redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted November 09, 2004 11:50 PM
 Edited By: redelk on 10 Nov 2004 00:27
OT - Why do Dems hate gays more than Republicans?
The thread title might be misleading, but read on and then be the judge. It's just that with all the talking heads saying that the "idiot bible thumpers" is the only reason Bush won seems... shall we say, a tad misleading.
Considering the results, it appears that more people voted for Kerry and against gay marriages then those that voted for Bush and against gay marriages. Are Democrats more homophobic than Republicans? Review the numbers and you tell me.
Below are the MARGIN of votes (not total votes) that were for Bush and against gay marriages.
(EV) STATE - BUSH MARGIN / AGAINST GM MARGIN
(6) Arkansas - 102,520 (54%) / 497,555 (75%)
(15) Georgia - 544,634 (58%) / 1,588,276 (76%)
(6) Kentucky - 356,642 (60%) / 805,153 (75%)
(17) Michigan - -165,674 (Kerry 51%) / 783,999 (59%)
(6) Mississippi - 225,431 (60%) / 774,673 (86%)
(3) Montana - 92,110 (59%) / 146,129 (67%)
(3) North Dakota - 85,336 (63%) / 141,503 (73%)
(7) Oklahoma - 455,588 (66%) / 727,833 (76%)
(20) Ohio - 136,483 (51%) / 1,237,989 (62%)
(7) Oregon - -67,488 (Kerry 51%) / 236,607 (57%)
(5) Utah - 385,337 (71%) / 275,922 (66%)
47 - Total Electoral Votes for Bush
2,150,919 - Margin of votes for Bush
7,215,639 - Margin of votes against gay marriages
5,064,720 - did not vote for Bush and did vote against gay marriages
When you just consider the first list of "swing states" that include Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin, then just count those states that had a Gay Marriage amendment on their ballots, it comes down to just four states. Arkansas, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon.
Results of the combined margins from the four "swing states" with gay marriage on the ballot
2 - Electoral Votes for Bush
5,841 - Votes for Bush
100,783 - Votes for all independent presidential candidates
2,756,150 - Votes against gay marriage
2,649,526 - didn't vote for Bush or any independent candidate, but did vote against gay marriage
Assuming that everyone that voted for Bush or any of the numerous independent candidates also voted against the amendment, that means a minimum of 2,649,526 either voted for Kerry or did not vote in the Presidential election at all. That is just in the four swing states alone.
With the margin of defeat at over seven million votes against the amendment and Bush's margin of victory was less then one-third of that number in those same states. One can only ask who the other five million plus people cast their vote for president? Looking at the overall numbers of all eleven states that had a gay marriage amendment on their ballots, one could actually say that Kerry/Democratic supporters were more homophobic than Bush/Republican supporters. By a surprising 2 to 1 margin. Just counting the swing states, it was over 453 to 1, not including independents. It would still be over 15 to 1 if you did include the independents. Still assuming that all votes for Bush and the independents were against gay marriages.
Interestingly, the religiously fundamental Mormons in Utah voted 71% in favor of Bush, while only 66% voted against gay marriages. In Montana, 62% of the votes cast concerning medical marijuana were in favor while 67% of the votes cast concerning gay marriage were against it... and Bush won the state of Montana. Compared with Oregon, 58% of the votes cast concerning medical marijuana were NOT in favor while 57% of the votes cast concerning gay marriage were against it... and Kerry won the state of Oregon.
Just another thing that makes one say, Hmmmmmmmmmmm...
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
   
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 10, 2004 03:04 AM
it's those idiot bible thumpers i tell ya ;P
i love it how someone that believes in bible gets stereotyped as an ignorant backwards hick....
yet to me it takes MORE faith to believe that the universe and all the physical laws and the perfect alignment of earth to the sun for life are all random events....
everything fits just so, everything works just right, yet it must have just POOF been there...
those statistics are going to be rather chilling for the supposed majority who are the gay "rights" movement....
the people spoke loudly and with finality. they are tired of judges making the laws. making up crap they go, to appease a vocal special interest group.
well, we'll see how these people respond to the rule of law...
  
|
Zammy
Expert Class
Posts: 411
|
posted November 10, 2004 05:36 AM
I wonder if the democratic party learned anything at all. The FAR left hurt them and will continue to do so in the future. One republican said the other day on a talk show that he hoped Hillary wins the democratic nomination in four years as it would garantee a republican win again.
|
Ra12r
Zone Head
Posts: 919
|
posted November 10, 2004 12:16 PM
Slug, I agree with you completely.
Redelk, {quote}Are Democrats more homophobic than Republicans? Review the numbers and you tell me. {quote}
Well here is what I have to say to you. It is sad to see that a vote concerning a clear definition of marriage, "given to the people to decide", is percieved by you (actually spun) to be homophobic. The majority of people, as we all knew, is NOT in support of deviant physical behavior being imposed as normal. A select few in power positions can do more damage in a short period of time than most can believe. The masses are getting tired of these acts by a few! I for one am glad to have been able to vote on the issue and the PEOPLE have spoken. Bush is our president and marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. This is not a political party issue! Never was and never will be. This is a MORAL STANDARD ISSUE which must exist to ensure the emotional WELLNESS of our people as a whole. It is the twisting of the issues that seems to always be the method of the deviant few to try to make the unnatural be percieved as natural. I am now seeing that this physically deviant group is already trying not to honor and respect the popular vote. Are they Heterophobic? You tell me.
____________
All must bow to the "Ra Supremecy"...
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted November 10, 2004 04:25 PM
Edited By: redelk on 10 Nov 2004 18:15
Even I do not embrace the homophobic spin that I put on the post. My point was simple that for those that claim Bush won due to "ignorant southern bible thumpers" is just as insulting and ignorant as saying that Democrats hate gays more than 2-1 over Republicans. Neither comment can be legitimized with statistical fact. It can be implied, but not proven. Many forget that even California passed Proposition 22 - which calls for a ban on recognizing such marriages by 61%-39% back in '00.
One aspect that is so easily overlooked by the media is who some of these five million non-Bush voters might be. Gay rights organizations have been very effective in alienating a large segment of both the African-American and Jewish voting blocks. The majority of both groups have historically voted for Democrats and Democratic causes. That is understandable and it is equally understandable that the non-gay African-American and Jewish voters would be and are offended by the gay activists. Not because of their personal views towards homosexuality, but because many leaders of gay rights groups have compared their "prosecution" to that of the Jews by Nazi Germany and their fight for "rights" equal to that of what African-American experienced in the 60's (and even today). Even I find such comparisons of "gay rights" to the Holocaust or Jim Crow laws to be offensive. Not to mention the fact that I am not gay, Jewish or black.
Some east coast journalists have gone as far as to suggest that they send foreign correspondents to cover the south and midwest, since their reporters can not make sense out of our perceived ignorant, God fearin' and backwoods nature. The amazing part is I'm not so sure that the "ignorance" actually falls upon those that live in "red states". Maybe if these confused reporters did a "drive-thru" instead of a "fly over" as the travel from on coast to the other, they might comprehend that the differences that they claim exists between themselves and the "great unwashed" are not as vast as they believe. Then again, maybe such a chasm does exist.
I know there is one when I read this reference to those that voted for Bush from the editors of The Daily Mirror in the UK...
The self-righteous, gun-totin', military lovin', sister marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' red-necks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land "free and strong".
My, my... and the say the "right wing religious wackos" are prejudice and insensitive.
A liberal friend of mine shared his views of this election via an e-mail and he closed it with this reference to our current President and Republican lead House and Senate...
Lassen Sie den Kristallnacht beginnen!
Now for those of you that are not fluent in German, it translates into Let the Crystal Night Begin!. Some have claimed it really translates to Let the Night of Broken Glass Begin!, but this is not true. Even though it was the definition given to me by my liberal friend. Interestingly, it was also known as Reichskristallnacht which translates into the Empire's Sparkling Night. Today, most Germans refer to it for what it really was... Pogromnacht, which is a massive acts of violence, either spontaneous or premeditated, usually against Jews or other ethnic minorities. So, is his reference becoming clearer?
He is basically comparing our country's future to that of an event that happened in German that started on 9 November 1938 and continued into the following day. This pogrom damaged, and in many cases destroyed, about 1574 synagogues (constituting nearly all Germany had), many Jewish cemeteries, more than 7,000 Jewish shops, and 29 department stores. More than 30,000 Jews were arrested and taken to concentration camps and a few were even beaten to death with others forced to watch. The number of Jewish Germans killed is estimated from 36 to about 200 over two days of rioting. Again, I am not Jewish, but how can I not take offense to a comparison of Bush's victory and the " Night of Broken Glass". Hardly a "unifying" comment to encourage those of a differing opinion to put partisanship aside and work together for common goals.
I had grown weary of the spin, bullshit and outright lies that were being spewed by the mouthpieces on all sides long before Nov. 2nd. I had hoped that since that day has now passed, we all would realize that the great people of these United States had actually gave only one "mandate". That mandate should be equally clear to both sides. Get your shit together and work on what is really important or you will be unemployed!. Just ask the senior Senate Thomas A. Daschle. The state of South Dakota was willing to throw away years of seniority and benefits for their state for now the freshman Senator John Thune. Calling me a ignorant religious zealot (I don't even go to church) and a minority hating Nazi is not usually the best way to enlist my cooperation on anything. As a matter of fact, if they don't want to work with "right wing wackos"... just say so. That way when they come up for reelection next time, we can either get rid of those that just want to sit there and bitch. Right or left. I would personally prefer a "split" (a President of one party and a Congress lead by the other). It worked for Clinton and Reagan. That view might be debatable (from both sides), but most have to admit, there was some degree of "cooperation" going on or neither one of them would have the "great legacy" their respective faithful cling to. Of course, others would just refer to such an arrangement as "gridlock". Go figure.
Ra12r - you are so correct. The gay marriage amendment had nothing to do with either political party or even "politics" itself. After all, Democrats, Republicans and Independents all voted against the measure.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 10, 2004 06:51 PM
an interesting comment by neal boortz
quote:
AND YOU THINK GAYS ARE A THREAT TO THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE
Socialite tramp Nikki Hilton got married in August. Now she's not married. How long did that last? Four months? And you think two gay Americans who love each other and who want to live together in a legally recognized relationship present a grave threat to the institution of marriage? Look to Hollywood and our celebrity culture. There's your threat.
the pure libertarian side of me wants to agree 100%, let them do whatever.
but the moral side disagrees, because if i vote to legitimize an act that goes against my personal beliefs does that make me a hypocrite?
in short form yes...
hence the dilemma with the two sides of the issue....
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted November 10, 2004 11:16 PM
slug, i don't think so. you would be a hypocrite if you believed homosexuality was wrong but partook in gay acts yourself. you're just not imposing your personal beliefs on others is how i'd read it.
regarding the issue itself, everyone seems to forget one of the oft mentioned takes on the subject, which happens to be mine also, which is that gay rights are should be applied same as other anti-discrimination laws, and gays should be free to do what they want and have spousal rights like those that govern inheritance etc, but MARRAIGE is not an institution that includes gay couples by definition. i got no problem with legalizing so called "civil unions", but "marriage" i feel should retail its traditional definition.
i also tend to agree (at least partially) with your quote. i think the 50% divorce rate, and what seems to be a much higher % in the media (cause why woudl be publisize those that last?) is about as destructive to marraige as legalizing gay marraiges would be. still, i'm a bit torn myself, between wanting to keep"family values" intact and wondering whether i have any business forcing that desire on anyone else. if the future saw the vast majority of the public be gay, should i accept my heterosexuality becoming outlawed? i sure as hell don't think so. as usual, no easy answer.
|
VincentHill
Needs a life
Posts: 6520
|
posted November 11, 2004 10:05 AM
I have mixed emotions about this subject since there are a few in my family. Personally I do not care for them but I think it is not a Life Style choice but part of their Genes. Which makes me thing that there is nothing that can be done about it. Everyone knows 2 things about life, that Abortion is not anything that anyone really wants to do but is just a less horrible option (Like a Catholic friend of mine said the Pope cannot have it both ways No anti conception and no Abortion. To me, the Rubber or Pill is a lot better choice. On the Gay thing, They were after the Angles in Lotts House in the Bible and so this has been going on forever. I think this is a States Right issue something the Republicans were always for during the time of Civil Rights!
____________
Made History @ Daytona and still one fast old man!!
|
Otis
Needs a job
Captain Kickstand
Posts: 3028
|
posted November 12, 2004 04:05 AM
I don't care what Gay peple do either, give them civil benefits if they want, equal protection and all. Have a ceremony and all that too, just do not call it marraige. Period. Call it whatever you like just not marraige.
|
Ozzy
Needs a job
need guberment cheese
Posts: 3172
|
posted November 12, 2004 06:33 AM
If you want to do some research Red, research how many Democrats and how many Republicans were f&*%ing their male congressional aides some years ago.
People forget history to quickly!
|
ridgeracer
Pro
Posts: 1309
|
posted November 12, 2004 07:17 AM
I don't buy your argument redelk. Just because you set up a statistically flawed straw man and then knock it down doesn't mean there is no valid statistical evidence for why people voted for Bush.
Your main point seems to be that you don't like being criticized by the liberals. I think most liberals have a live and let live attitude. However, and I'll try to say this as nice as possible, if my son gets drafted and sent to Iraq because you all were gullible enough to believe everything the Bushies say and were so easily manipulated by a non-issue like gay marriage then I will hold each and everyone of you responsible, and so will the rest of the world.
Polls have shown that more than 80% of bush supporters couldn't accurately describe Bush's foreign policy. 66% thought he supported the international criminal court (ICC), after he said he didn't in the debates it dropped to 53%. (He not only does not support it he signed something called the Hague Invasion Act threatening military action against the war crimes court.)
They not only believe that WMDs were found but some even believe they were used against our troops. A majority think he supports Kyoto, labor and environment language in trade agreements, and banning land mines.
Its one thing to support a candidate who you believe in, its quite another to support one who's policies you don't even support but are too ignorant to know it.
I don't think Ignorant is too harsh a word here. And of course they represent a minority of Bush supporters but their numbers are more than enough to have changed the outcome of the election.
And then there is Terrorism. All these people in the Midwest saying terrorism was the most important issue. I've heard people on this board state they had problems with bush but the war on terror trumped all that. My question is why did all those people in New York City who lost friends and family and still flinch at the sound of jets in the sky vote against Bush? New York, D.C., L.A. Seattle all prime targets, all on the front lines of domestic terrorism voted overwhelmingly against Bush. If they think bush is doing a lousy job why don't you?
Back in 1999, a mile from my house, an Arab terroist with a bomb in his trunk was intercepted by customs agents. One of these agents is a guy who used to teach across the hall from me. I've had terrorists in my little town, have you? I take this seriously and I seriously think bush is doing a lousy job.
So yeah, many of the 56 million people who voted against bush are ticked off at those of you who voted for bush out of ignorance because we will all have to suffer the consequences together.
|
Y2KZX12R
Needs a job
CompetitionCNC.com
Posts: 3762
|
posted November 12, 2004 12:32 PM
The liberals just dont get it. They cant accept that people dont want a socialist government. They keep trying to push thier agenda and it keeps getting voted down.
Its gotta be this... Its gotta be that...
Bring on Hillary Clinton. They just dont get it.
____________
Y2KZX12R
CompetitionCNC.com
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 12, 2004 02:59 PM
i'd also like to know where you got the stats saying 66% of all blah blah blah...
because i gaurantee you the same could be said for XX% of kerry voters, who voted a straight party line (like many RNC voters) and din't care or know who or what they were truly voting for
it's funny that many people refuse to see the negative aspects of the people they vote for.
in this election it was amazing.
i NEVER ONCE heard a SINGLE Kerry supporter give a BIT of a plan that Kerry had that was better/different than Bush on terrorism. not once. why? because if you go to HIS OWN WEBSITE his "plan" essentially matched the current administration's plan. the wording was different, but the "plan" was a match
the same went for just about everyother issue there. the wording, and the "how" might differ slightly, but the essentials were the same....
However on several issues Bush was superior to Kerry. The biggest was the impression that Kerry would waffle on iraq, on the war against terrorism, the impression that Kerry gave that he would only perform foreign policy *if* we passed some sort of "Global Test" (as in... France & Germany had to agree to our plans before Kerry would engage any resources)
NOTHING was said that was different. the ONLY thing ever said by kerry was that he had a plan.
he was going to "improve our alliances" yet the very countries that he claimed we should have had before going in? made it ABUNDANTLY clear that they wer enot going to change their stance, regardless of who was elected. Kerry's OWN CAMPAIGN even admited that.
i don't understand though, 59 million people voted for Bush, and in your eyes they are all ignorant....
i love it.
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted November 12, 2004 07:39 PM
Edited By: redelk on 12 Nov 2004 19:45
quote:
I don't buy your argument redelk. Just because you set up a statistically flawed straw man...
Nice try RR. The numbers are not only valid, but they are just the margins, not the totals. Let me make some more straw man numbers for you. In those 11 states....
22,161,839 - voted for Kerry or Bush (no independents counted)
21,691,872 - voted on the Gay Marriage issue
469,967 - voted for a President, but not on the GM issue
12,156,379 - Bush
10,005,460 - Kerry
2,150,919 - margin for Bush
14,280,131 - against GM
7,064492 - for GM
7,215,639 - margin against GM
So, let's say EVERY ONE who voted for Bush also voted against GM. Using the totals instead of the margins, we still come up with 2,123,752 or over 20% of the Kerry voters voted against GM. Quite a base Sen. Kerry has there. But of course, these are just straw man numbers, right? We both know than not every single voter that voted for Bush voted against GM
quote:
Your main point seems to be that you don't like being criticized by the liberals. I think most liberals have a live and let live attitude.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one! For the last 10 day, I have heard nothing but bitter venom from the mouths for the rabid left. I would be interested to see how the left would react if gloating right wing wackos made a fraction of the stereotypical comments about why Kerry lost.
If be criticized means being called an "ignorant bible thumper" or even better yet, a... self-righteous, gun-totin', military lovin', sister marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' red-necks... and having someone invoke the Reichskristallnacht... yeah, I might take a little offense to that. Sorry. I guess I need to grow a thicker skin.
I guess you did not bother to read the opening statement in my second post. Allow me to repeat it so you will not have to bother with scrolling up....
Even I do not embrace the homophobic spin that I put on the post. My point was simple that for those that claim Bush won due to "ignorant southern bible thumpers" is just as insulting and ignorant as saying that Democrats hate gays more than 2-1 over Republicans. Neither comment can be legitimized with statistical fact. It can be implied, but not proven. Many forget that even California passed Proposition 22 - which calls for a ban on recognizing such marriages by 61%-39% back in '00.
quote:
However, and I'll try to say this as nice as possible, if my son gets drafted and sent to Iraq...
Drafted? Is there currently a draft? Man, I am so out of the loop. Oh yeah, a bill to reinstate the draft was introduced during the last session. I forgot. Hmmmmm... who did introduce that bill? Oh, what's his name... Oh yeah, it was Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC) and it house companion bill was introduced by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).
It was defeated in the House 402-2. The two that voted for it were Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA). Even Rangel and Conyers wasn't so stupid as to vote for it. The Senate version never made it IN to committee hearings. While some say that Bush will reinstate the draft, if I remember correctly, only Congress can reinstate the draft.
Current military leaders are against reinstating the draft because they feel that the current force of 1.4 million is sufficient. They also state that because of the high tech nature of today's military, it is better to have long term volunteers, otherwise it would be too expensive to train and then let go draftees.
Seeing as of right now, the only ones talking about it are Democrats (not to mention Kerry's promises of doubling the size of our Special Forces), I wouldn't worry too much about your son getting drafted.
quote:
... because you all were gullible enough to believe everything the Bushies say and were so easily manipulated by a non-issue like gay marriage then I will hold each and everyone of you responsible, and so will the rest of the world.
Please refer to the previous statement. No draft - no holding anyone responsible.
quote:
Polls...
Is it really necessary to invoke polls? If the exit polls were even within double of their claimed margin of error, Kerry would have been President by 8 pm central time.
quote:
...he signed something called the Hague Invasion Act threatening military action against the war crimes court.)
Not a bad idea. How long has Slobodan Milosevic been on trail in The Hague? I'm sure the ICC would like to talk to us about Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not to mention Korea and Viet Nam. Of course, they have been pretty quite about Nanking.
quote:
They not only believe that WMDs were found but some even believe they were used against our troops.
Isn't it kinda sad that our government just now admits that our troops were exposed to toxic agents during the liberation of Kuwait?
quote:
A majority think he supports Kyoto...
Oh REALLY?
quote:
I don't think Ignorant is too harsh a word here.
Me neither. By definition, ignorance is a lack of knowledge and I'm still waiting for Kerry to tell us what he had accomplish in the past 20 years as a US Senator. I did my best to find out, but beside the fact he chaired the Senate Small Business Committee (accomplished a lot there, eh?), that's about it.
quote:
And then there is Terrorism. All these people in the Midwest saying terrorism was the most important issue. I've heard people on this board state they had problems with bush but the war on terror trumped all that. My question is why did all those people in New York City who lost friends and family and still flinch at the sound of jets in the sky vote against Bush? New York, D.C., L.A. Seattle all prime targets, all on the front lines of domestic terrorism voted overwhelmingly against Bush. If they think bush is doing a lousy job why don't you?
That's pretty weak. Staying with statistical data rather than polling data, exactly how many time did a non-democratic party candidate not carry those cities? To say that those cities felt Kerry would make them safer is about as accurate as me saying Dems hate gays more than Republicans. If there were any stronger yellow dog Democratic enclaves in existence, it wouldn't be on this planet.
quote:
So yeah, many of the 56 million people who voted against bush are ticked off at those of you who voted for bush out of ignorance because we will all have to suffer the consequences together.
Okay. You say here that "MANY" vote for Bush because we are ignorant. Earlier, you said And of course they represent a minority of Bush supporters. Geez... and you thought I was confused. At least the Democratic Party platform supports the implementation of the Patriot Act. That's more than I would say for myself.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
ridgeracer
Pro
Posts: 1309
|
posted November 13, 2004 08:22 AM
quote:
we still come up with 2,123,752 or over 20% of the Kerry voters voted against GM.
Isn't the title of this thread ' do dems hate gays MORE than reps"? Not do SOME dems hate gays. In the opening post you use your vodoo math to come up with...
quote:
Kerry/Democratic supporters were more homophobic than Bush/Republican supporters. By a surprising 2 to 1 margin. Just counting the swing states, it was over 453 to 1, not including independents.
Now using acutal totals, you come up with 20% of Kerry supporters voted yes on antiGM.
Yes SOME kerry supporters voted against GM, but MORE Republicans did.
quote:
12,156,379 - Bush
10,005,460 - Kerry
2,150,919 - margin for Bush
14,280,131 - against GM
7,064492 - for GM
7,215,639 - margin against GM
...We both know than not every single voter that voted for Bush voted against GM
Even if 50% of Kerry voters (5,002,730) voted anti GM, then 9,277,401 Bush voters or 76% voted anti GM. For there to be a 2 to 1 margin;
95% Kerry (9,520,087) + 39% Bush (4,760,043) = 14,280,131 anti GM
We both know that 95% of Kerry voters didn't vote against GM. Your 'margin' math assumptions in your first post don't past the laugh test and are therefore 'a straw man'.
quote:
Are Democrats more homophobic than Republicans? Review the numbers and you tell me.
I did. They arn't.
|
ridgeracer
Pro
Posts: 1309
|
posted November 13, 2004 08:33 AM
quote:
quote:So yeah, many of the 56 million people who voted against bush are ticked off at those of you who voted for bush out of ignorance because we will all have to suffer the consequences together.
Okay. You say here that "MANY" vote for Bush because we are ignorant. quote:
No, I said, "...many of the 56 million people who voted against bush..."
quote:
Geez... and you thought I was confused.
I still do 
Oh and BTW I said "IF" my son gets drafted, not when. Also when the army starts calling up Gulf War vets who were discharged 9 years ago can the draft be far behind?
|
ridgeracer
Pro
Posts: 1309
|
posted November 13, 2004 09:02 AM
quote:
If be criticized means being called an "ignorant bible thumper" or even better yet, a... self-righteous, gun-totin', military lovin', sister marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' red-necks... and having someone invoke the Reichskristallnacht... yeah, I might take a little offense to that. Sorry. I guess I need to grow a thicker skin.
Actually the term used in the Leftist Media; (not what you think is the left media like CBS, but the real left media.) is American Taliban.
Personally I don't go in for name calling but many on the left are tired of the right wing noise machine like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter etc. And they think that because you win with it we on the left need to use the same tactics the right uses.
Its just going to get nastier. Expect us to start calling the right on its shit. Everyone knew Bush 41 was doing his personal secretary since he was VP. Yet Clinton gets fucking crucified for adultery. What happened to Newt? Why did he just up and disapear? Speaker of the house one day, Invisible man the next.
Isn't Rush on his THIRD marriage now? And my favorite Bush 43 quote...
quote:
Ten years ago, at the 1988 Republican Convention, Hartford Courant
associate editor David Fink struck up a conversation with George W.
"When you're not talking politics," Fink asked the vice president's
son, "what do you and [your father] talk about?"
"Pussy," George W. replied.
My point is those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or sling mud. The right has been playing nasty since clinton, even accusing Hillary of having Vince Foster killed, and the Dems are getting tired of playing nice. Expect a rapid decline in civil discourse.
|
ridgeracer
Pro
Posts: 1309
|
posted November 13, 2004 09:14 AM
quote:
i'd also like to know where you got the stats saying 66% of all blah blah blah...
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 13, 2004 02:02 PM
ridge: i would have to say that some democrats are MUCH MORE rabid on the mudslinging and hate talk than any republicans/libertarians i have met or seen speak......
democratic underground is a great place to start....
granted i know that DU is a fringe of the ultra-left side, but they are by far the nastiest bunch i have ever seen...
on either side...
but then again all conservatives are like ann coulter and rush right?
and all conservatives are biuble thumpingmorons (if you believe the rhetoric being spouted rightnow)
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted November 14, 2004 01:04 AM
quote:
We both know that 95% of Kerry voters didn't vote against GM.
No matter how you spin it, that is simply statistically and physically impossible. Again, if EVERY Bush voter and EVERY independent voter, I mean EVRY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, voted against gay marriage, you still have TWENTY PERCENT as a MINIMUM, that voted for Kerry AND AGAINST gay marriage. Kerry carried CA by how much? GM lost in CA by how much?
Some might say it is denial, dreaming or just unable to comprehend plain and simple fact. Me, I just think it has become obvious that on this aspect, only one of is confused. I'll give ya a hint.... it ain't me. If you still believe only 5% of the Kerry voters voted against GM, then you you, like the DNC and the party itself, don't have a clue on how it's losing their base.
If Mr. Moore and Ms. Sarandon are the true voice of what is to be thought of as the "mainstream" Democratic Party, get ready for the Senate to have Republican majority. Let the Democrats continue to "not play nice" and again, you'll find a Republican majority (small hint - dems have gotten tired of "playing nice" a loooooong time ago). Let the dems continue to "fight" against the "injustices" that the "right wing" supposedly forces onto the American people the way they have been... and the dems will have become so marginalized, their whinings will barely be audiable.
This election did NOT give GW a mandate. This election gave the Democratic Party a warning. A simple and clear one at that. Quite the partisan back biting and work together towards solutions, or the voters will find a soultion on their own and it won't involve the Democratic Party. The Senator from SD got the message and the Senator from Arkansas (which was thought to be one of the "sure wins" for the Democratic Party) better have gotten it. Her win over a "nobody", after spending close to 100 times the amount of campaign dollars, was hardly a landslide.
The dems might be tired of playing nice, hearing Rush's BS and having an "idiot" that "stole" the 2000 elections as this nation's leader, but the voters are just saying that they are tired of... the Democrats. If the dems continue down the path they are on, the voters will just make their message clearer. How many Senate seats did the dems win this time? How many House seats? How many Governorships? How many local races? Somebody is trying to tell somebody something. For some, the message must not be that clear. The dems need to get off the "polls" and get on "the stick".
If not, your "civil discorse" will be the voters putting more dems in the unemployment line two years from now.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted November 14, 2004 01:50 AM
red, i'm afraid you're making an error somewhere, tho i'm not sure if it's your interpretation of the math, or you're expressing your point incorrectly. by your own calculations, one extreme of the possibilities is 100% of Bush voters against GM and 20% of Kerry voters against GM. How does this suggest a 2 to 1 ration of Kerry to Bush voters against GM? The other extreme is 95% Kerry voters against GM and 39% of Bush voters against GM as ridgerunner wrote. i'm no american and didnt even follow the election closely, but this seems like an unlikely, and definitely NOT proven, set of numbers.
Not saying anything one way or another about anything else included in this thread by anyone, cause it woudl just piss me off. Politics have a way of doing that to me. Just commenting on the logic of the central premise.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 14, 2004 04:17 AM
the logic is thus: GM was voted down by a whole lot more than the number of votes Bush got. a SIGNIFICANT number.
read the list of figures inthe first post. those numbers are MARGINS of victory, not total votes.
bush had 2 million votes MORE than kerry
GM had SEVEN million votes more against than for....
so 5 million voters did NOT vote Bush, but DID vote against GM
following yet?
sooo
in first state shown, 54% of voters voted bush 76% voted against gay marriage
that leaves 22% of voters who said GM was wrong, and did NOT vote for Bush.
breaking it down even further: the independant is worth 1 or 2 percentage points, so of the 44% that voted for Kerry, 20% (or almost HALF of his voter base) voted against GM.
and that assumes that EVERY SINGLE Bush vote was an anti-GM vote. which i could be safe in saying is untrue assumption
is that clear enough?
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted November 14, 2004 07:36 AM
frEEk - one of the tools of PR is polls. In Advertising it surveys. Of course, these are similar if not the same and involve numbers. Like the questions asked themselves, that can be "loaded" to attain a desired results, so can the presentation of the numbers. I proved that very point in mt thread concerning my "letter to state rep" (http://www.bikeland.org/board/viewthread.php?FID=1&TID=2130). In that post, I proved that a local medical university "loaded" thier research study to come up with the "fact" that motorcyclsts were a burden to the state's taxpayers. Statistically, they were not lying. They just were not presenting an accurate picture.
There isn't really any factual error in either calculation, even with around a FIVE MILLION voter difference. Are either number "accurate"? Present in the manner that they were, absolutely. In reality, probably not. If one was able to view every voters' ballot (not ask a small precentage of them as the leave the voting locations), one would find that the number of voters for Kerry and against GM would be under the 7M number. Well under. It would also be above the 2M number.
After being a part of both industries (PR & Advertising) for over a quarter of a century, I have worked on countless polls/surveys and am well aweare of the statistical flaws. They that is why some are presented in numbers while others are presented in precentages. Some use margins, some use totals and some even "cherry pick" (i.e. the swing states stats). Both are extremes and likely impossible to be an accurate.
The 7M would be a very big stretch. It would be putting the worst case spin on the results. Thus the 2-1 margin. Interestingly, the 2M number is putting the very best of spin on the results. Thus the 20% of the Kerry voters being aganist GM. Again, if we viewed every ballot, we'd likely find the number being more than 20%. Not a whole lot more than that, but it can not be denied that at least 20% of the Kerry voters DID vote against GM.
It would be safe to say that many of the Log Cabin Republicans voted for GM. Just as it would be equally safe to say that many African-Americans and Jews voted against it. This is where the DNC must relize that the are losing touch with their long time base and majority. As long as they continue to agressively support far left groups that compare their fight with that of Jim Crow and the Holocaust. That turd won't float in the punch bowl we call the American voters.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
ridgeracer
Pro
Posts: 1309
|
posted November 14, 2004 10:17 AM
Ok so simple yes or no question:
DO DEMS HATE GAYS MORE THAN REPUBLICANS?
(I'll assume you meant do dems hate gays more than reps hate gays, not do dems hate gays more than dems hate reps.)
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 14, 2004 10:53 AM
hehehe
what about gay reps....i bet they are even more hated ;P
counter-question: do republicans hate gays?
can EITHER statement be made?
the answer is that i bet you there are democrats AND republicans who hate homosexuals. and i bet there are democrats and republicans who could care less, just don't smear our faces in it. (ie keep what happens in the bedroom IN the bedroom)
and i bet there are folks on both sides that DO care, but let it be since it's none of their business.
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC