The USA is not as divided as some would lead you to believe

LottomagicZ4941 · Post by **LottomagicZ4941** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:12 pm

They say 50%+ voted for Bush.

But really since only about half the poplulation votes it is more like 25% voted for Bush.

Kerry probably got 24% or so. So the rest don't care as much.

The way I see it is 20% will just about always vote Rebublican. 20% just about always Democrat. The other 10% make the real decision. And a 1 or 2 percent vote for the tangental parties.

Anyone agree/disagree. The % are just rough estimates so if you think 22% Rep and 19% democrat you basically agree.

I think the retoric of our country divided is exagurated.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:48 pm

Maybe a little bit divided when you look at raw population numbers - but not so much by region. (Birds of a feather flock together?

) The red/blue map says it all.

I know I don't share the values of the majority of people who live in San Francisco or Massachusetts. I do know that I live in a region that shares my values.

LottomagicZ4941 wrote: They say 50%+ voted for Bush.

But really since only about half the population votes it is more like 25% voted for Bush.

Kerry probably got 24% or so. So the rest don't care as much.

The way I see it is 20% will just about always vote Republican. 20% just about always Democrat. The other 10% make the real decision. And a 1 or 2 percent vote for the tangential parties.

Anyone agree/disagree. The % are just rough estimates so if you think 22% Rep and 19% democrat you basically agree.

I think the rhetoric of our country divided is exaggerated.

Attached files

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:52 pm

And if you really want to get an insightful look at what the real makeup of this country is - take a look at the county-by-county voting results.

You can see that the large urban areas vote very differently from the rest of the country.

Tombstone wrote: Maybe a little bit divided when you look at raw population numbers - but not so much by region. (Birds of a feather flock together?

) The red/blue map says it all.

I know I don't share the values of the majority of people who live in San Francisco or Massachusetts. I do know that I live in a region that shares my values.

Attached files

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:52 pm

Tombstone wrote: And if you really want to get an insightful look at what the real makeup of this country is - take a look at the county-by-county voting results.

You can see that the large urban areas vote very differently from the rest of the country.
do you have a link to the original of that county-by-county map? it comes up rather small for me, i'd like to see if i can find a larger one.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:20 am

anastrophe wrote: do you have a link to the original of that county-by-county map? it comes up rather small for me, i'd like to see if i can find a larger one.

I'm looking for the larger version myself. This thumbnail had a redirect to USA Today. I went there - but could not find it.

If you find the larger version, would you post it here?

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:24 am

Found it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel ... ntymap.htm

Use dropdown box on right to focus in on states.

Check out how influential Alameda County and Los Angeles was for tipping CA against Bush.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel ... tf=l&sp=CA

Attached files

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:49 am

Tombstone wrote: Found it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel ... ntymap.htm

Use dropdown box on right to focus in on states.

Check out how influential Alameda County and Los Angeles was for tipping CA against Bush.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel ... tf=l&sp=CA

found a good, large map myself, along with comparison to 2000 map:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

gabrell · Post by **gabrell** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:15 pm

I thought it interesting, that two large newspapers (Chicago and Washington post) came on record as saying that they were out of touch with America. That indeed, as Democrats they felt surely all people would hold their views. They felt that America has said that it wants restraint in certain social issues and that democrats will have to re-think what it is they represent in terms of reaching a higher political office.

illuminati · Post by **illuminati** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:38 pm

gabrell wrote: I thought it interesting, that two large newspapers (Chicago and Washington post) came on record as saying that they were out of touch with America. That indeed, as Democrats they felt surely all people would hold their views. They felt that America has said that it wants restraint in certain social issues and that democrats will have to re-think what it is they represent in terms of reaching a higher political office.

I have a simple one-step plan for them. Read JFK's (John F. Kennedy) speeches having to do with government, business, and taxation.

John Kennedy's (Democrat) policies and beliefs = moderate Repulican platform of today.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:50 pm

LottomagicZ4941 wrote: They say 50%+ voted for Bush.

But really since only about half the poplulation votes it is more like 25% voted for Bush.

Kerry probably got 24% or so. So the rest don't care as much.

The way I see it is 20% will just about always vote Rebublican. 20% just about always Democrat. The other 10% make the real decision. And a 1 or 2 percent vote for the tangental parties.

Anyone agree/disagree. The % are just rough estimates so if you think 22% Rep and 19% democrat you basically agree.

I think the retoric of our country divided is exagurated.

The Catholic Church helped G.W back into office.

illuminati · Post by **illuminati** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:07 pm

capt_buzzard wrote: The Catholic Church helped G.W back into office.

and the Evangelicals, and the mainstream Protestants, and the Mormons, and the.............

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:04 pm

there is an interesting op-ed piece in todays NY Times by David Brooks that lends credence to this map. It discusses the end of suburbia as we know it and the beginning of exurbia.. that's the voting block that carried Georgie into office for a second term...

LottomagicZ4941 · Post by **LottomagicZ4941** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:08 am

You all have a valid point at the division by reagons.

The point I was trying to make is that most people are in the middle and not on either extreem.

I'm a born again Christian (which may make me an extreemist to some) and I lean to the left. Many republicans in Colorado are of the opinion you have to be republican to be a Christian.

There are those people who believe in the Bible and there are those who roll their eyes at such notions.

The democrats should respect those who have religious views.

And I agree that Republicans have taken ground that use to belong to the democrats.

"I have a simple one-step plan for them. Read JFK's (John F. Kennedy) speeches having to do with government, business, and taxation.

John Kennedy's (Democrat) policies and beliefs = moderate Repulican platform of today."

If the Democrats would suport the rights of the unborn and not try and force us to accept homosexaulity. I can tolerate it as long as they leave the kids alowne. To make me accept it violates my religious liberties.

"

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:12 am

Lotto, what does "making you accept it" mean?

The way I see it, one side or the other is forcing their views. The only way between that is to allow a freedom but not force anyone to exercise it.

Have you heard about Oregon's Assisted Suicide law and the battles to overturn it?

LottomagicZ4941 · Post by **LottomagicZ4941** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 1:19 am

"making us accept it" means to say it is an okay lifestyle. It is not okay from the Christian perspective. It is a sin. Now I can tolerate it. We don't go around stoneing people anymore. I still support the death penality in cases of murder. But other then for killing outside of war can't think of anything deserving of death penality.

I think that homosexulity is something that kids should not be exposed.

When my mom was a kid she thought it was a joke. How much more innocences there was in that time.

Homosexulaity is not natural and it is against nature. As long as we have freedome of speach and religion I will teach my child that homosexuality is a sin. Then again the appostles were imprissoned for their beliefs so perhaps I should teach my kid the truth even if it does become illegal.

I can accept that some people choose to sin. As long as they leave the kids alone I will leave them alown with their choice. Christians are to hate the sin not the sinner. And some Christians will rant and rave agains sins that they don't partake. Non drinkers say drinking is a big sin. Drinking is not a sin being a drunkard is a sin. I am okay with someone drinking in their own home. Now if they are driving on the road that is a different story. And telling kids that homosexuality is okays is as dangerous to there soul as drinking and driving is to our physical body.

__________________

Lotto

http://www.flalottomagic.net/cgi-lo...cgi?welcome-344

MagicZ4941

LottomagicZ4941 · Post by **LottomagicZ4941** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 1:21 am

Have you heard about Oregon's Assisted Suicide law and the battles to overturn it?

Have heard little about it. Don't think Drs should take part. Better job for thughs in my opinion.

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 10:31 am

Lotto, my point is simply that you have every right to live your life the way you think is right. But so do I. What happens if I don't agree with you, and vice versa? Who gets to decide which "right" is greater?

It can't be done.

Consequently, the only fair thing we can do is to allow everyone to live according to their own version of "right".

As for the children aspect of it, have you read any good books on children's sexuality? It might give you a different perspective on the effect of influences in this area.

Have you heard about Oregon's Assisted Suicide law and the battles to overturn it?

LottomagicZ4941 wrote: Have heard little about it. Don't think Drs should take part. Better job for thughs in my opinion.You've heard little about it and yet have already decided it's a job for thugs?

Interesting...

Well, we have this little law here. It allows people with fatal diseases to be "put to sleep" rather than scream their way to death. I'm not sure if you've ever seen someone die of a fatal disease, but it's an ugly agonizing process for everyone.

Oregon voters decided that we could end our own lives if we meet the following conditions:

We must be diagnosed as terminally ill by at least two doctors.

We must petition the court for this right with medical evidence.

We have a waiting period.

We must petition the court a second time (to be sure this is truly what we want).

Once the court grants permission, we must find a doctor who is willing to perform the act - which is basically an overdose of medication.

No one is forced to prematurely end their lives. It allows those who would rather die with dignity to call the shots and not drag themselves and their families through hell.

Medical treatment plays god by extending life longer than is natural - as each organ shuts down, medicines and surgeries are given to sustain the body without that organ.

The assisted suicide law allows a patient to bypass all of that so long as they are absolutely going to die from a disease. This is important to note. Doctors wait until your death is irrefutable and imminent before they say things like, "You have 6 months left to live." I know of someone who is dying from liver cancer now, and although the cancer is all over her internal organs and has been exposed to air through surgeries, they still tell her she has a 20% chance at living for 2 more years. Thus, she doesn't qualify for assisted suicide yet.

Oregonians have voted twice on this issue, and it has passed both times. Congress has tried to be sneaky about denying us the right to this law. They've tried slipping it into tax bills, and other dirty tricks. Ashcroft now has it before the Supreme Court.

The point is that individuals should have the right to die with dignity on their own terms. If a person chooses to fight their illness all the way to the end, then they keep that right as well.

So, if I should develop a fatal illness and I will absolutely die from it, by what right can anyone tell me I must suffer until medical science fails, and my body gives out?

Please do not tell me what god wants for me - you are not god, and the presumption that you or anyone on earth can speak for him offends me. Thank you.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 6:06 am

well.. as the song says.."got two good eyes but I still can't see". Lots going on here.. okay.. first of all, Lotto how do you know that homosexuality is not natural. For all you know heterosexuality could be abnormal, and please don't say that it is because the Bible says so. The Bible has been altered so many times thru each version both written and verbal that we really don't know what it said originally. Assisted Suicide.. simple solution.. it is my life and nobody has the right to tell me what to do with it. If I am terminally ill and I decide to end my life it is my decision, not yours, Gods or anyone elses. The last thing I want is to be hooked up to a machine and kept alive by artificial means. Those are my wishes and they are defined in my living will as such..

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:25 am

"I will teach my child that homosexuality is a sin". That really bothers me. I do not believe people choose to be homosexual. Would you love your child any less if he/she were homosexual? Would you like your child to spend years searching for happiness knowing that he/she is not going to find it because they have to deny their feelings to keep from sinning? I'm not saying to encourage it, or even accept it, but to make a person deny their feelings makes for a dysfunctional adult. I know two different women who tried the traditional get married, raise a family route. They are each now with their lesbian lover. What do you think their families went through? If they had not denied their feelings and tried to conform to what society believes as normal, they could have saved a lot of people a whole lot of heartache.

LottomagicZ4941 · Post by **LottomagicZ4941** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 7:56 pm

Well I hope my child will not choose an inaproprate life style. We are to hate the sin not the sinner. Temptation is not a sin in and of itself. So homosexuality is only a sin if acted upon. It is the acting upon which is a choice. Celebacy never killed anyone.

LottomagicZ4941 · Post by **LottomagicZ4941** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:12 am

I certainly would not want anyone to kill themselves. Someone asked me to clairfy "making us accept them"

As long as the gays are discrete I'll leave them allown but if they want to push for acceptance then I have to speak out the truth.

Lotto

http://www.flalottomagic.net/cgi-lo...cgi?welcome-344

Magic

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 11:42 am

LottomagicZ4941 wrote: I certainly would not want anyone to kill themselves. Someone asked me to clairfy "making us accept them"

As long as the gays are discrete I'll leave them allown but if they want to push for acceptance then I have to speak out the truth.All sex should be discreet, don't you think so? I'm hardly a prude yet I find billboards of half-dressed women irritating, perfume commericals with couples eating each other up annoying, and I can choose my beer without a group of bikini-clad gorgeous blondes smiling vacuously at me. Thankyouverymuch! LOL.

***Push for acceptance*** is an interesting turn of phrase. Jesus accepted everyone. He especially preferred the company of social outcasts - perhaps he found less hypocrisy among them? I don't know.

Still, it seems clear to me that the true spirit of Christianity lies in acceptance of human beings, complete with all of our weaknesses. We do not get to pick and choose who we will accept or not. We do not get to judge for others. We can only decide for ourselves and teach by example. No lecture, no biblical quote, no contradictory slogans of "hating the sin" will accomplish as much as one person quietly living their life according to their own beliefs.

LottomagicZ4941 · Post by **LottomagicZ4941** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:43 pm

"Jesus

accepted everyone".

"no biblical quote"

Without bibical quotes there is no Jesus in that the Bible is largly how we know of Jesus.

Jesus told the woman at the well to sin no more. He did not say he accepted her lifestyle choice. Yes I do think that Jesus would reach out to the homosexuality community and save them.

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:35 pm

LottomagicZ4941 wrote: Without bibical quotes there is no Jesus in that the Bible is largly how we know of Jesus.
That is how you know of Jesus, the person. What of Jesus, the philosopher? Seems to me that the true test of understanding is to be able to explain things without referring to the text. Does that make sense?

LottomagicZ4941 · Post by **LottomagicZ4941** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:46 am

I had my knee healed once does that count?

I'm not the biggest Bible thumper. I did not even vote for Bush. I voted libertarian.

I think we have trangressed from my orginal point.

Most people really don't care. That is why only about half vote.

I care and that is why I will rase my child in accordance to God's laws.

You can rase your kids how you want. Just don't tell them that behaviors I consider wrong are okay.

And if you want my vote don't insult me for believeing that the Bible is God's word. I'm talking about how one of the top democrats rolled her eyes and complained that he Republicans took advantage of thouse of us who have faith in God.

__________________

Lotto

http://www.flalottomagic.net/cgi-lo...cgi?welcome-344

Magic

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:06 am

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/careers/ ... ml?cnn=yes

This Land Is Red Land, Paid For by Blue Land ...

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 8:27 am

LottomagicZ4941 wrote: I had my knee healed once does that count?

I'm not the biggest Bible thumper. I did not even vote for Bush. I voted libertarian.
What? I'm glad your knee is healed, but I don't know where that came from. It's not my business to have an opinion on your vote - it belongs to you.

LottomagicZ4941 wrote: I think we have trangressed from my orginal point.
I think we have contradicted your original point. On this, the US is very divided. Just as you and I are divided.

LottomagicZ4941 wrote: Most people really don't care. That is why only about half vote.
A lot of people who don't vote are sickened by the process and the candidates. The current stories about Ohio do not improve a person's faith in voting. Many people don't care - but many people do care, and refuse to settle.

LottomagicZ4941 wrote: I care and that is why I will rase my child in accordance to God's laws.
I thought we were talking about voting. I'm not understanding your train of thought.

LottomagicZ4941 wrote: You can rase your kids how you want. Just don't tell them that behaviors I consider wrong are okay.
Beg pardon?! Are you suggesting that I need to teach my kid YOUR values?

LottomagicZ4941 wrote: And if you want my vote don't insult me for believeing that the Bible is God's word. I'm talking about how one of the top democrats rolled her eyes and complained that he Republicans took advantage of thouse of us who have faith in God.
Some people still under-estimate the religious fundamentalists. Perhaps the Democrat you refer to is one of those.

Lotto, your response here seems full of anger and rather empty retort. I simply asked you to explain the philosophy you base your life on - and would push on everyone else, from the sound of it - without using the bible as your basis. Explain the theories that Jesus promoted, and prove how they give you the right to boss others around, to reject specific segments of society, and allow you judgment.

I don't think it can be done. I don't think that's what Jesus had to say AT ALL. But perhaps you can prove me wrong, I don't know.

What I DO know is that I have no interest in insulting/controlling what you believe in until you try to bring it home to me. That's where I draw the line, and get quite angry. I'm sure you can understand this...and if you can't, then we should end the conversation here before we begin to fight.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:26 pm

Speaking as a complete outsider america does seem to be incredibly polarised with neither side being capable of discussing things with each other. Some panel discussions i have seen seem to consist of people taking turn about to heckle each other and state their views with apparent scant regard for those of opposing attitudes. It's almost as if they will impose their views regardless. Any criticism of government policy seems to be dismissed as unpatriotic and unamerican with no thought given to the validity of the arguement. On the other hand watching TV and looking at some of your newspapers does not exactly lead to a realistic perspective.

Actually one of the reasons i was attracted to this forum was most of the people seem capable of discussing things without getting irate and resorting to infantile abuse when they disagree with someone-the odd numpty you can ignore.

American internal politics are a strange planet as I'm sure ours must seem to you. You have the colours wrong for one thing, your left wing are blue and the right wing are red which must be cinfusing when you worry about reds under the bed. The christian right I find fascinating as they seem to have influence way beyond their numbers and seem determined to remake america in their image whether you want them to or not. We really have nothing like them except in very small fringe groups and personally i hope it stays that way. Religon seems to be brought in to just about every dicussion on this board even when the subject started out non-religious.

xlt66 · Post by **xlt66** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:39 pm

gmc wrote: Religon seems to be brought in to just about every dicussion on this board even when the subject started out non-religious.

Amen!

:wah: :wah: :wah:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:56 pm

posted byxlt66

Amen!:wah: :wah:

That smilie seems to be one that is crying,(wah) at first sight I thought it was laughing, judging from some of the posts others think it is laughing as well. not trying to be funny or anything but are you laughing or crying?

LottomagicZ4941 · Post by **LottomagicZ4941** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 3:27 am

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

To this day the Teddie bear is a popular kids toy. Although most don't know it was named after the president that refused to shoot one for sport.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 6:24 am

posted by lottomagic

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

To this day the Teddie bear is a popular kids toy. Although most don't know it was named after the president that refused to shoot one for sport.

If that is the case why do americans opposed to the war in Iraq get pilloried as unpatriotic and in support of terrorists? That seems to be the only way those who support the war can deal with criticism, never mind the arguement slag off the speaker as beung unworthy and not entitled to speak that way you don't have to think about it.

Bear in mind i am not american I just can't work out what is going on in america. You seem embarked on a path of destruction regardless of the consequences to yourselves or anyone else and are at each others throats. I notice your news media are now talking about "narco terrorists" Talk about newspeak, drug dealing crooks are now drug dealing terrorists

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 4:34 pm

gmc I am a member of the Christian Right and beleive me friend the christian right as we are protrayed by the press just simply doesn't exist.

we are used by some of the press the way parents used to use the bogey man, to scare. We are no more a monolitic enity than any other group of people.

See some polotitions try to scare the electorit with cries of he/she is just another tax and spend liberal. some say he/she is a tool of the christian right . the truth is it is all just rehetoric, over played by a press that is making many American rethink their view of the worth a free press.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 5:25 pm

LottomagicZ4941 wrote: "making us accept it" means to say it is an okay lifestyle. It is not okay from the Christian perspective. It is a sin. Now I can tolerate it. We don't go around stoneing people anymore. I still support the death penality in cases of murder. But other then for killing outside of war can't think of anything deserving of death penality.

I think that homosexulity is something that kids should not be exposed.

When my mom was a kid she thought it was a joke. How much more innocences there was in that time.

Homosexulaity is not natural and it is against nature. As long as we have freedome of speach and religion I will teach my child that homosexuality is a sin. Then again the appostles were imprissoned for their beliefs so perhaps I should teach my kid the truth even if it does become illegal.

I can accept that some people choose to sin. As long as they leave the kids alone I will leave them alown with their choice. Christians are to hate the sin not the sinner. And some Christians will rant and rave agains sins that they don't partake. Non drinkers say drinking is a big sin. Drinking is not a sin being a drunkard is a sin. I am okay with someone drinking in their own home. Now if they are driving on the road that is a different story. And telling kids that homosexuality is okays is as dangerous to there soul as drinking and driving is to our physical body.

__________________

Lotto

http://www.flalottomagic.net/cgi-lo...cgi?welcome-344

MagicZ4941

Get rid of the Religion and you get rid of the Hangups. Live & Let Live.

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 6:24 pm

capt_buzzard wrote: Get rid of the Religion and you get rid of the Hangups. Live & Let Live.
Excellent advice, Capt, but they can't do it. It requires a certain amount of insight, personal courage, and willingness to change. It also leaves one exposed to the consequences of choice.

No, it's much easier to let others tell you how it is, and then you don't have to think for yourself, or for anyone, or at all really. (shrug)

There are some I hold exempt from this - people who have proven they can question, and can accept some, reject some...people like Ted. But there aren't too many, unfortunately. It gives a perfectly good religion a very bad name.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 4:41 am

posted by jahamaa

gmc I am a member of the Christian Right and beleive me friend the christian right as we are protrayed by the press just simply doesn't exist.

we are used by some of the press the way parents used to use the bogey man, to scare. We are no more a monolitic enity than any other group of people.

I find it hard to credit as well that's why I keep asking because I find it hard to understand and am curious as to how "real" it is in terms of political power and what difference it might make.

For instance when the US brought in prohibition that seemed to be at the behest of religious groups with power beyond their actual numbers and is not a chamge that most americans would support- although I do not pretend to know a great deal about the actual history.

What I'm curious to work out is could similar radical change be brought about by similar groupings. Some of the pronouncements by christian right leaders seem to imply that thay will sort out america and correct the moral decline etc etc. you have a president that talks about crusades to impose democracy on the world and who says god told him to invade iraq. You must admit it is intriquing.

I don't really care who runs america but if you have an administration that now wants to practice pre-emptive warfare the question is what will happen next.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:58 am

Or What if a new terrorist group believes that their GOD sent them a message to kill and maim citizens in the US or Europe. In God's Name :-5 :-5

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:30 am

gmc wrote: For instance when the US brought in prohibition that seemed to be at the behest of religious groups with power beyond their actual numbers and is not a chamge that most americans would support- although I do not pretend to know a great deal about the actual history.
Here's what I know, and I'd be curious to hear additions/revisions on this:

Not so long ago, like 100 years past, men had ownership over women. Divorce was not allowed to women unless they left their children behind. They had no property rights (although slowly legislation was allowing them some rights), and they had few means of self support.

Many many husbands would work all day, drink at the bars with their friends, and then go home and beat their wives and children. This was perfectly legal. Some states still have mandates that determine how large a stick can be used, or how many times a woman could be hit.

Women were a very large part of prohibition. The temperance movement was started to protect women and children from these abuses. It was bar owners and those who earned a living from liquor that fought so vehemently against women getting the vote earlier than they did. They were afraid, and rightfully so, that women would make alcohol illegal.

That is not the whole of the story, but it's important enough to keep in mind.

Post by **kensloft** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:36 pm

My curiousity is aroused by the almost 50% that don't vote. Who are they? Why don't they vote? Is it led by their being satisfied with the status quo or do they believe that their vote wouldn't count? What is their breakdown? Is it the same as those that vote. Or are they commie sympathizers that don't want to start a civil war? (couldn't resist the humour)

Really asking for answers and/or input?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:12 pm

kensloft wrote: My curiousity is aroused by the almost 50% that don't vote. Who are they? Why don't they vote? Is it led by their being satisfied with the status quo or do they believe that their vote wouldn't count? What is their breakdown? Is it the same as those that vote. Or are they commie sympathizers that don't want to start a civil war? (couldn't resist the humour)

Really asking for answers and/or input?
are you asking about the U.S., where voter turnout for last year's presidential election was 60%, the best since 1968, or canada, where voter turnout was the worst since 1898?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:16 pm

anastrophe wrote: are you asking about the U.S., where voter turnout for last year's presidential election was 60%, the best since 1968, or canada, where voter turnout was the worst since 1898?
for the record:

60.7% last november's presidential election, US.

62% last june's federal election, canada.

Post by **kensloft** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:44 pm

anastrophe wrote: are you asking about the U.S., where voter turnout for last year's presidential election was 60%, the best since 1968, or canada, where voter turnout was the worst since 1898?

OK. The other forty percent. (39.3%) I could pose the same question about Canada but it's probably the same rationale. I don't really know when it comes to the Canadians that don't vote because I don't know if there have been any studies done on the subject. Who are they? Why don't they vote? Is it led by their being satisfied with the status quo or do they believe that their vote wouldn't count? What is their breakdown? Is it the same as those that vote?

Post by **kensloft** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:15 pm

anastrophe wrote: are you asking about the U.S., where voter turnout for last year's presidential election was 60%, the best since 1968, or canada, where voter turnout was the worst since 1898?

There was no election in 1898 so your figures aren't valid. 1896 was 62.9%

The 2004 election was actually 64.1% in Canada.

How many generations has your family been in America?

Mine has been in Canada since 1635.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:25 am

kensloft wrote: There was no election in 1898 so your figures aren't valid. 1896 was 62.9%
so cbc news is wrong, then, eh? http://www.cbc.ca/story/election/nation ... 40629.html

The 2004 election was actually 64.1% in Canada.

How many generations has your family been in America?

Mine has been in Canada since 1635.
what the **** does that have to do with anything?

Post by **kensloft** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:32 am

anastrophe wrote: so cbc news is wrong, then, eh? http://www.cbc.ca/story/election/nation ... 40629.html

Yes the cbc is wrong. They're a bunch of wankers that get big fat paycheques for their work. There are very few, really good reporters that are with the cbc. They are usually stationed out of the country where they won't get in the way of the inside politics of the corporation.

The rest will do as they are told even if they know that what they are doing is wrong. If it comes to righting a wrong and collecting a fat paycheque then you can rest assured that hte paycheque and the perks that go along with being in the corporation wil win out.

They are too lazy to do their jobs, let alone update what they know.

what the **** does that have to do with anything?

I am asking this because you seem so ready to defend America and Americans from being slighted at the slightest insinuation that America is not the perfect world that it claims to be. You seem, as if, to be a recent arrival that is making sure that the land that you came to is the land that you want to believe you came to. Your patriotism is such that America has no warts. I'm expressing my opinion. I could be wrong.

If we were sitting around doing a few brewskis and joints things would be different. As it is I am Canadian. You are American. We are divided by 3 thousand miles and are talking to each other through electrical impulses. You are sure that I am belittling your homeland and I keep saying I'm not. I keep saying that I am not because that isn't what I am doing.

Just for the record

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/186 ... ml#turnout

This is my information source.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:54 am

kensloft wrote: Yes the cbc is wrong.
no, they're not. reread.

I am asking this because you seem so ready to defend America and Americans from being slighted at the slightest insinuation that America is not the perfect world that it claims to be. You seem, as if, to be a recent arrival that is making sure that the land that you came to is the land that you want to believe you came to. Your patriotism is such that America has no warts. I'm expressing my opinion. I could be wrong.you are.

If we were sitting around doing a few brewskis and joints things would be different. As it is I am Canadian. You are American. We are divided by 3 thousand miles and are talking to each other through electrical impulses. You are sure that I am belittling your homeland and I keep saying I'm not. I keep saying that I am not because that isn't what I am doing.
you have in other posts. that's why i take umbrage with your 'canada cares, the US doesn't' approach. frankly, canadian infatuation with american politics is indicative of little more than an inferiority complex in my opinion. just about anywhere you go online, there are canadians prattling on about american politics. nobody talks about canadian politics. why? nobody cares.

Just for the record

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/186 ... ml#turnout

This is my information source.
that's nice. it's the wrong source. reread the first two paragraphs of the cbc article.

i've never lived in canada. not interested. nothing there. i was born here, and barring unforeseen circumstances, will surely die here. i love my country, right or wrong. hate the sin, lover the sinner, so to speak. when it's wrong, i don't hesitate to criticize it, though apparently you've missed my posts here to that effect.

my family's history can be traced back to the tenth century in england. one side of my family, of course. there's a bunch of french and german dudes mixed into it, basically northern european mongrel. the other side has no history before the late 1800's, as they were mountain dwelling peasants in greece, though yaya was athenian, but we have no written history of her side of the family that i'm aware of.

it's entirely possible somewhere back in the mists of time, that you and i are related. as the saying goes, you can choose your friends, but not your relatives. ain't it the truth.