[Waragainstsleep]

The numbers may not be massive either way, but as someone who has never been to the US but watches a lot of US TV, my assumption was that christian fundamentalists far outnumber self-identifying communists.
I also assumed that anyone self-identifying as communist would risk being lynched by left and right alike.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I get your point. If I just kept my point general enough to reference general diehard fundies as being a scary bunch would you have replied the same way? I just used the WBC cause they were the scariest bunch that came to mind.

Gee besson, whatever do you mean by threat? There is no extreme or threat more meaningful or noteworthy than the other besson. You honestly... nothing.

Just admit this thread is a low-point for you.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Gee besson, whatever do you mean by threat? There is no extreme or threat more meaningful or noteworthy than the other besson. You honestly... nothing.
Just admit this thread is a low-point for you.

The only low point is whatever you are trying to say here. Stop sucking.

[BadKosh]

Besson will have "Opinions stated as Facts" on his tombstone.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Besson will have "Opinions stated as Facts" on his tombstone.

There is nothing of mine stated as fact in this thread, control your knee jerking.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

as someone who has never been to the US but watches a lot of US TV...

"We drink napalm to get our hearts started in the morning. A rape and a mugging is our way of saying ‘Cheerio.’ Hell can’t hold our sock-hops. We walk taller, talk louder, spit further, **** longer and buy more things than you know the names of. I’d rather be a junkie in a New York City jail than king, queen, and jack of all Europeans. We eat little countries like this for breakfat and shit them out before lunch."

[andi*pandi]

(Heh. wondered who that was, could hear Denis Leary saying it in my head, but google says PJ ORourke. Go fig!)

There is also the plain ol wackadoo vs the wackadoo who is actively trying to hurt/insult/create insurrection.

There may be lots of communists out there, having meetings in their living rooms and serving coffee while they discuss Marx, but have they blown anything up lately?

(wait, is this the batsh!t crazy thread?)

[Waragainstsleep]

I'm just saying how it looks from the outside. And I'm sure the vietnamese would be very impressed with that quote or yours.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

(Heh. wondered who that was, could hear Denis Leary saying it in my head, but google says PJ ORourke. Go fig!)

It's not that hard to imagine Leary doing someone else's material...

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm just saying how it looks from the outside. And I'm sure the vietnamese would be very impressed with that quote or yours.

The author of that quote visited Vietnam in the late 90s and was surprised to find the Vietnamese loved Americans. He later visited Hong Kong and found the people there hated the British.

When he asked why the answer was "you just killed the Vietnamese. The British snubbed us."

[besson3c]

I do really like Vietnamese food.

[subego]

Phở bò rawks.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

The author of that quote visited Vietnam in the late 90s and was surprised to find the Vietnamese loved Americans. He later visited Hong Kong and found the people there hated the British.
When he asked why the answer was "you just killed the Vietnamese. The British snubbed us."

They're probably just annoyed we gave HK back to China.

[besson3c]

It is evident that the mods are back because my awesome thread title was renamed. Where are my first amendment rights or something?

Seriously, why can't we swear? Nobody says "craphole" except for maybe nuns in crappy red states

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

They're probably just annoyed we gave HK back to China.

Probably? It was specifically.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It is evident that the mods are back because my awesome thread title was renamed. Where are my first amendment rights or something?
Seriously, why can't we swear? Nobody says "craphole" except for maybe nuns in crappy red states

It really should be "crapsack".

[subego]

[subego]

That jpeg made more sense when it followed besson's deleted comment.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It is evident that the mods are back because my awesome thread title was renamed. Where are my first amendment rights or something?
Seriously, why can't we swear? Nobody says "craphole" except for maybe nuns in crappy red states

I am greatly offended by the thread title change. Who cares about Dasies and Roses? This thread needs ponies and rainbows, stat.

[subego]

Blame Huddler.

[andi*pandi]

Detroit, ladies and gentlemen:

http://consumerist.com/2012/10/12/homeowner-has-to-share-house-with-squatter-because-police-cant-do-anything/

[besson3c]

There is clearly a connection between education and voting tendencies. You can call me a troll as much as you want, but you don't have to look much farther past urban and rural voting tendencies to see this.

[subego]

What exactly is the obvious conclusion I'm supposed to be drawing here?

[besson3c]

Well educated tend to vote Democrat

[subego]

That's why people move to the city when they have kids.

Hey little girl, I've got an "educational opportunity" for you.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Detroit, ladies and gentlemen:
http://consumerist.com/2012/10/12/homeowner-has-to-share-house-with-squatter-because-police-cant-do-anything/

I sort of have a squatter in one of my rental units. Some guys were renting a duplex from me, both sides, and the lease was in their names. Well, one of them got married to a woman with 3 kids and she and her kids moved in. So, it was the one guy, her, and the kids in one, and the other two guys in the other. Well, for whatever reason, the two guys split. They broke their lease and disappeared. I believe drugs were involved and they were in hot water, but I have no proof. A few months later the last guy took off and didn't tell his wife where he was going, he vanished and abandoned her and the kids. So she had no place to go, no money, her name is no where on the lease, and she was scared. I dropped by to look around and check on things, and the apartment was tidy, the kids (ages around 4-8) seemed fairly well behaved, and there was no damage.

Legally I could have them evicted, she has a part-time job and gets some benefits, but it's not enough to pay the rent as well as cover their living expenses. The problem is I keep forgetting to file any paperwork, because I'm too busy with other things, so they just live there. Every once in a while I stop in and make sure they aren't causing trouble, but after I leave I find that money is missing from my pocket. No idea how that happens, it's a mystery. Probably those damned urchins picking my pockets, or something like that.

[BadKosh]

WOW! I live in Northern Virginia. Loudoun County to be exact. I used to rent a townhouse, and in VA, and if you have less than 5 properties you can have a lease with a "Self Help" clause in it. This means the owner of the property can move the offending occupants belongings onto the sidewalk. The county will have a police car stationed by the stuff for 48 hours. After that the property is considered abandoned and anyone can just pick through and take what they want. It requires a registered letter (Called a Pay up or Quit), sent to the occupant, a fee to the county who gets a copy of the letter. The occupant has 5 days to comply, or you can then go to court and file for Unlawful Detainment. I took a lot of business law in college so I just went to the county law library, read all the parts that applied to me and the renter. Next day I went to real estate court and watched how it went. When I went before the judge she wanted to see the lease since I wanted to exercise Self Help. She smiled because she knew the lawyer who wrote the original lease agreement. the deadbeat was found to owe me $4K, and I had found out the guy was AWOL! I took the judgement to the MDW(Military District of Washington) commanders office and they paid the fine, saying this guy had passed over 70,000 in bad checks in 5 months with his girlfriend. They said with this judgement and the rest of the stuff this guy did he was looking at 30 years in prison.

I hope you get your property back. You seem lucky so far that they are keeping the place neat.

[Cold Warrior]

A mod outside PWL edited your thread title. However, titles do show up more readily than posts, so I'd rather not have obscenities in them.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well educated tend to vote Democrat

The Institutions of higher learning tend to be predominantly Democratic. Still, many of these paper-ideals wear off as the former student enters the workforce, weds, and begins having children.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The Institutions of higher learning tend to be predominantly Democratic. Still, many of these paper-ideals wear off as the former student enters the workforce, weds, and begins having children.

Not so much in urban environments.

[OAW]

@Shaddim ... Your compassion in that situation is admirable my man. Because you really don't have to do that. Respect!

OAW

[andi*pandi]

It is very nice of you Shaddim! What a prince among men she married.

[Shaddim]

You have me confused with someone else, I'm an oppressive hick, like the rest of the people in my "sh*t hole" state. All the Blue places are bastions of fairness and enlightenment, and we illiterate rednecks should work harder to be as civilized.

Am I doing a good job painting with this broad brush, or did I miss a spot?

[lpkmckenna]

So Shaddim's self-banning is over? Should I now go back and answer the thread where he called me a fascist?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You have me confused with someone else, I'm an oppressive hick, like the rest of the people in my "sh*t hole" state. All the Blue places are bastions of fairness and enlightenment, and we illiterate rednecks should work harder to be as civilized.
Am I doing a good job painting with this broad brush, or did I miss a spot?

Pointing out factual tendencies is not the same as saying something is or isn't a certain way. That urban populations tend to vote Democrat and that those populations tend to be better educated is not a broad brush, it is a fact, just as saying that there is a disproportionate amount of African American crime is a fact.

[subego]

It's not the same.

What would make them the same is if you implied the disproportion in crime is caused by the people in question being African American.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's not the same.
What would make them the same is if you implied the disproportion in crime is caused by the people in question being African American.

So, what I said is not factual? How so?

[Waragainstsleep]

Effects can usually be safely stated as factual, causes are always more of a grey area since there is always the possibility of discovering a previously unknown one.
Not that I disagree with you in this instance.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, what I said is not factual? How so?

Did I say it wasn't factual?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Did I say it wasn't factual?

So your main problem with what I said is what you thought was my direct comparison? If so, I didn't mean the black thing as an example, but just an additional example. Do you think that the example is somehow invalid?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Effects can usually be safely stated as factual, causes are always more of a grey area since there is always the possibility of discovering a previously unknown one.
Not that I disagree with you in this instance.

If you mean this in a general way, I think I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it applies here.

Urban areas tending left could have any number of causes, I didn't postulate what those causes are, and likewise for urban areas being more educated, but when you put these two facts together I don't see how you could not conclude that better educated people tend to vote Democrat, it's a basic Venn diagram thing, no?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Pointing out factual tendencies is not the same as saying something is or isn't a certain way. That urban populations tend to vote Democrat and that those populations tend to be better educated is not a broad brush, it is a fact, just as saying that there is a disproportionate amount of African American crime is a fact.

Perhaps better educated, but not more intelligent or in possession of more common sense, and definitely not more decent or caring. It's good for a person to have "book smarts", but that's not the be-all, end-all factor in deciding if a population is worthwhile.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Perhaps better educated, but not more intelligent or in possession of more common sense, and definitely not more decent or caring. It's good for a person to have "book smarts", but that's not the be-all, end-all factor in deciding if a population is worthwhile.

Agreed, but would you say that an educated population is generally more intelligent than a non-educated one?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Agreed, but would you say that an educated population is generally more intelligent than a non-educated one?

No, and neither is intelligence the deciding factor in whether a place is a "shit hole", go to the highest pop areas of the Blue states, you'll see what I'm talking about.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, and neither is intelligence the deciding factor in whether a place is a "shit hole", go to the highest pop areas of the Blue states, you'll see what I'm talking about.

So then if education does not contribute to greater intelligence why is it valued in society? If your point is that education does not equal intelligence, this is absolutely true, but no matter how you measure intelligence (IQ, street smarts, critical thinking ability, success, whatever) with the majority of these metrics you'll find that education is an important factor, albeit not a 100% consistent one.

A shit hole to me is an area lacking in culture, in infrastructure, and in a general existence that does not represent the most evolved state of humanity. Crime, traffic, and hipsters are negative aspects to populated blue urban areas, but in those same urban areas you'll usually find many positive things that are the opposite of the things in my list.

[Shaddim]

See, you have two types of Dems in those Blue states, though not living in the same areas, if ya know what I mean? You have the educated, intellectual, nosy types, who are overly concerned with figuring out what's right for everyone (the Eloy). And, you also have the uneducated, "give me my benefits and STFU" type (Morlocks). See, the latter are the super-majority and they don't care about the Democratic agenda, just as long as someone panders to them and continues making promises to give them more.

The Red states have their own Eloy, the wealthy industrialists. They're also highly educated, though generally not as intellectual (MBAs instead of PhDs). With them, it's all about the money; making it, moving it, and manipulating it. Their Morlocks are the evangelical, rural types (aka. Hillbillies). Moral issues are their hot-button, and if you present something as a religious imperative, they'll get wound up like those little monkeys with cymbals.

On the whole, the Red Morlocks are more friendly and hospitable; if you're polite and respectful, they'll give you the clothing off their backs (this isn't just an idiom, I've actually seen it happen many times). Do not confuse this with being docile however, this is especially true if you're rude or appear to be different. Like all Morlocks, however, you're probably going to be okay as long as you don't make sudden movements and "keep your head down". Blue Morlocks, although not as gracious, are more likely to ignore you and keep to themselves. That is, unless you have something they want, then they're more likely to rob you or possibly even just kill you for it.

Politics is all about which group of Eloy can whip their Morlocks into the greater frenzy and get them to turn out in larger numbers at the polls. How this is done all boils down to this: Religion for Red, benefits for Blue.

This has been a frank assessment, no PC bullshit. If you don't like it, don't blame me, take it up with your Eloy.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you mean this in a general way, I think I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it applies here.

Urban areas tending left could have any number of causes, I didn't postulate what those causes are, and likewise for urban areas being more educated, but when you put these two facts together I don't see how you could not conclude that better educated people tend to vote Democrat, it's a basic Venn diagram thing, no?

The reference to education is the cause though. In your other example, african americans are more likely to commit crime. Is this because they are african american? Is it that they are more likely to be arrested/convicted/accused because they are african american? Could it be because they are more likely to be poor instead? Or could it be because they are more likely to like basketball? That last one is obviously nonsense and just thrown in to represent a cause that has yet to be considered.

To state that educated people are more likely to vote democrat is fine, to state that they are voting democrat because they are more educated is talking about the cause rather than the effect. Again, I suspect its true but its one of those statistics that certain people don't like to hear. Like if you mentioned the african american crime statement in a forum with a larger number of african american members. You'll likely see what I mean as I mention the correlation between IQ and atheism.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, and neither is intelligence the deciding factor in whether a place is a "shit hole", go to the highest pop areas of the Blue states, you'll see what I'm talking about.

If we are talking about inherent, natural-born intelligence then the correlation between intelligence and education doesn't have all that many mechanisms to decide it. One does strike me though:

I would expect that someone born with more intelligence would be more likely to pursue education than someone born less intelligent. Of course there is no guarantee that they can afford education but there are scholarships etc. Are there more or less naturally intelligent people deciding against education? I would think(hope) its at least slightly less, but given that your society awards a lot of scholarships for sport, of the section of college students who aren't paying for it themselves, I would tend to expect that more of them are there thanks to sport rather than smarts but I really have no idea. It would be interesting to see stats on athletic vs. academic scholarships.

Its very difficult to meaningly measure intelligence for a discussion like this one. I would definitely contend that if you took two people of equal natural intelligence educated one but not the other, the educated one would end up more intelligent. Education though is not limited to educational institutions. This might warrant its own non-political thread.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

See, you have two types of Dems in those Blue states, though not living in the same areas, if ya know what I mean? You have the educated, intellectual, nosy types, who are overly concerned with figuring out what's right for everyone (the Eloy). And, you also have the uneducated, "give me my benefits and STFU" type (Morlocks). See, the latter are the super-majority and they don't care about the Democratic agenda, just as long as someone panders to them and continues making promises to give them more.
The Red states have their own Eloy, the wealthy industrialists. They're also highly educated, though generally not as intellectual (MBAs instead of PhDs). With them, it's all about the money; making it, moving it, and manipulating it. Their Morlocks are the evangelical, rural types (aka. Hillbillies). Moral issues are their hot-button, and if you present something as a religious imperative, they'll get wound up like those little monkeys with cymbals.
On the whole, the Red Morlocks are more friendly and hospitable; if you're polite and respectful, they'll give you the clothing off their backs (this isn't just an idiom, I've actually seen it happen many times). Do not confuse this with being docile however, this is especially true if you're rude or appear to be different. Like all Morlocks, however, you're probably going to be okay as long as you don't make sudden movements and "keep your head down". Blue Morlocks, although not as gracious, are more likely to ignore you and keep to themselves. That is, unless you have something they want, then they're more likely to rob you or possibly even just kill you for it.
Politics is all about which group of Eloy can whip their Morlocks into the greater frenzy and get them to turn out in larger numbers at the polls. How this is done all boils down to this: Religion for Red, benefits for Blue.
This has been a frank assessment, no PC bullshit. If you don't like it, don't blame me, take it up with your Eloy.

So essentially, the red Morlocks and the blue Eloy are the only ones who actually care about their fellow man?

I actually agree with most of what you say here, if not all of it. I think there are one or two extra things I would offer for consideration:

Don't you think there are a section of the blue Morlocks who work and aren't on benefits, but maybe have been at some point and maybe still associate with many who are, and so appreciate the value of a safety net when you lose your income through no fault of your own? I couldn't say how big this section would be but I can't believe that the entire US working class who are actually in work are all republicans.

I also suspect that in some states there are one or two non-religious motivators among the Morlocks. Gun rights being the obvious one, though I suspect religion or morality corresponds strongly among that group so it may not be all that relevant.

I want to address your remarks about caring and decency. The examples you mention here and if memory serves in other threads in the past, the caring and generosity and charity you mention is different between red and blue. If you vote to have your tax dollars redistributed by your government where it is needed the most, that to me is unconditional generosity. You are passing up the opportunity to be personally selective, and giving every one of your fellow citizens the same opportunities for help if or when they need it. When you prefer to redistribute your money to the needy yourself, you will be selective about who gets it. Now if you come across someone who is homeless, cold and hungry and you buy them a coat and a meal because their plight upsets you, I will never criticise that, it doesn't matter what you believe or how you vote. If on the other hand you are paying to fix your church roof in a more affluent area when there are starving muslims or atheists across town living in a cardboard shanty, well I'm exaggerating grossly but you take my point I'm sure,

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

See, you have two types of Dems in those Blue states, though not living in the same areas, if ya know what I mean? You have the educated, intellectual, nosy types, who are overly concerned with figuring out what's right for everyone (the Eloy). And, you also have the uneducated, "give me my benefits and STFU" type (Morlocks). See, the latter are the super-majority and they don't care about the Democratic agenda, just as long as someone panders to them and continues making promises to give them more.
The Red states have their own Eloy, the wealthy industrialists. They're also highly educated, though generally not as intellectual (MBAs instead of PhDs). With them, it's all about the money; making it, moving it, and manipulating it. Their Morlocks are the evangelical, rural types (aka. Hillbillies). Moral issues are their hot-button, and if you present something as a religious imperative, they'll get wound up like those little monkeys with cymbals.
On the whole, the Red Morlocks are more friendly and hospitable; if you're polite and respectful, they'll give you the clothing off their backs (this isn't just an idiom, I've actually seen it happen many times). Do not confuse this with being docile however, this is especially true if you're rude or appear to be different. Like all Morlocks, however, you're probably going to be okay as long as you don't make sudden movements and "keep your head down". Blue Morlocks, although not as gracious, are more likely to ignore you and keep to themselves. That is, unless you have something they want, then they're more likely to rob you or possibly even just kill you for it.
Politics is all about which group of Eloy can whip their Morlocks into the greater frenzy and get them to turn out in larger numbers at the polls. How this is done all boils down to this: Religion for Red, benefits for Blue.
This has been a frank assessment, no PC bullshit. If you don't like it, don't blame me, take it up with your Eloy.

This is a very interesting theory, thank you for this.

What I still don't understand is the urban/rural divide though. Obviously there are many wealthy industrialists hanging out in NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. yet these cities overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Would you add to your theory a category of blue state industrialist?

I'm also not sure how the caring/decency sort of thing can really be measured. There are plenty of highly emotional blue state types that are all about doing stuff for the poor. You know, the crunchy granola hippy tree hugger types?