You Can Have the Red States

Doesn't it just kill you that 45% of California voted for Bush? If just 5% of Californian voters shifted to Republican, it would be an even split.

So maybe we should just let you take the Blue Counties. You can have all of the crime, and we'll get all of the food and 99% of the fresh fruit.

Oh, and the best beaches are actually in the South-East. You can actually swim without a wetsuit there.

 

I can just see shades of what was once another geographically divided country. New California! Ha! New England probably would object to such a Johnny-come-lately name. Any way you would still be politically divided. By county the Blue states are still mostly Red.

Maybe you would probably do better to just move north to Canada.

 

"prochoice and anti-war"...???

well, when the enemy comes a calling, Al Quada has always managed to repeatedly attack blue state targets and the red states are where the people are that still have the guts to take the fight to our foe on his turf.

When the World Trade Towers were bombed on Clinton's watch in 1993 by Al Quada operatives, Clinton went to New Jersey and told people not to worry about it.

If the Blue states actually did split off, it wouldn't be long before they capitulated to the Taliban. Think this is wrong? Rome became so decadent that its young men preferred to lop off a thumb rather than to defend their homeland. The Roman youth just quit being interested in fighting to protect their homeland, and if you won't fight for it, you will lose it.

Red Staters would rather die in battle avenging our dead, and no one would screw with us with impunity.

The charge is made that Red Staters have more sex, more affairs, higher divorce, tons more children...yup, its all likely true, we love to fight and rut. But we are not depopulating either.

Thomas Sowell has an interesting perspective, says that the Redneck Nation of the south has corrupted the minority African American community into its love of sex and violence. Well, could be, but we shall be around long after the Blue States have depopulated from the liberals failures to reproduce. The hand that rocks the cradle wins in the long run.

Congressional reapportionment continues to shift power in congress to the Redneck Nation, and the trend is just picking up steam.

The passionate Catholic Hispanic immigrants have much more in common with Redneck Nation than they do with Blue State secularists. Just the strong Christian bonds assure that. Bush is prying the Hispanic vote away from the socialists for good for the GOP.

Christianity, with its individual choice and responsiblity ethos is a perfect match for the free market system which has yielded the great wealth where it has been put into play. People and jobs are migrating from Blue States to Red States.

Blue Staters can rage all they want to about it, but the Roe effect is real, liberals aborted their voters and now they lose at the ballot box so much that the GOP rules everything but the federal courts...but the battle is joined and the numbers are against the secularists.

Personally, as an American patriot I celebrate those trends which increase our numbers. I welcome the Catholic Hispanics and even those fatherless children of Redneck Nation(of any skin color). I like being number one in the world militarily. The world should fear our power and our leaders. I feel much safer with a kick butt Texas Cowboy in the White House.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hybrid_Dave\";p=\"104557)</div>

Quite right. Clinton didn't sit around doing nothing for 7 minutes. It was 8 years.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hybrid_Dave\";p=\"104558)</div>

By you whole first post, you implied that Republicans and people who live in the Red States are simpletons, hicks, morons, religious nuts, etc. What's typical of a Democrat is to hurl insults with reckless abandon and then throw a tantrum when there exists even the slightest possibility that maybe one was thrown their way.

You are right, disent and freedom of speech are great rights that we have in this country. Too bad the lefties don't really believe in it. They only believe in the freedom to speak their views. I challenge you to go your favorite lefty university, Berkley perhaps, and organize a Republican rally, and maybe hold up a poster of Bush. Let me know how you are treated.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco\";p=\"104570)</div>

I too will behave from here on out.

 

it my opinion that you cannot categorize most people based on where they live or who they voted for.

as for me, i am a non partison who voted for a democratic president and a republican governor, (both lost...,maybe its me)

my thoughts on my choices. governor i felt somewhat strong about. as for president and the senator choices, i felt that i was picking the lesser of two evils. i was not even remotely happy with either candidate. never considered nader either

so are you making a comment on our choices when i feel that we didnt have a viable choice?

 

I think the whole red state/blue state divide is rather silly. For a state to be considered "red" means that at Bush got at least 1 more vote than anyone else running for president. But the implication of a red state on a map is that the whole state chose Bush. (and of course it's vice versa for dems). And that's only taking into the account the presidential election. And it doesn't say anything about who the state chose for Congress.

So when you see a red state or a blue state on a map, don't put too much stock in it. It's not that cut and dried. Not even close.

 

The red/ blue county map is deceiving because the population is so much more dense in the "smaller" counties.

It seems that if you live in or near a city, you are blue. If you live out in the country, you are red.

Exceptions exist, of course, but the fact remains that this country is deeply divided, split about half.

What I find really strange is that the half who support W don't believe the country is divided. CNN headline a few months ago: "Public Opinion Evenly Split on Whether Country is Divided." I think that says it all.

Nate

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hybrid_Dave\";p=\"104576)</div>

I don't know too much about UVA and Washington U in St. Louis, but I'm assuming that you are implying that they lean a bit to the right or are at least middle of the road, evenly split kinds of Universities.

It therefore does not surprise me that you would not have trouble with your political opinions at such schools. My point was about left leaning Universities, which would consider themselves (hypocritically of course) bastions of free speech and tolerance. Try standing up and announcing a non-left political opinion at one of those universities and see where it gets you.

Do you want a recent example? Arnold Schwarzenegger's commencement speech at Santa Monica College. He wasn't even speaking about politics, yet he faced a constant stream of boos and jeers during his speech. Absolutely shameful, especially from a place that would proclaim itself to be a home of tolerance and free speech.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin\";p=\"104524)</div>

An 11% margin of victory is considered to be a landslide by the pundits.

Don't forget that 48% of the entire nation voted for Kerry. At 3%, Bush had the smallest comparative margin of victory of any reelected President.

 

Congrats Hybrid Dave for winning the "Lightning rod" award for the day!!

But watch those bolts, eh!!!

Hey, seriously... satire is great, just maybe we can omit the hate and prejudice from it though??

- New England Republican - voted Kerry

 

In regards to the 2004 election map posted above, here is one that takes into account the percentage of voters as opposed to the majority of voters in the county:

[Broken External Image]:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v169/Greyskye/purple_america_2004_small.gif