Author Topic: Bumming in Mass (Read 11357 times)

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #25 on:** November 03, 2010, 05:35:09 PM »

Quote from: stefferweffer on November 03, 2010, 05:26:11 PM

Anyone else think that the Red vs Blue map of the US looks ridiculous now? 95% red, looking at square miles. But then you throw in the Blue West Coast and Blue Northeast, and pockets of blue in the big cities/north. It just looks odd, in my opinion.

That is fascinating.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #26 on:** November 03, 2010, 05:47:29 PM »

Minnesota Recount, seems to be a recurring theme.

Who wants to bet that boxes are mysteriously found in someones car again?

browarod · « **Reply #27 on:** November 03, 2010, 05:51:24 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on November 03, 2010, 05:35:09 PM

Quote from: stefferweffer on November 03, 2010, 05:26:11 PM
Anyone else think that the Red vs Blue map of the US looks ridiculous now? 95% red, looking at square miles. But then you throw in the Blue West Coast and Blue Northeast, and pockets of blue in the big cities/north. It just looks odd, in my opinion.
That is fascinating.

*Image Removed*

Apparently there's a ton of democrats in the Milwaukee/Chicago area, that bar is by far the highest, lol. Doesn't surprise me one bit, though; I know only too well that I live in a very democratic city >_<.

Sadness · « **Reply #28 on:** November 03, 2010, 06:10:22 PM »

It would be so cool if Christ returned right at the 2012 presidental election. Then we wouldn't be worrying about it.

Relax, God has a master plan!

In Texas, Sadness

Daniel TS RED · « **Reply #29 on:** November 03, 2010, 06:16:10 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on November 03, 2010, 05:35:09 PM

Quote from: stefferweffer on November 03, 2010, 05:26:11 PM
Anyone else think that the Red vs Blue map of the US looks ridiculous now? 95% red, looking at square miles. But then you throw in the Blue West Coast and Blue Northeast, and pockets of blue in the big cities/north. It just looks odd, in my opinion.
That is fascinating.

What does the colors on that map represent?

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #30 on:** November 03, 2010, 06:19:01 PM »

Quote from: Daniel TS RED on November 03, 2010, 06:16:10 PM

What does the colors on that map represent?

I can't tell if you're being serious. Its hard over the internets

.

I'm going to guess it represents the difference in numbers between the dems and the republicans. (By county?)

Daniel TS RED · « **Reply #31 on:** November 03, 2010, 06:24:19 PM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on November 03, 2010, 06:19:01 PM

Quote from: Daniel TS RED on November 03, 2010, 06:16:10 PM
What does the colors on that map represent?
I can't tell if you're being serious. Its hard over the internets .

I'm going to guess it represents the difference in numbers between the dems and the republicans. (By county?)

haha. I'm pretty sure what the red and blue part is, but seems weird to me that NY doesn't have a super monopoly tower too.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #32 on:** November 03, 2010, 07:30:10 PM »

Someone said the dems have a population advantage? Far from it! The population is maaaaaybe close to even because cities tend to be flaming liberal, but to say that, person for person, there are more liberals in this country is absurd.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #33 on:** November 03, 2010, 07:51:12 PM »

Hey Pol,

Please point me to some numbers indicating otherwise. I know in 2004ish the dems had about 17 million/31% more than the republicans, but that has likely diminished some since then. Keep in mind that more often than not, independents lean to the left more often than the right, and said independents are not included in that number.

Also, keep in mind that the definition of liberal is one not bound by traditions, which perfectly describes the republican party. And considering the term liberal would group most of the democratic party, most the the republican party, most of the various third parties, and most independents I don't think it is such a bold statement to claim that yes, the vast majority of this country = liberals.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #34 on:** November 03, 2010, 11:22:38 PM »

I would say that, speaking based mostly on affiliation, Democrats have more people but they are more concentrated and thus have less land. No numbers to back that up though.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #35 on:** November 03, 2010, 11:24:52 PM »

Are you saying democrats are Japanese? Thereby stating democrats attacked America (what seems like) yesterday?

Agreed!

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #36 on:** November 04, 2010, 12:13:56 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on November 03, 2010, 05:35:09 PM

Quote from: stefferweffer on November 03, 2010, 05:26:11 PM
Anyone else think that the Red vs Blue map of the US looks ridiculous now? 95% red, looking at square miles. But then you throw in the Blue West Coast and Blue Northeast, and pockets of blue in the big cities/north. It just looks odd, in my opinion.
That is fascinating.

Woah. Light blue is pwning, with gray close behind.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #37 on:** November 04, 2010, 08:02:06 AM »

Quote

Also, keep in mind that the definition of liberal is one not bound by traditions,

Haha fail, that's like trying to say the definition of "gay" is "happy." Technically, yes, but that's not what anyone means by it anymore. And now there are actually studies coming out claiming to have found a "liberal" gene, furthermore proving that liberalism is a disease.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #38 on:** November 04, 2010, 08:14:22 AM »

Not in the slighest bud. Its just a set of ideas, which describes the majority of the population. The term "intelligent" doesn't solely refer to those that have graduated college, but it is a common association (similar to the term liberal).

If you were referring to democrats solely, then you should say that and be more clear (in which case you're still wrong)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #39 on:** November 04, 2010, 09:12:25 AM »

The majority of the population is not liberal. Perhaps the majority of the population votes democrat. Liberalism is a blight and a curse and flies in the face of Biblical principles.

D-man · « **Reply #40 on:** November 04, 2010, 09:20:26 AM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on November 03, 2010, 07:51:12 PM

Please point me to some numbers indicating otherwise.

How about this?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #41 on:** November 04, 2010, 10:19:21 AM »

Quote from: D-man on November 04, 2010, 09:20:26 AM

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on November 03, 2010, 07:51:12 PM
Please point me to some numbers indicating otherwise.
How about this?

D-man pulling out the sources ftw

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #42 on:** November 04, 2010, 12:05:32 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 04, 2010, 09:12:25 AM

The majority of the population is not liberal. Perhaps the majority of the population votes democrat. Liberalism is a blight and a curse and flies in the face of Biblical principles.

The majority of the nation does not vote democratic (assumption. No statistical backing). Liberal =/= democratic, nothing stops me from being part of the Republican party with Liberal ideology, and nothing stops me from being part of the Democratic part with Conservative ideology. I'm not discussing the morality of it, either, as I do agree to some extent, so please keep the attacks out.

@Prof/D-Man: My argument was most self-identified conservatives are actually liberal. I honestly believe the likes of both Bushes, Reagen, etc are far left. Whether they believed in conservatism or not may be a different story, but their actions were far more on the liberal side.

I view conservative/liberal as an idea that are unrelated to parties: Liberal is new, innovative, uncaring of traditions. Conservative being old, traditional, "if it isn't broke don't fix it". Parties are totally separate entities that group opinions, which may or may not have a correlation

SomeKittens · « **Reply #43 on:** November 04, 2010, 01:07:57 PM »

Props for sauce being the biggest contributor to the conversation.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 04, 2010, 08:02:06 AM

Quote
Also, keep in mind that the definition of liberal is one not bound by traditions,
Haha fail, that's like trying to say the definition of "gay" is "happy." Technically, yes, but that's not what anyone means by it anymore. And now there are actually studies coming out claiming to have found a "liberal" gene, furthermore proving that liberalism is a disease.

So, there's also genetic basis for intelligence. Is that that a "disease" too? Liberals are for helping the poor through welfare and affirmative action. These may not be the best way to handle the problem, but at least they're taking action.

Quote

New International Version (©1984)
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #44 on:** November 04, 2010, 01:20:01 PM »

I simply don't have the energy to argue against liberalism on these boards again. Every six months or so this argument springs back up, the latest crop of members tries to defend liberalism, and this time I'm not going to rebut. You lost, big time, two days ago, and I'll just let the scoreboard speak for me.

To Somekittens, I will leave you with the supposition that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and that the right thing done in the wrong way inevitably leads to disaster.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #45 on:** November 04, 2010, 01:27:23 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 04, 2010, 01:20:01 PM

I realize that you have firm beliefs based with good cause. Every six months or so this argument springs back up, the latest crop of members tries to defend liberalism, and this time I realize they actually have a basis that I cannot rebut. The democrats (a party which you have not publicly affiliated yourself with, but I'm just choosing to label you) lost control of of congress, but it doesn't really change anything beings the republicans were abusing the filibuster anyway, so as long as the republicans don't get a super majority next election.

Is that a fair assessment of your post?

Also, how does the score board decide anything? Have the dems been winning almost every year since WW2?

I like liberalism. I like conservatism in many aspects also, but I lean more towards the liberal side. I don't like the democratic party, but I like it more than the republican party.

JDS · « **Reply #46 on:** November 04, 2010, 01:41:50 PM »

Politics is cyclical.

A while back, there was a thread about how President Obama was (allegedly) practicing witchcraft. The title was something like "My pastor says Obama practices witchcraft." It was a lot more fun than this discussion.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #47 on:** November 04, 2010, 01:44:03 PM »

Us: "Obama is a witch!"

Obama: "I'm not a witch, I'm your president! But after a statement like that, I'm not even sure I want to be that anymore!"

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #48 on:** November 04, 2010, 01:45:43 PM »

Anyone who doesn't claim they aren't a witch is a witch. That is why I would have voted for O'Donnel.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #49 on:** November 04, 2010, 01:49:07 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 04, 2010, 01:20:01 PM

I simply don't have the energy to argue against liberalism on these boards again. Every six months or so this argument springs back up, the latest crop of members tries to defend liberalism, and this time I'm not going to rebut. You lost, big time, two days ago, and I'll just let the scoreboard speak for me.

To Somekittens, I will leave you with the supposition that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and that the right thing done in the wrong way inevitably leads to disaster.

You seem to define liberals as "everyone with a a different opinion." This doesn't make them wrong, just different.

News:

Author Topic: Bumming in Mass (Read 11357 times)

browarod

Rawrlolsauce!

Rawrlolsauce!

Rawrlolsauce!

Warrior_Monk

Rawrlolsauce!

Rawrlolsauce!

Rawrlolsauce!

Warrior_Monk

Rawrlolsauce!