that was the most absurd comment I've ever heard. YOU need to remember that there's more than social policy that's voted on in an election. Ignorant hate statements such as yours are the reason that liberals aren't in power - you preach tolerance while remaining intolerant. You scream for choice yet belittle the majority for making a choice that isn't the same as yours. You're a hypocrite.
All the map shows is where people who voted how live. That's all it says. Reading anything macavellian into it is just plan absurd.
I don't hate anyone - I dislike their actions, but I would never hate someone for being of a different opinion than I am. I embrace individuality and free thinking people. Even and sometimes especially when it doesn't agree with my convictions.
I'm sorry if it seems like I "hate" you because of my comments. I think I tend to lash out a little more than I should toward conservatives because the conservatives in my hometown actually do hate liberals. I'm going to visit my parents this weekend, and I have no doubt in my mind that my car will be shoepolished with nasty things. People might even throw eggs at my car because I am a known liberal.
I think it's important to step back and admit that the two parties need each other, as much as they might hate to admit it.
I also think I should point out that if you don't hate anyone for having different opinions, you should not use the term "baby killer." That's a little, um, "intolerant" of you.
I understand what you mean - I've had my car vandalized 3 times in the last month, my boyfriend had his vandalized 14 times - at work- in a guarded parking lot - at a union shop. I've seen so many yard signs defaced, it makes me sick - I only saw one Kerry/Edwards sign that was defaced when I was out replacing Bush/Cheney signs. I pulled the sign, turned it in to the Dem headquarters and put a clean sign back in the yard of the person that had it before - because i support their right to voice their opinion.
The babykiller comment was used to grab your attention - which it did. It was posted to refute the implication that the people of the rest of texas are lemmings and can't think for themselves. It got quite strong after the xenophobe accusation that was groundless. Yes, I think we should agree to disagree - I wholeheartedly admire the fact that you are passionate about your beliefs. I'll never tell you that your convictions are wrong - but I will say that to hate someone else for theirs and to project hate and intolerance toward someone because they don't think the same as you is wrong.
In Oklahoma, Kerry/Edwards signs were stolen a lot, but never defaced. I saw a blurb on the news telling people to spray their signs with WD-40 so the signs would be harder to steal.
That sucks about your car. People who do things like that drive me crazy. They remind me of PETA; I think they would get a lot more respect if they didn't suck so much.
All I can say about the xenophobe comment is that about 80% of the Republicans I know are xenophobes. But I also don't understand why all liberals are supposed to believe in abortion, because I don't. Neither does my boyfriend or my mom or my dad or about a billion other liberals I know. Ah, stereotypes.
I lived in a small town in the middle of the vast, desolate sea of red for 18 years. I now live in a different town in the middle of the vast sea of red, and have done so for three years. I think I know a thing or two about how these people think. My roommate is a conservative, and he told me the only reason he voted for Bush was because he wanted to keep his gun. I'm not kidding.
As for the statement about major cities, I see no reason to believe that my statement was untrue. People in big cities understand more about cooperating because they have to.
Guns are a huge deal with my roommate and his family.
Mostly, and this is just in my experience, the reason why Democrats in western Oklahoma (the area I am most familiar with) vote for Republican presidents is because of gun control. Democrats in western OK vote for Democratic governors and Congressmen, but vote for Republican presidents time and time again.
In the towns of Elk City, Clinton, and Weatherford, I saw Carson (Democrat) signs and Bush signs in virtually every yard. People want local Democrats and national Republicans. I've asked people why, and they always mention the guns. They mention other things, but the gun thing is the most popular.
Wow. Until I sat down and typed this out, I never realized how weird western OK was.
its not that weird (I've been there, I used to live in Oklahoma) - anyway - its actually quite a normal thing. People segregate their federal and state/local issues and when voting on issues instead of party lines, people tend to find themselves being socially and politically different, or moderate. If I were to vote on just social issues, I would have voted for Al Sharpton in all likelyhood :P
It's like that out here in Colorado as well. Colorado supported Bush, but elected Ken Salazar(a moderate hispanic Democrat) over beer maker Pete Coors. Democrats also took over both houses of the state legislature.
I think voters in the Western U.S. aren't particularly loyal to a party, but to their values. If they can find a way to relate to a candidate, then they'll vote for them no matter their affiliation. Salazar is a 5th generation rancher, and also a Catholic(which I think even Southern Baptist's are starting to recognize as a Christian faith).
Kerry has feel of an east coast aristocrat. To many, his humility, reserve, and shyness came as being aloof. Worst yet, he comes from a state where a judge tried legalize gay marriage. This really helped the social conservatives to 'get out the vote'. People have a certain idea of what marriage should be. Try to change it a radical way without a going through a traditional legislative process, then expect one hell of an angry backlash.
It goes without saying that Democrats really need to rethink their platform and strategy. The statistical breakdown of who voted for whom is a big win for the Republicans and just brutal for Progressives. Compared to the 2000 election, Bush gained votes among all ethnic groups, and all religious groups except for those in the mysterious 'other' column.
As for the first part, both candidates prepared campaigns and groomed themselves for different target groups. Much has already been said about the Bush ads aimed at security moms. I think in his speeches he also targeted the christian majority as did many of his views. Churches probably played a role. Gun control played a role. Abortion played a part. Universal marriage played a role. I suspect there are lots of reasons people voted one way or another. I do think the stances and ads the candidates took appealed to people living in different areas, though.
I don't think Republicans are xenophobic, nor are Democrats urbane. Some political talk on both sides has been zenophobic. Some policies are. Maybe even some candidates are, but it would be untrue to make any broad generalization (even this one)
Um, are you referring to the post that you directly replied to, or to this poster's statements in general? I find it hard to understand how anything in the previous post could qualify as a "hate statement". Perhaps this is a blind spot of mine, though, so I'd appreciate enlightenment.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 5 Nov 2004 09:02 (UTC)YOU need to remember that there's more than social policy that's voted on in an election. Ignorant hate statements such as yours are the reason that liberals aren't in power - you preach tolerance while remaining intolerant. You scream for choice yet belittle the majority for making a choice that isn't the same as yours. You're a hypocrite.
All the map shows is where people who voted how live. That's all it says. Reading anything macavellian into it is just plan absurd.
To quote the poet-philosopher Thomas Lehrer
on 5 Nov 2004 09:30 (UTC)Re: To quote the poet-philosopher Thomas Lehrer
on 5 Nov 2004 09:41 (UTC)Re: To quote the poet-philosopher Thomas Lehrer
on 5 Nov 2004 12:00 (UTC)I think it's important to step back and admit that the two parties need each other, as much as they might hate to admit it.
I also think I should point out that if you don't hate anyone for having different opinions, you should not use the term "baby killer." That's a little, um, "intolerant" of you.
Re: To quote the poet-philosopher Thomas Lehrer
on 5 Nov 2004 13:30 (UTC)I've seen so many yard signs defaced, it makes me sick - I only saw one Kerry/Edwards sign that was defaced when I was out replacing Bush/Cheney signs. I pulled the sign, turned it in to the Dem headquarters and put a clean sign back in the yard of the person that had it before - because i support their right to voice their opinion.
The babykiller comment was used to grab your attention - which it did. It was posted to refute the implication that the people of the rest of texas are lemmings and can't think for themselves. It got quite strong after the xenophobe accusation that was groundless.
Yes, I think we should agree to disagree - I wholeheartedly admire the fact that you are passionate about your beliefs. I'll never tell you that your convictions are wrong - but I will say that to hate someone else for theirs and to project hate and intolerance toward someone because they don't think the same as you is wrong.
Re: To quote the poet-philosopher Thomas Lehrer
on 5 Nov 2004 20:20 (UTC)That sucks about your car. People who do things like that drive me crazy. They remind me of PETA; I think they would get a lot more respect if they didn't suck so much.
All I can say about the xenophobe comment is that about 80% of the Republicans I know are xenophobes. But I also don't understand why all liberals are supposed to believe in abortion, because I don't. Neither does my boyfriend or my mom or my dad or about a billion other liberals I know. Ah, stereotypes.
no subject
on 5 Nov 2004 11:56 (UTC)As for the statement about major cities, I see no reason to believe that my statement was untrue. People in big cities understand more about cooperating because they have to.
Not really
on 5 Nov 2004 12:14 (UTC)As for the gun thing, I didn't think gun control was even an issue.
Re: Not really
on 5 Nov 2004 12:22 (UTC)Mostly, and this is just in my experience, the reason why Democrats in western Oklahoma (the area I am most familiar with) vote for Republican presidents is because of gun control. Democrats in western OK vote for Democratic governors and Congressmen, but vote for Republican presidents time and time again.
In the towns of Elk City, Clinton, and Weatherford, I saw Carson (Democrat) signs and Bush signs in virtually every yard. People want local Democrats and national Republicans. I've asked people why, and they always mention the guns. They mention other things, but the gun thing is the most popular.
Wow. Until I sat down and typed this out, I never realized how weird western OK was.
Re: Not really
on 5 Nov 2004 12:38 (UTC)Re: Not really
on 5 Nov 2004 12:46 (UTC)Re: Not really
on 5 Nov 2004 13:33 (UTC)Re: Not really
on 5 Nov 2004 13:51 (UTC)I think voters in the Western U.S. aren't particularly loyal to a party, but to their values. If they can find a way to relate to a candidate, then they'll vote for them no matter their affiliation. Salazar is a 5th generation rancher, and also a Catholic(which I think even Southern Baptist's are starting to recognize as a Christian faith).
Kerry has feel of an east coast aristocrat. To many, his humility, reserve, and shyness came as being aloof. Worst yet, he comes from a state where a judge tried legalize gay marriage. This really helped the social conservatives to 'get out the vote'. People have a certain idea of what marriage should be. Try to change it a radical way without a going through a traditional legislative process, then expect one hell of an angry backlash.
It goes without saying that Democrats really need to rethink their platform and strategy. The statistical breakdown of who voted for whom is a big win for the Republicans and just brutal for Progressives. Compared to the 2000 election, Bush gained votes among all ethnic groups, and all religious groups except for those in the mysterious 'other' column.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Re: zenophobic outbursts
on 6 Nov 2004 09:34 (UTC)Possibly
on 5 Nov 2004 12:11 (UTC)I don't think Republicans are xenophobic, nor are Democrats urbane. Some political talk on both sides has been zenophobic. Some policies are. Maybe even some candidates are, but it would be untrue to make any broad generalization (even this one)
no subject
on 5 Nov 2004 13:49 (UTC)Um, are you referring to the post that you directly replied to, or to this poster's statements in general? I find it hard to understand how anything in the previous post could qualify as a "hate statement". Perhaps this is a blind spot of mine, though, so I'd appreciate enlightenment.