Geez dude, don't get your panties all bunched up. I'm not trying to insult you so I'm sorry if I poked a nerve in your worldview. Geez. You were the one who brought up "idiot", etc. I never thought explaining political demographics would get flamey.
Sure, and some democrats are communists.
And some Republicans are Fascists. Both sides have their crazies, but none of them hold any high office. They are always on the fringe and they can stay there. This is beside the point.
What is your point really? Does it make me an idiot just because I'm not aligned with your way of thinking? Kennedy is speaking on generalized terms about specific ideals. He is taking a few extreme statements and making out that ALL conservatives are the bane of our existence. How else would anyone listen to what he has to say?
You aren't an idiot because we disagree. I never said that.
I never said I agreed fully with what Kennedy said. I seriously doubt he really believes that 100% of conservatives are idiots. You said he made a few extreme statements? If you think those statements are wrong, why don't you challenge them? Post here your researched response to his statements. All you've done so far is demonstrate that his statements (and some of mine) make you feel like you are being called an idiot.
My point is, is that "red" area tend to be more rural while "blue" areas tend to be more urban, coastal, and multicultural. That doesn't mean there aren't some "purple" areas, there are.
Voting for someone because they sound compassionate is being just as misinformed as your country bumpkins. I vote strawman on your passage there. The Democratic message "sounds" compassionate, but only to select groups. That is how they get elected, by appealing to particular types of demographics.
You could say the exact same thing about Republicans. In an election year, both sides are going to try and "sound" the best.
The problem with it is that they portray themselves as being for the poor and working class, when in fact, neither major political party appears to truly care about the middle class. The rich get their tax breaks and the poor get the social programs. If Mrs. Clinton would be the POTUS, the middle class would bear the brunt of her universal health care program. Compassionate? I hardly think so.
Did you even look at that video I linked to? Tell me how McCain's tax plan is better than Obama's for the poor and middle class. And how is a universal health care program less compassionate? You have to explain these things when you disagree. You have to give some solid reasons for why you disagree.
Honestly, of the many liberal voters I have met in my life, most appear to be so simply because they have been led to believe that the Dems are their salvation and the Reps are the devil. I have spoken with college grads all the way down to the poorest and least educated folk. While a person with a college degree is more likely to be more informed than most, it isn't a defacto standard for all college grads either.
You could flip the coin here. I could easily say the same thing about most conservative people I've met. The problem here isn't so much that one side is right or wrong, it's that there is a fundamental difference in thought process between the two. One side is always going to see the other as "wrong".
Have you? Do you get your information only from left-leaning media? Pundit shows are what they are; the heart of news channels project fairly much the same thing. Read an article on CNN and the same one on Fox. Both pretty much say the same thing.
I don't watch pundit shows. They aren't "news". They tend to be some talking head voicing his opinion about some news topic. I probably watch as much of Bill O'Rielly as I do Keith Olbermann when someone links me to an online video clip.
Objective news articles, whether they be from Fox or MSNBC, are just that; news articles. Bits of information about something going on in the world. There is no problem with where they come from so long as they are written objectively.
Same here, but because I am a conservative, I must be a uneducated idiot. At least, that appears to be the general consensus here.
The same goes for me on my opinions. But you don't see me going out of my way to make you out to be an idiot.
So, blue states folks are intelligent and well-informed while red state folks are idiots?
Sorry, but why are ALL conservatives made out to be idiots? You keep coming off as though you are saying that. Do you notice I am using the word "idiot" because that kinda seems what you are saying. Please, don't tiptoe around it. If you think conservatives are idiots, that's your opinion. It may be a biased and misinformed opinion, but hey, you're a an informed person, right?
So in your opinion, "country bumpkin" = idiot? I think you took my point as causation when really all I'm talking about is correlation.
Just so you know, I get my information, personally speaking, from a myriad of sources, not just one news channel. But I will defend my right to watch said news channel. I like to make an informed decision, which is why I visit CNN and FNC, as well as other news sources, to see if stories jibe or not. I am a big boy and I know bull**** when I see it whether it be on CNN, FNC, the newspaper or wherever.
Well good for you.
Open-mindedness? As if all liberals are truly open-minded.
I never said all of them were. So what is "truly open-minded" in your opinion?
Would you call it being open-minded when a liberal bashes a conservative because the conservative may be a Christian? Where is the much touted liberal tolerance there?
So you are saying that liberals are non-religious? Shoot, most liberals I know are Christians themselves.
In my opinion, most mainstream liberals are just as staunch in the views as conservatives are, if not maybe a bit more unyielding.
That may be true. I can only speak for myself though. Simply disagreeing with someone doesn't mean that person is "unyielding" in their views though. Unyielding is not changing your view in the face of evidence to the contrary.
There may be some truth there, but all those point have much finer point individually that would require a whole new thread for each major topic.
You could make a ten page thread on each.
- Evolution is a theory; a scientifically sound theory but a theory, nonetheless.
But in science, a "theory" is what we use to describe a large amount of facts and evidence. In science, nothing is totally, 100% ever "proved". Theories only become more and more solid, evolve, and change as new evidence and facts arise.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
You can't shrug it away by saying, "it's just a theory". That's the oldest apologetic trick in the book.
- Obama is a Muslim? Last I read, he is a Christian.
Yup. He never has been a Muslim. He was raised Christian by his grandmother, if I remember correctly.
- Climate change? I know of noone who says there isn't some kind of climate change. However, it has not been proven as to whether it was influenced by man or that we have any affect on slowing down the said change.
That's debatable. There is evidence that much of the change we are seeing is due to an increase over the last hundred years or so of man-made carbon emissions (cars, unclean factories, industrialized livestock production, etc.), but there are a whole lot of links in the chain that keeps the climate stable. If that evidence was obviously wrong or pointing to other causes, the many scientists studying it would be the first to say so.
- Gay marriage? My thoughts on the gay lifestyle period is that it is unnatural. Biologically speaking, our bodies were designed sexually for procreation. If not, what is the point of genders?
It's not unnatural, it's just uncommon. Being gay is a natural, biological state in much the same way that being straight is. Yes, our bodies did evolve with male/female sexual differences for the sake of procreation, but occasionally, the genes line up differently, and someone is born gay. It happens in nature all the time with many animal species. Humans are no different. It's not "right or wrong", it's just different.
Having said that, I think everyone should have the right to express their love and commitment to each other with a contract of marraige if they wish. Christianity didn't invent marriage and doesn't hold a monopoly on it. You said above that you'd defend the right to watch whatever news channel you wish. So why not honor the rights of a homosexual couple by allowing them all the same perks as a heterosexual couple? No one is asking you to be gay, just to accept the fact that other people are and it's ok. Where's your "compassionate conservatism" now?
For the record, I don't really care what religion or faith Obama has, I just don't think he is right for the presidency. It isn't that I think McCain is better, but I honestly have not seen or heard anything good from Obama, as he professes change for the sake of not being like GW Bush and Co. To be perfectly honest, anyone who thinks the President alone has THAT much power and influence over the country is very much misinformed. We have two other branches for counterbalance. And I'd say it's been working fairly well for over 200 years.
That's fine; your opinion. I have heard things that lead me to believe that Obama would be a better candidate. There is a lot of rhetoric about "change", but once you read deeper into some of his policy ideas, there are a lot of things that would be done differently from at least the last 8 years. And that's good enough for me. The previous administration has been mostly destructive.
The fact that you are focusing on a select group of conservatives (country bumpkins) and comparing them to another select group (well-educated liberals college grads) shows me a lot of bias.
So what would be a more fair comparison, speaking in a general way? I never said there was anything inherently wrong with "country bumpkins" just that they, on average, tend to be less informed than city-living people. It's not a matter of "right and wrong", it's a matter of information flow and access. I grew up as a fairly conservative "country bumpkin" from a small town in eastern North Carolina. Those are my people. In the last five years, after moving to Dallas, TX, I've been exposed to much more cultural diversity, media, etc, than I would have ever been if I stayed in small-town NC. It's that exposure and experience that's pushed many of my views to the left.
You would feel biased against if I turned the tables on you, which I could do, but what would be the point? It would not portray an accurate representation.
So do it. It seems like, by what you are saying, that I've done that to you, so now you do it to me. I love me a good chance to get schooled. Getting pwned is the best way to learn.
What would be an accurate representation? I was never claiming to be that accurate in my statements above. I was generalizing.
No matter what side of the aisle they land on, most Americans, hence most voters, don't know enough about the political scene to make informed decisions on voting day.
That's true for many voters, but how much information do you need in order to be able to make an informed decision? Informed could be someone who votes for McCain because he likes his stance on the war in Iraq. Informed could be someone who votes for Obama because he knows his stance on the war in Iraq. Informed probably isn't the guy who votes for a particular candidate because he's the guy whom he would most like to "have a beer with".
My point is, political opinion is way different than being objectively informed or not, though sometimes being objectively informed or not can affect your political opinion.
