Media's Coverage Has Distorted World's View of Iraqi Reality

[akamifeldman]

I'd bet a graph plotting frequency/severity of marijuana use as a relation to how you vote would show that it makes you more likely to vote Democrat.

Now that'sfunny! Anyone else wanna get in on this...?

 

[akamifeldman]

Ooh, could we? Coouuuld weee?

Man, that would be fun. An outcast....from an internet forum...destined to walk the information superhighway alone....forever...

Let's do it. It would teach him a lesson about speaking his mind to people who don't want to hear it and couldn't care less. The time has come.

BANISHED!

 

[Red2]

Why do people vote Republican? (Hey, I've actually got a thoughtful answer here!). I think a large part of it has to do with how the Republicans have been able to use political language in order to frame issues in such black and white terms that they take what were once complicated, nuanced debates, and make them into two starkly polarizing options. The Estate tax becomes the "Death tax." Anti-abortion becomes "Pro-Life." Pro-death [penalty] becomes "Tough on crime." See what I'm getting at here? By using political language (someone dig up a link to Orwell's famous essay) in this way they've reshaped the debate so Democrats can't possibly compete.

I think it is much more than a question of semantics. I'm currently reading "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank. I've only gotten through the first two chapters (been trying to read ahead for API) but Frank (a liberal) has a very interesting thesis. Kansas, you history buffs already know this, in the late 19th century-early 20th century, was the most progressive state in the union. It was settled by abolitionists and eventually gave birth to "populism," the political movement that led to many reforms during the TR/Taft/Wilson administrations. Today, Kansas is the most conservative state in union yet its economic/social makeup has changed little. Frank states it was because the Democratic Party in the 60s and 70s changed its focus from protecting working Americans to creating cultural change. The debate became less about minimum wage/corporate accountability/farmer's rights and more about abortion/feminism/homosexual rights, etc. When that occurred, the common people (and Frank uses income levels to categorize common people) switched their political affiliation from democrat to republican. You simply have to look at the 1968 election and Nixon's new majority. He took traditionally democratic groups (blue collar northerners, southerners, and mid-west farmers) and made them into conservatives, largely over those groups' disgust over Vietnam and the hippy movement. Ronald Regan continued this trend (Carter's election was due mainly to Watergate). Bill Clinton was elected because he went back to economic issues and was (compared to other democrats) moderate on cultural issues. Gore and Kerry refused to follow Clinton's example and were defeated (Kerry more so than Gore and thus the greater difference in election results). Frank notices that while some counties in Kansas have the lowest per capita income of any counties in the country they continue to vote republican even though, in Frank's opinion, the Republican party does not represent their economic interests.

Akamifeldman's point regarding gun ownership further illustrates this point. Many (not all) American's who own guns and belong to the lower income levels of society would have voted Democratic 40 years ago. Now, they are staunch Republicans.

A final interesting point, prior to the 2000 election, maps showing state-by-state election returns had the Democrats as red and the Republicans as blue. Many academics continue to use this traditional method of depicting returns. The reasoning for the change in popular depictions is this: the colors were chosen due to the Civil War. The Union (republicans) was blue while the Confederacy (democrats) was red. Blue represented the urban areas of the country while red represented the agrarian areas. Now, the urban areas vote democratic while the agrarian areas vote republican.

 

[VarmintShooter]

I find it very interesting that people who have devoted their entire lives to teaching and the pursuit of knowledge through science vote (predominately) for Democrats.

Through science? By far the most liberal professors were not scientists. They were historians, english professors and the like. The hard sciences attract far more Republicans than the humanities do. My department was chock full of Republican, gun-owning professors (minus the guy who got his BA in English at Berkely then switched to science for the PhD).

I remember seeing graphs as part of a study from a few years ago. Long story short, one of the graphs plotted gun ownership versus education level. The lower one's education level, the more likely that person was to own guns. A separate graph plotted gun ownership and people who vote Republican. The more guns one owned, the more likely they were to have voted Republican. Now, combining the two graphs, and well -- you see what I mean.

First, what do you mean? Are you saying (but too scared to actually say it) that Republicans are unintelligent? Hmmm, that statement is not designed to piss people off ...

Besides, your logic leaves something to be desired.

First, gun ownership and voting Republican go together naturally since stinking Democrats want to take the guns away. Why would a gun owner vote Democratic? To get his property outlawed?

Second, do not mistake education level for intelligence level. Take the 2003 (latest) Current Population Report by the Census Bureau (www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-550.pdf page 3). By your logic, the northeastern portion of the country produces smarter people by a 5% margin over the south. Men are marginally smarter than women (3.2%). Hmm, all are created equal? But wait, non-hispanic whites beat out all whites by a 2.4% margin. Not too bad. Asians however beat out blacks by 32.5%. Wow. Hate to see what the black people think of your logic. These numbers are all influenced by many factors other than intelligence.

In other words, you cannot say that because a certain group fails to attain a particular level of education that they are unintelligent.

Now, AKA, I challenge you to go ahead and actually say what you meant by the statement: "-- you see what I mean."

Perhaps I misunderstood your implication?

The rest of the post was cr@p. Both sides use quirky tag lines to promote their points of view, all designed to sway the people on the fence. "Handgun Control" for instance, doesn't mean control at all, it means Handgun BAN. Plenty of examples from both sides of trying to put a more palatable spin on ideas.

If you don't want to piss people off, don't call them unintelligent.

 

[akamifeldman]

My "manifesto"? Think. For yourself, preferably.

Red2, thanks for addressing what was really the meat of my post above. That thingy about gun owners really got blown into/out of proportion.

 

[Fly Navy]

That thingy about gun owners really got blown into/out of proportion.

*cowboy accent* That's because thems fighting words, son.

And Red2, I would like you to provide data that most gun owners are lower income. I would personally refute that claim until you can prove it. Oh, let's make this legal gun owners please, not gang-bangers.

 

[Red2]

And Red2, I would like you to provide data that most gun owners are lower income. I would personally refute that claim until you can prove it. Oh, let's make this legal gun owners please, not gang-bangers.

"Many (not all) American's who own guns and belong to the lower income levels of society." I did not say that everyone who own guns is poor. I own two myself. I was categorizing people who both own guns and are poor.

 

[bch]

I think it is time for this thread to be locked, it has gotten way off point and is not beneficial at all.

 

[Fly Navy]

Come on Bch, sometimes it's just interesting to see where a thread will go.

In the words of Roger Rabbit.... P-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-pleeeease!!!

 

[flynsail]

I'm currently reading "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank.

Are you a fan of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart? If I remember correctly, the author was on there recently promoting that book.

 

[Red2]

Yep, that's where I first heard about it.

 

[cricechex]

The FACTS

All right everyone; I have gone TAD to NCIS for a few moments. This is what I could find out about this “MIKE” character through previous encounters on AIRWARRIORS:


AGE: 17-19
EDUCATION: HIGH SCHOOL
LOCATION: CALIFORNIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NEED ANYONE SAY MORE

 

[akamifeldman]

"...whoa, check out the big brains on Brad!"

 

[beau]

"What" ain't no country I've ever heard of!