn land! See how long your cowboy big-belt-buckle lifestyle lasts then.

Come on, man, this kind of thing just divisive.

Although to make a point, Blue states pay more in taxes then they get in gov funds, and the opposite is true of the Red states. So next time you're pissed about high taxes, blame the military or those cattle ranchers who get gov subsities and cheep cheep gov land to graze their cows, then complaine about the gov being all up in their grill. OK then, buy youre own damn land! See how long your cowboy big-belt-buckle lifestyle lasts then.
Nice way to be a divisive partisan while chastising someone for being divisive. :rolleyes:

It's a silly comparison.

Charleston SC, is better than upstate NY. NYC is better that Columbia SC.

Generally, states are too large to paint with such a broad brush. Except for the mid-west. That all sucks.

Nice way to be a divisive partisan while chastising someone for being divisive. :rolleyes:


True, but it's been bothering me recently, the tax thing, and I suppose I had to get it off my chest.

I don't think "red" is better then "blue" or vice versa, but the fact the people don't know where their tax money goes (federal taxes anyway), that irks me.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Ive lived in both red and blue states and can't really say which is better. They have their unique kind of charm.

Shootings : Blue Staters are less likely to shoot each other to death

Really? I would think the oposite, as many large cities are in "blue" states.

I lived in a blue (NJ) and a red (AZ) state. So far I liked the blue state much better.

The blue states are the states with history. I believe the overwhelming majority of the original states are blue states, and all the monuments seem to be there, so that counts for something. They seem to be the most "American" of all the states.

The blue states are the states with history. I believe the overwhelming majority of the original states are blue states, and all the monuments seem to be there, so that counts for something. They seem to be the most "American" of all the states.
Just what in the hell do you think you know about what is and isn't "American"

Just what in the hell do you think you know about what is and isn't "American"

Umm, history. I thought I mentioned that?

Umm, history. I thought I mentioned that?
Reading a book doesn't tell you anything compared to experience, and coming from someone who freaks out whenever anyone has the "gull" to suggest they know anything about Sweden, I figured you'd know that.

Don't pretend you know anything about America. No state is more American than any other. That's what is so great about America. But I don't expect you to understand.

You know, Good Lifes, the "religious right" has had me feeling just a little bit ashamed of being a conservative lately.

Your post has corrected this problem. Thank you.

The blue states are the states with history. I believe the overwhelming majority of the original states are blue states, and all the monuments seem to be there, so that counts for something. They seem to be the most "American" of all the states.

Yah, that's just wrong.

If you are talking about which area was colonized by the Europeans first, then it is mostly in "red state" areas.

If you are talking about history generally, then it's just offensive.

What exactly is a Blue state & a Red state. They're not terms I've heard of before.

Reading a book doesn't tell you anything compared to experience

You have a time machine?

and coming from someone who freaks out whenever anyone has the "gull" to suggest they know anything about Sweden, I figured you'd know that.

Oh, non-Swedes can know tonnes of stuff about Sweden. Our history seems to attract study in a disproportionate amount, actually. I've never freaked out when someone has known anything about us here, as I've yet to come across someone who has when speaking about certain things, for instance Swedish law, on this forum. If your knowledge is accurate, though, I of course will not freak out - and all the historical things I've mentioned about the US in this thread are to my knowledge correct. Most of the founding states are blue. They thus have more history as "American" and they seem to have all the historical monuments up there in that North-East blueness. If I had to pick "the most American state," I would go with one of the blue, founding ones, and never with the stereotypical red state like Texas.

Don't pretend you know anything about America.

Don't pretend you know anything about what I know or do not know.

No state is more American than any other. That's what is so great about America. But I don't expect you to understand.

No, I don't expect you to.

http://www.topalli.com/blue/intro.html


Education: Blue states are better educated than red states.
Degrees: Blue staters are more likely to go to college
Divorce: Blue staters are more likely to stay married
Mothers: Blue staters are less likely to get pregnant in their teen years
Lynchings: Blue staters are less likely to ignore the law
Slavery: The Red States have racism and the victims of racism.
Shootings : Blue Staters are less likely to shoot each other to death
Driving : Blue Staters drive better
Crime and Drunk Driving: Law abiding Blues don't let their friends drive drunk
Income, Success, Big Goverment: Blues make more money, are more successful, and have to carry the Red welfare states on our backs.
Sports - Blues are the kings of baseball and football.
Obesity - Red State voters are fat

I am definitely not a red-stater, but I can say that you are flame-baiting like all hell here.

Yes, red staters have their own problems to worry about, but there's no need to boast about it.

I suggest you be diplomatic and fork over your apoligies now. You can keep the fork, though.

Although the points aren't true, I'll give a resounding, "Yes, Blue states own Red states!" And the only president with a PhD was a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. WOOT!

Too bad Wilson was the worst President in the history of the United States.

What exactly is a Blue state & a Red state. They're not terms I've heard of before.

It's some form of stupidity made up after the last presidential election. Basically, a blue state is one that gave its electoral college votes to John Kerry; a red state is one that gave it to GWB.

Of course, this totally ignores the size and diversity of many states, and simply assumes that you can divide up 300 million people into fifty divisions of red and blue.

It would be as moronic as dividing EUians into "red" and "blue" countries.

It would be as moronic as dividing EUians into "red" and "blue" countries.
No flaming here, honestly. What exactly IS the proper term for people living in the E.U.? Is it EUian, or something else? Is there even a term?

Too bad Wilson was the worst President in the history of the United States.

So educated people make the worst democratically elected leaders?:eek: That's an OOOOOOOOOOOUCH for humanity right there!:headbang:

"The blue states are the states with history. I believe the overwhelming majority of the original states are blue states, and all the monuments seem to be there, so that counts for something. They seem to be the most "American" of all the states."

Blueness (Democrat) and Redness (Republican) based on 2004 presidential election results:

Blue: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland (9)
Red: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia (4)

Of course, none of the states are truly American, since the were either voting for big government + religion (Red) or Huge Government (Blue). Neither party even comes close to obeying the Constitution.

*Looks at thread title.*

BTW, what makes a state "better"? Isn't that like saying a girl is more "beautiful" than she was yesterday? What defines "better"?:confused:

So educated people make the worst democratically elected leaders?:eek: That's an OOOOOOOOOOOUCH for humanity right there!:headbang:
What a conclusion you made. Logically sound from start to finish.

Quote:Originally Posted by Good Lifes
Shootings : Blue Staters are less likely to shoot each other to death

Really? I would think the oposite, as many large cities are in "blue" states.

While I'll agree that the 'blue' urban areas have more shootings than most areas in 'red' states, since the population is much more dense I'm not so sure about shootings per capita, which is a much more meaningful number. Also, I'm quite sure that our sub-urban and rural areas have less shootings. After all, we don't tend to shoot people just for setting foot on our property.

What I'd really like to see is a break down of republican, democrat, and independant. Compare a few thousand of each in intelligence, financial success, etc., etc. I'll bet any amount of money that it comes out republicans last, democrats a bit ahead, independants over democrats by a noticibly larger margin.

It's some form of stupidity made up after the last presidential election. Basically, a blue state is one that gave its electoral college votes to John Kerry; a red state is one that gave it to GWB.

Of course, this totally ignores the size and diversity of many states, and simply assumes that you can divide up 300 million people into fifty divisions of red and blue.

It would be as moronic as dividing EUians into "red" and "blue" countries.

Thanks, at least I (semi) understand this thread now.

While I'll agree that the 'blue' urban areas have more shootings than most areas in 'red' states, since the population is much more dense I'm not so sure about shootings per capita, which is a much more meaningful number. Also, I'm quite sure that our sub-urban and rural areas have less shootings. After all, we don't tend to shoot people just for setting foot on our property.

What I'd really like to see is a break down of republican, democrat, and independant. Compare a few thousand of each in intelligence, financial success, etc., etc. I'll bet any amount of money that it comes out republicans last, democrats a bit ahead, independants over democrats by a noticibly larger margin.
Well, since Republicans love to give money to big business, and big business loves said money, I'd say they'll win the financial success category.

What a conclusion you made. Logically sound from start to finish.

At least have the deceny to use a :rolleyes: emoticon when you say that.

So educated people make the worst democratically elected leaders?:eek: That's an OOOOOOOOOOOUCH for humanity right there!:headbang:
Take a retard, give him a degree, and all you have is a retard with a degree.

Are blue states better than red states?


Unequivocally.

I am definitely not a red-stater, but I can say that you are flame-baiting like all hell here.

Yes, red staters have their own problems to worry about, but there's no need to boast about it.

I suggest you be diplomatic and fork over your apoligies now. You can keep the fork, though.


Did you follow the link? If you did and he's just repeating what it said for those who are too lazy to follow it, how exactly does he owe anyone an apology. If I know someone has a far below average IQ and I call them stupid do I owe them an apology for stating the truth?

Did you follow the link? If you did and he's just repeating what it said for those who are too lazy to follow it, how exactly does he owe anyone an apology. If I know someone has a far below average IQ and I call them stupid do I owe them an apology for stating the truth?

Hey, man, stop hating.

Whetever or not, this is the "truth" is not the issue. I just think he could've expressed these views in a more tactile and friendlier way.

Well, since Republicans love to give money to big business, and big business loves said money, I'd say they'll win the financial success category.

I wouldn't be so sure. At least not on republican versus democrat. Seems to me that most hollywood stars support the democrats, and the bigger the name the more likely. So there goes a whole shit-load of millionaires for you. Since as a rule most professional athlete's are black, and most black people tend to be democrats, there's a whole other load of rich democrats.

And anyway I'm talking about a scientific poll, where they control for population density and such. The number of responses you need for statistically useful results is only a few thousand. If you 'randomly' call 10,000 american households what are the chances you're going to call any famous actors, sports stars, or fortune 500 CEOs. Pretty damn low I'm sure.

Hey, man, stop hating.

Whetever or not, this is the "truth" is not the issue. I just think he could've expressed these views in a more tactile and friendlier way.

Stop hating? You're more worried about the way that the information is being presented than if it's true or not. I'd like to think that these forums are about constructive debate. Attacking someone over the way they say something instead of rebutting the statement doesn't add anything to the conversation.

I wouldn't be so sure. At least not on republican versus democrat. Seems to me that most hollywood stars support the democrats, and the bigger the name the more likely. So there goes a whole shit-load of millionaires for you. Since as a rule most professional athlete's are black, and most black people tend to be democrats, there's a whole other load of rich democrats.

And anyway I'm talking about a scientific poll, where they control for population density and such. The number of responses you need for statistically useful results is only a few thousand. If you 'randomly' call 10,000 american households what are the chances you're going to call any famous actors, sports stars, or fortune 500 CEOs. Pretty damn low I'm sure.

You are bringing up an issue of old money vs new money. Old money people are probably more likely to be a republican while new money people are probably democrats. And since most new money is paid by old money (wage payers and such), we can infer which group is more powerful.

Reading a book doesn't tell you anything compared to experience, and coming from someone who freaks out whenever anyone has the "gull" to suggest they know anything about Sweden, I figured you'd know that.

Don't pretend you know anything about America. No state is more American than any other. That's what is so great about America. But I don't expect you to understand.

I don´t want to interrupt your polite conversation...but could you back down a bit, both of you? This thread is senseless in itself, so no need to put fire to the troll lair. Thank you...

No flaming here, honestly. What exactly IS the proper term for people living in the E.U.? Is it EUian, or something else? Is there even a term?

Personally, I just call 'em Europeans. I don't think there's a term for a citizen of a EU member nation.

Personally, I just call 'em Europeans. I don't think there's a term for a citizen of a EU member nation.

Swedish, Finnish, Danish, Austrian, Irish, British, Latvian, Estonian, Lithuanian, French, German, Dutch, Belgian, Luxembourgish, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, Cypriote, Maltese, Pole, Slovenian, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian. ;)

No flaming here, honestly. What exactly IS the proper term for people living in the E.U.? Is it EUian, or something else? Is there even a term?

Well if someone from the US is an USian, clearly - and for the same reasons - someone from the EU is an EUian. Notwithstanding, they tend to call themselves European, despite it suffering from them same terminological inexactitude as "american".

Personally, I prefer United Statesman, for US people anyway.

Notwithstanding, they tend to call themselves European, despite it suffering from them same terminological inexactitude as "american".

I wasn't aware that European was used to mean citizen of the EU, and not in a European country. I wasn't even aware any of the member states' citizens referring to themselves by any other moniker than by that which their nationality already has.

I wasn't aware that European was used to mean citizen of the EU, and not in a European country. I wasn't even aware any of the member states' citizens referring to themselves by any other moniker than by that which their nationality already has.

Pay more attention in the future then.

Pay more attention in the future then.

Seems that I'll have to, and ever, ever so closely, too.

Liberals and such: Stop being jerks, or you will only look like idiotic trolls. The website presents a lot of information that makes me wonder just why conservatives support their positions when those positions would hurt them so much; however, the information is presented in such a boorish way that the people that you really want to read it is digusted and walks away. Presentation matters in civil debate.

Conservatives and such: Try paying attention to the data being presented to you, rather than bemoaning how you are being attacked. While some of the allegations seem to only tenuously go along voting lines (California is one of the 10 least educated states- that's a blow to the ego), others are rather dramatic- notably, where the recipients of government subsidies live.



Fass: Quite the opposite regarding history and blue/redness. The first English colonies in North America were in the South. After the Revolutionary War, no one moved there willingly; the people in these states just spread westward. These states, the populations of which remained fairly isolated and left to stew within their provincial natures, became strongly conservative. By contrast, the more liberal areas of the country are the areas that recieved lots of immigrants from all over the place, along with the numerous new ideas this entails; these are areas like New York, Illinois, and California.

Basically, the South started with Anglo-Saxon ancestry and stayed Anglo-Saxon; by contrast, the blue states pretty much all recieved a flood of immigrants from around the world.

On Wilson: How was he the country's worst President? He certainly wasn't the best; however much I may agree with his ideals, he wasn't very good at implementing them. Some of his 14 Points for the end of WWI were simply unworkable, such as the overall neutrality of the seas; however, others were excellent ideas, such as the idea of the League of Nations (if not the implementation). I think most of the problems Wilson had involved his inability to convince Britain, France, and the American Congress to go along with him.

Too bad Wilson was the worst President in the history of the United States.
Oh, yeah, Hoover was so much better. Ever heard of a "Hooverville?"

My own countrymen make me the angriest.

On Wilson: How was he the country's worst President? He certainly wasn't the best; however much I may agree with his ideals, he wasn't very good at implementing them. Some of his 14 Points for the end of WWI were simply unworkable, such as the overall neutrality of the seas; however, others were excellent ideas, such as the idea of the League of Nations (if not the implementation). I think most of the problems Wilson had involved his inability to convince Britain, France, and the American Congress to go along with him.
By neutrality of the seas, I think Wilson really meant: "Um, yeah, that's Americas now, so just back off everybody." I doubt he actually meant that.

It was impossible to impliment his ideas. He had a stong isolationist (surprise, surprise) resentment back home, and Western Europe wasn't ready for anything resembling the UN at the time. Exactly what you said. So, yeah, I agree with you on everything but the definition of "Blue State and Red State" and the "Neutrality of the Seas." That's pretty good. I really don't want to argue now though, its Friday. How about Monday? Is that good for you? :p

I'll start a thread on Wilson, and he can debate and flame till sundown, and at the end of the day, when our hands hurt, and we can't stop thinking about it, we'll have changed not a single mind.

I'll start a thread on Wilson, and he can debate and flame till sundown, and at the end of the day, when our hands hurt, and we can't stop thinking about it, we'll have changed not a single mind.

But we'll have fun in the meantime! :D

But we'll have fun in the meantime! :D
Oh, yeah. I was too caught up in the debate to make irrelevant methaphors, my favorite one (adapted though):

"Blue states aren't cakes, they're pie!"

You are bringing up an issue of old money vs new money. Old money people are probably more likely to be a republican while new money people are probably democrats. And since most new money is paid by old money (wage payers and such), we can infer which group is more powerful.


I don't think I said anything about who's more powerful. Obviously both democrats and republicans are in a greater position of power than independants. I'm talking about the average intelligence, average economic success, average etc., etc. of the individual members. Since there are so many more democrats and republicans the few who are in the top 10% aren't going to make as much difference. In fact, I'll bet most of the top 10% are actually independants, meaning they contribute to the campaigns of both major parties so that either way they win. What I'm say is that the breakdown might look something like this...

Repulican Averages:
Education: High School diploma
IQ: 95
Annual Household Income: $20,000

Democrat Averages:
Education: Some College (less than 2 years)
IQ: 100
Annual Household Income: $25,000

Independant Averages:
Education: Gradute Degree
IQ: 115
Annual Household Income: $35,000

These numbers are made up, but the point remains. Republicans are the least likely to be succesful (mainly because they are the most likely to be religious and listening to what other people tell you to do instead of making up your own mind isn't likely to make you successful), Democrats are somewhat better off, and Independants are noticebly more successful than both. I think that's because independants are more likely to be free thinkers, and because they're obviously smart enough to realize that the two party system is really just a one party in two different suits.

This is just what I think such a poll might show, but I have logical reasons for that, which is more than most people can give.

These numbers are made up, but the point remains.
I like you. :)

Fass: Quite the opposite regarding history and blue/redness. The first English colonies in North America were in the South. After the Revolutionary War, no one moved there willingly; the people in these states just spread westward. These states, the populations of which remained fairly isolated and left to stew within their provincial natures, became strongly conservative. By contrast, the more liberal areas of the country are the areas that recieved lots of immigrants from all over the place, along with the numerous new ideas this entails; these are areas like New York, Illinois, and California.

Original 13 states by blueness and redness:

Blue: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland.

Red: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia.

This was what I was talking about. Not original British colonies. Not migratory patterns. Not socio-economics. Just this simplified little example. We are in a thread about blueness and redness for heaven's sake - you'd think the simplistic comment about "these are this colour, they are/have/did this, therefore they are better/more this/more that" would have been apparent.

I guess these things need to be pointed out.

I like you. :)

Yes, I know that it sounds stupid:rolleyes: , but the only point is admittedly an opion. I ,therefore, felt free to make up numbers to show how I think such a poll might turn out.

Though I must say that you did make me laugh with that one. Nicely done.

Get some paint and a roller and GET TO IT THEN!

I don't think I said anything about who's more powerful. Obviously both democrats and republicans are in a greater position of power than independants. I'm talking about the average intelligence, average economic success, average etc., etc. of the individual members. Since there are so many more democrats and republicans the few who are in the top 10% aren't going to make as much difference. In fact, I'll bet most of the top 10% are actually independants, meaning they contribute to the campaigns of both major parties so that either way they win. What I'm say is that the breakdown might look something like this...

Repulican Averages:
Education: High School diploma
IQ: 95
Annual Household Income: $20,000

Democrat Averages:
Education: Some College (less than 2 years)
IQ: 100
Annual Household Income: $25,000

Independant Averages:
Education: Gradute Degree
IQ: 115
Annual Household Income: $35,000

These numbers are made up, but the point remains. Republicans are the least likely to be succesful (mainly because they are the most likely to be religious and listening to what other people tell you to do instead of making up your own mind isn't likely to make you successful), Democrats are somewhat better off, and Independants are noticebly more successful than both. I think that's because independants are more likely to be free thinkers, and because they're obviously smart enough to realize that the two party system is really just a one party in two different suits.

This is just what I think such a poll might show, but I have logical reasons for that, which is more than most people can give.

Why do high school dropouts consistently vote democrat? Why are the poor always voting democrat?

Red *and* blue states suck equally. Why can't there be an RWB state (libert.)?

Why do high school dropouts consistently vote democrat? Why are the poor always voting democrat?

Because, they think that Democracts give a damn about helping them. Even if they were right and what they are trying to do is help it wouldn't matter. Welfare doesn't help anybody. First of all, it pays women to keep the father of their children out of the home. Second, it violates the most basic rule of survival; i.e., "Go find food to eat or die". In modern terms that means go make money or die. Most people would be quite happy to live in relative squalor if they didn't have to work for it at all. Anyway, you can find an under-the-table job, or sell drugs if you need more cash.

Why do religious wackos always vote for Republicans?

Because they believe the Republicans give a damn about spreading belief in Jesus and upholding so-called 'Christian' morality. Last time I checked, Jesus taught, 'Judge not lest Ye be judged." How that applies to banning homosexual marriage, or sending people to jail because they like to smoke weed is beyond me.

Republicans don't care about religion. They just want to use it as a system of control. Democrats don't care about helping the poor. They just want to make people dependant on the state so they'll do what they are told. Which is why the main thrust of my arguement is that Independants are more intelligent than members of either party.

Independants obviously see that the two major parties are doing nothing to actually improve the lives of most people in this country. Whether Dems, Pubs, or Demapublicans are smarter than each other doesn't matter. The point is people need to exercise thier critical thinking skills more often. The more you use your brain the smarter you get. Imagine what we could accomplish if everyone's IQ was 10 points higher, and they actually tryed to make decisions on their own instead of believing the first thing people said to them. I bet we'd have at least one other party getting votes then (which while trivial in the grand scheme of things would be quite an accomplishment.)

Well, this was just going to start some kind of uprising debate. I live in Virginia, there is a TON of history here. IE: One of the 1st to be colonized and Richmond was the Caital of the Confederacy. Red states may or may not be better than blue states. But, it is hard to believe that all the Left wing tree huggers live in major cities. It just contradicts itself. Sure I love NYC, But normally it is blue voters who commit violent shooting crimes. Good Life you just made up all of those statements, there is no study or research behind them...

Although the points aren't true, I'll give a resounding, "Yes, Blue states own Red states!" And the only president with a PhD was a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. WOOT!
He was from New Jersey. Of course he's going to be great.

Republicans are the least likely to be succesful (mainly because they are the most likely to be religious and listening to what other people tell you to do instead of making up your own mind isn't likely to make you successful)

Do you have anything to back up this statement? Because I find it to be bullshit. Being religious doesn't make you less successful, and it doesn't mean you are not a free thinker. I am very religious, and I don't "just listen to what people tell me." I am of the mind that no one can make decisions for me but me, and no one can tell a man what to think or feel. I am also a registered independent, because I, as you put it "see through the bullshit of both parties." So there goes your bullshit theory you pulled out of your ass.

I don't know about the rest, but this statement is absurd:


I live in California. Worst set of drivers EVER!

-Asylum Nova
Having lived in both California and Florida, I have to take exception to this. Florida drivers are worse. I have two reasons for this.

First, there's a disporportionately larger number of old people here.

Secondly, most people in Florida don't come from Florida, or for that matter, learn to drive in Florida, so there's no shared sense of local law or common practice--you have people from all over with differing expectations of what the other drivers are going to do, and so you get people doing stupid shit all the time. I swear, I had to calm down once I moved here, because otherwise I'd drive with my middle finger hanging out the window all the time.

Yay! I live in a blue state, and I like it here.

Do you have anything to back up this statement? Because I find it to be bullshit. Being religious doesn't make you less successful, and it doesn't mean you are not a free thinker. I am very religious, and I don't "just listen to what people tell me." I am of the mind that no one can make decisions for me but me, and no one can tell a man what to think or feel. I am also a registered independent, because I, as you put it "see through the bullshit of both parties." So there goes your bullshit theory you pulled out of your ass.

I agree, while there are plenty of religous people who are brainwashed we all aren't. I think Christians tend to measure success differently. So I wouldn't be surprissed if we were statistically less successful. For example I'm going into accademics. Professors often neglect their families when they are trying to get tenure. There are a lot of divorces/bad parenting happening. But my Christian values tell me that family is more important then career, so if I have a family someday I'm going to put them first, This may decrease my chances of getting tenure someday. Not saying that it's not possible to be a good parent/husband and do well in academics (thats what I'm going to shoot for). I'm just saying sometimes sacrifices have to be made and a good Christian will make sacrifices that may make him appear less succesful. No one really seems to measure success based on family, friendships, or even happiness for that matter. Success tends to be measured based on status and wealth, which is all pointless if you are misserable.

well im gona get flamed, but i find that all republicans are either gullible enough to believe what their leaders are saying (weapons of mass destruction, the war being about saddam from the start, no child left behind actually working, ((and dont tell me it is, thats bs)) ect.), getting enough of a profit to not care about it, or religious enough to strongly dissagree with abortion and such.


im sure you could find a person that isnt one of these people, but definitely NOT a lot.

im also not saying all incredibly gullible, rich, or religious people are republicans. i know plenty of democrats that are gullible as 5 year olds, a few religious people that are democrats because of they dont agree with other things, and some rich people that dont agree enough with bush to be republicans.

and by the way im sure theres spelling errors somewheres, i dont care. my point is there.

and people, make sure not to generalize or steriotype too much. theres always exceptions that will read it and get seriously pissed off.

These are pretty easy to explain why; most of the "red states" are extremely small populationwise, so they tend to have more agriculture, lower income (because fewer jobs are attracted to low population states), lower educational levels (people leave those states to get better jobs), and lower "success" (for the same reason as lower education/income).

Agricultural states attract a lot of subsidies and pork ($250 million dollar bridge to nowhere in Alaska), so they are net beneficiaries despite the lack of justification since agriculture is a politically hot issue despite the fact that very few people actually work in it.

Don't forget that the slaveholding south was strongly Democratic well in to the 20th century. This switch is very recent.

All I can conclude is that the political affiliation has almost nothing to do with these states' success.

well im gona get flamed, but i find that all republicans are either gullible enough to believe what their leaders are saying (weapons of mass destruction, the war being about saddam from the start, no child left behind actually working, ((and dont tell me it is, thats bs)) ect.), getting enough of a profit to not care about it, or religious enough to strongly dissagree with abortion and such.


im sure you could find a person that isnt one of these people, but definitely NOT a lot.

im also not saying all incredibly gullible, rich, or religious people are republicans. i know plenty of democrats that are gullible as 5 year olds, a few religious people that are democrats because of they dont agree with other things, and some rich people that dont agree enough with bush to be republicans.

and by the way im sure theres spelling errors somewheres, i dont care. my point is there.

and people, make sure not to generalize or steriotype too much. theres always exceptions that will read it and get seriously pissed off.

I'm republican and would agree with that. But would add that I think most (not all) democrates are increadibly gullible as well. People don't like to think for themselves and seem tol prefer that other's think for them. It's just a matter of who they pick to think for them (A republican or a democrate). I've met very few on either side that didn't just argue from their party's talking points.

Oh you can put me under religious enough to strongly dissagre with abortion. That issue makes me lean Republican. Other then that I seriously dissagree with both parties on most issues. Though I'm also religous enough to strongly dissagree with torture. You know, I think right this very second in this post I'll officially withdrawl my support for the Republican party. I willl not put it towards the Democrates or any of the Independents. The Democrates are no better and the Independents often tend to be worse. I withdrawl my support for all polititions in favor of death and destruction in some crazied pursuit for utopia based on defunct ideology (does that cover all of them?).

I will no longer defend republicans or say that I am one of the few intelligent republicans.

Wow, that feels better. I somehow feel less evil all of a sudden.

"Don't forget that the slaveholding south was strongly Democratic well in to the 20th century. This switch is very recent. "

BULL, Vetalila, BULL.

your forgetting something. weather or not (not!) your aware of this, the republicans are now conservatives, and the democrats are liberals.

you are assuming its always been this way (wrong!)

republicans in that era were liberals, and democrats conservatives.

over time the roles switched.

so stop bullshitting that, i KNEW someone with absolutely NO idea about american history was going to bring that bull up.

so keep that bull down.

oh and der drache, may i say two things? first, your right, many democrats are gullible too. too many people than i'd like to say are gullible. its all about the level of gulliblity.
and secondly der, congradulations : ).

"Don't forget that the slaveholding south was strongly Democratic well in to the 20th century. This switch is very recent. "

BULL, Vetalila, BULL.

your forgetting something. weather or not (not!) your aware of this, the republicans are now conservatives, and the democrats are liberals.
you are assuming its always been this way (wrong!)

republicans in that era were liberals, and democrats conservatives.

over time the roles switched.
so stop bullshitting that, i KNEW someone with absolutely NO idea about american history was going to bring that bull up.

so keep that bull down.
.

Exactly my point. The party alignments shifted during the 1930's, which resulted in the Republicans becoming increasingly conservative and the Democrats increasingly liberal.

This was not due to racism, because it was Southern Democrats who had opposed the Civil Rights act. However, it wasn't because they were Democrats but rather regional sentiment that they voted against it. The Civil Rights act was split along regional rather than party lines, and so to attempt to link any party to racism is ridiculous.

Therefore, you can't pin racism on red states or blue states because it is not tied to either party, just that the racist element existed in that region and transformed itself to the Republicans from the Democrats. The South switched Republican because it agreed with them on social and economic issues, and the racists who shared many of the same ideas went along with the overall shift.

vetalia, your last post is very confusing. care dumb it down a little for me?

from your first post i thought you were pinning slavery on the democrats, which i strongly dissagreed with, and in your latest it seems as though you are trying to say...?

Education: Blue states are better educated than red states.
Degrees: Blue staters are more likely to go to college
Divorce: Blue staters are more likely to stay married
Mothers: Blue staters are less likely to get pregnant in their teen years
Lynchings: Blue staters are less likely to ignore the law
Slavery: The Red States have racism and the victims of racism.
Shootings : Blue Staters are less likely to shoot each other to death
Driving : Blue Staters drive better
Crime and Drunk Driving: Law abiding Blues don't let their friends drive drunk
Income, Success, Big Goverment: Blues make more money, are more successful, and have to carry the Red welfare states on our backs.
Sports - Blues are the kings of baseball and football.
Obesity - Red State voters are fat

Very sloppy thinking here.

Is the claim here that "blue" states do NOT have racism, or that law-abiding people in the "red" states DO let their friends drive drunk?

And even beyond that, there is the sheer superficiality of the analysis. NO state is completely "red" or "blue". If I was to accept this summary (not to mention the partisan site linked) as presented, what's to stop me from concluding that, for example, the shootings in the "red" states are from disgruntled "blue" voters? Or, in other words, "garbage in, garbage out".

http://www.topalli.com/blue/intro.html

Education: Blue states are better educated than red states.
Degrees: Blue staters are more likely to go to college
Divorce: Blue staters are more likely to stay married
Mothers: Blue staters are less likely to get pregnant in their teen years
Lynchings: Blue staters are less likely to ignore the law
Slavery: The Red States have racism and the victims of racism.
Shootings : Blue Staters are less likely to shoot each other to death
Driving : Blue Staters drive better
Crime and Drunk Driving: Law abiding Blues don't let their friends drive drunk
Income, Success, Big Goverment: Blues make more money, are more successful, and have to carry the Red welfare states on our backs.
Sports - Blues are the kings of baseball and football.
Obesity - Red State voters are fat
People in Red states are more likely to join the military, though.

vetalia, your last post is very confusing. care dumb it down a little for me?

from your first post i thought you were pinning slavery on the democrats, which i strongly dissagreed with, and in your latest it seems as though you are trying to say...?

Sorry. What I'm trying to say is that the racism that exists in the South is not tied to either party. The Southern racists generally share an ideology similar to that of mainstream conservatism (although with the racist element added; it's also possible to have a racist liberal), and the Democratic party was the more conservative of the two until recently. When the Republicans became the more conservative party, the racists shifted to them. Racism isn't unique to either party, but shifted to the change in power.

to vetalia: thx

to Eruantalon: thats not nececcerally a good thing. it could be, but it isnt a definite good or bad. its just, you know, there.

I lived in a blue (NJ) and a red (AZ) state. So far I liked the blue state much better.

I was born in New Jersey and currently live in Arizona and I have to say Arizona kicks America's armpit's ass.

Good Life you just made up all of those statements, there is no study or research behind them...

Did you bother to actually follow the link? Despite the fact that the information on the website is presented in a very biased manner, that doesn't detract from the fact that all of those claims are backed by cited sources. Care to provide your own verified sources refuting the statements?

I think the statistics are accurate. I did look into the teen pregnancy statistics before and they seem pretty accurate from what I recall.

the problem with the whole thing is that the assumed causal relationships. Red states just happen to have move of these problems, but that doesn't mean republican politics are the cause of them. The lifestyles are much different. One might even argue that people become conservative because they suffer from these problems and think the Republicans are best at dealing with them. I don't agree with this argument, but I think it's just as valid to assume that the problems result in consevativism then that conservativism results in the problems.

Oh and while we are assuming causal relationships I would say based on the maps alone that it is much more likely that warmth is linked to teen pregnacy then politics. This would even explain why california, though liberal, has high teen pregnancy rates. Again I think it is stupid to make these assumptions, but if you are to make them linking average temp to teen pregnancy seems like a better assumption. Similar things may be done with some of the other statistics.

Nope, I didn't break my promise to no longer defend Republicans. I'm attacking faulty logic, not defending Republicans.

http://www.topalli.com/blue/intro.html

Edits in bold

Education: Blue states have more colleges in the state than red states, thus people are more likely to get a college education there, and given the idea of proximity, are more likely to get a job in that state, especially if they want to get away from their parents.
Degrees: Blue staters are more likely to go to college
Divorce: *Sighs* stupidest fucking statistic ever. Red staters are more likely to get married in the first place, and the actual divorce rate in the country is only along the lines of 4-8%, as most divorcees are chronically so. If more people get married in a state in the first place, than you are going to have more chronic divorcees which means a higher rate.Most blue states have an extremely low divorce rate because they never get married in the first place, or all those unwed mothers in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles just fucking figments of the country's collective imagination? In the red states the people involved are generally pressured to get married if they have a kid, regardless of whether or not the marriage works out.
Mothers: See above, if more peopel are getting mriied and especially when they're getting married younger, they're more fucking likely to get pregnant, what a fucking surprise.
Lynchings: And how many lynchings are there annually again?
Slavery: No fucking shit sherlock, so do the blue states
Shootings : Learn to read, this is number of deaths, NOT number of homicides. That means that people who kill themselves with a gun instead of a razor are put in this category. Since guns are more available, obviously this with affect method of suicide.
Driving : Blue Staters drive better
Crime and Drunk Driving: Law abiding Blues don't let their friends drive drunk
Income, Success, Big Goverment: Blues make more money, are more successful, and have to carry the Red welfare states on our backs.
Sports - Blues are the kings of baseball and football.
Obesity - Red State voters are fat <--- Will do these later

Edits in quote

The question should not be which is better, red or blue. It whould be how long untill we get rid of this bullshit way of dividing the nation and realize that nothing is going to get done and things are going to get a hell of a lot worse if people don't pull their heads out of their asses and start to compromise, rather than just screaming "LALALA I'M RIGHT YOU SUCK LALALA".

It used to be that congress would work to pass a bill by a huge majority where truly most of those voting were satisfied and both sides gave concessions. Today, its a "huge victory" and a "mandate from the people" to get 51%.

Both sides are fucking the country over. Seriously, the red blue divide is bullshit and its time to figure out how to fix it rather than keep ranting about whos better than the other. The fact is, regardless of who may or may not be better by whatever arbitrary standards we set, we're still stuck together, and might as well work to make it better rather than letting things go to shit just to screw over the other half of the country.

[/rant]

Bush is the only President with an MBA. Can we stop the pissing contest now?
Does MBA mean Military But Awol? :D

People in Red states are more likely to join the military, though.
With no disrespect to our men in military uniform, there is a good reason for this, mostly because the military draws from the poorest segments of society. The south is poorer, but doesn't have a true idle underclass like the north does, and those people do often wish to move forward in life, so they chose the armed services to pay for college, get skills, get out of their hellhole of a hometown, etc.

With no disrespect to our men in military uniform, there is a good reason for this, mostly because the military draws from the poorest segments of society. The south is poorer, but doesn't have a true idle underclass like the north does, and those people do often wish to move forward in life, so they chose the armed services to pay for college, get skills, get out of their hellhole of a hometown, etc.

Not true. More soldiers come from the middle class then from any other.

Woah, did anyone actually look at how the infomation is presented there. Only 2 to 3 groupings in each category which to seem to be chosen to skew as much bias against the 'red' states as possible. For instance on the obesity statistics it's broken up into 0-56% and +56% It doesn't properly explain the stat and its a odd integer to chose. Why not 50? It's obviously been chosen to put as many 'red' states on the obese side and as few 'blue' states on the 'slim' side.

And then it completely contradicts itself on the first page by saying there are no blue or red states, just purple.

It also uses stats that are almost 200 years old.

It also looks like it uses the hoax stats on levels of state education that were used to plot levels of education against voting patterns in the 2000 and 2004, and undoubtably will be used in 2008.

"There's lies, damn lies and statistics" - Mark Twain

I lived in a blue (NJ) and a red (AZ) state. So far I liked the blue state much better.

Which exit in NJ did u live in?

Too bad Wilson was the worst President in the history of the United States.

Not worse than Harding, that bastard couldnt even finish out his fucking term he was so pathetic.

"The blue states are the states with history. I believe the overwhelming majority of the original states are blue states, and all the monuments seem to be there, so that counts for something. They seem to be the most "American" of all the states."

Blueness (Democrat) and Redness (Republican) based on 2004 presidential election results:

Blue: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland (9)
Red: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia (4)

Of course, none of the states are truly American, since the were either voting for big government + religion (Red) or Huge Government (Blue). Neither party even comes close to obeying the Constitution.

So maybe the constitution is un-American. Bet you never thought of that one!

While I'll agree that the 'blue' urban areas have more shootings than most areas in 'red' states, since the population is much more dense I'm not so sure about shootings per capita, which is a much more meaningful number. Also, I'm quite sure that our sub-urban and rural areas have less shootings. After all, we don't tend to shoot people just for setting foot on our property.

What I'd really like to see is a break down of republican, democrat, and independant. Compare a few thousand of each in intelligence, financial success, etc., etc. I'll bet any amount of money that it comes out republicans last, democrats a bit ahead, independants over democrats by a noticibly larger margin.

Yeah those hippies (greens) really seem to be raking it in.:rolleyes:

Although the points aren't true, I'll give a resounding, "Yes, Blue states own Red states!" And the only president with a PhD was a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. WOOT!

Modern Democrats and Republicans are [B]FAR[B] from being the Democrats and Republicans of Wilson's day. Its impossible to compare them.

Bush is the only President with an MBA. Can we stop the pissing contest now?
While he may have one, that fact does not, in my mind, give me cause to automatically assume that he in fact acquired said MBA through legitimate means. It tends to make me somewhat suspicious on that particular score for that matter, as I've heard the sum-total experience of his career in business comprises failed companies, family bail-outs, and other things not really in keeping with a bright up-and-coming businessthingy, a product of the Ivy Leagues, and all.

*Ooooh, look at the yellow snow*

While he may have one, that fact does not, in my mind, give me cause to automatically assume that he in fact acquired said MBA through legitimate means. It tends to make me somewhat suspicious on that particular score for that matter, as I've heard the sum-total experience of his career in business comprises failed companies, family bail-outs, and other things not really in keeping with a bright up-and-coming businessthingy, a product of the Ivy Leagues, and all.

*Ooooh, look at the yellow snow*


Bush may be the only president with an MBA, but he got it at a school in a blue state.

Where's the proof for any of this? Oh i got one,
Blue States are better at being snobby elitists who think that anyone who does not vote for the "liberal" canidate is a low brow dolt who should not be allowed to be an active voter.
Gawd some democrats make me so mad. Go suck michael moore.

Where's the proof for any of this?
Have you tried reading the link presented on the original post? I believe it delivers the statistics on which these claims are based.

Not that I agree with them...for example places like Ohio were so split that it is impossible to really take political leaning and relate it to anything else.

Where's the proof for any of this? Oh i got one,
Blue States are better at being snobby elitists who think that anyone who does not vote for the "liberal" canidate is a low brow dolt who should not be allowed to be an active voter.

That's like saying Red states are better at being stupid hicks who drive around in oversized trucks, yelling "yeeehahhh" and thinking anyone who doesn't vote for the "conservative candidate" is a snobby elitist who should not be allowed to be an active voter. False. Inherently false.

Which is to say, blanket stereotypes are bad and even as you decry one, you use another. Way to play the hypocrite.

I'm republican and would agree with that. But would add that I think most (not all) democrates are increadibly gullible as well. People don't like to think for themselves and seem tol prefer that other's think for them. It's just a matter of who they pick to think for them (A republican or a democrate). I've met very few on either side that didn't just argue from their party's talking points.

Oh you can put me under religious enough to strongly dissagre with abortion. That issue makes me lean Republican. Other then that I seriously dissagree with both parties on most issues. Though I'm also religous enough to strongly dissagree with torture. You know, I think right this very second in this post I'll officially withdrawl my support for the Republican party. I willl not put it towards the Democrates or any of the Independents. The Democrates are no better and the Independents often tend to be worse. I withdrawl my support for all polititions in favor of death and destruction in some crazied pursuit for utopia based on defunct ideology (does that cover all of them?).

I will no longer defend republicans or say that I am one of the few intelligent republicans.

Wow, that feels better. I somehow feel less evil all of a sudden.

Kick ass. I'm pretty much in the same boat, but I used to call myself democrat because I disagreed with the Republicans more. Now I just say that I don't ally my self with any spacific party or ideology.

Congrats on your emancipation. Or seccession. Whichever.

People in Red states are more likely to join the military, though.

Weather or not you concider that a good thing is a another matter altogether.

Does MBA mean Military But Awol? :D

O, a (word where each letter stands for something) within a (word where each letter stands for something).

Sorry I couldn't remember that word. I know it, I'm just drawing a total blank. Help me out?


Where's the proof for any of this? Oh i got one,
Blue States are better at being snobby elitists who think that anyone who does not vote for the "liberal" canidate is a low brow dolt who should not be allowed to be an active voter.
Gawd some democrats make me so mad.

You could say something exactly the same, or very similar about republicans. Personally, I've found repugnant democrats and republicans, as well as extremly intelligent and nice democrates and republicans. Neither side has a monopoly on arrogance or stupidity.

It is funny to see how the political parties have changed. The democrats were in power in the South during the civil war. The republicans were formed as an anti-slavery party.

Also, shouldn't you Americans stop calling states red or blue and instead start calling them American States? Just a thought, unity is a very nice thing just look up at Canada (Just ignore Quebec, they are the teenager of Canada)

Bush may be the only president with an MBA, but he got it at a school in a blue state.

I'm sure it sounds arrogant, but MBAs have allways been thought of as the joke degree of graduate education. (No offense to those who have gotten them, I'm sure they really do help you land a better job. I'm just saying no one I know is all the impressed by someone who says they have an MBA.)

Since its been brought up for those who don't know MBA = Masters of Business Administration