(except for Colorado and New Mexico, the lefties are seeing more UFOs)
Actually, I don't think either map lines up one way or the other, with ufo sightings.edwardmurphy wrote:It's actually far more amusing to use a map that shows voting records by county. You get a much more detailed picture, not to mention strong evidence that you've got it backwards.
I couldn't help but notice, when I look closely at the first map, the entire outline of the US, is red. Does that mean that it's showing that all the illegals at the border are conservative? I thought Obama and the dems had the illegals voting for them?Philip wrote:Politically left thinking, does it breed other delusions?
OK, here's your traditional map of U.S. areas that vote far more liberal (those in blue), as opposed to the ones much more conservative (red):
Draw your own conclusions!
Yes, it COULD be mere coincidence.
RickD wrote:Actually, I don't think either map lines up one way or the other, with ufo sightings.edwardmurphy wrote:It's actually far more amusing to use a map that shows voting records by county. You get a much more detailed picture, not to mention strong evidence that you've got it backwards.
But, there are 3 states where every county in the state is blue. Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts. And Massachusetts is also the most Catholic state in the union.
What's the correlation between being the most Catholic, and arguably, the most liberal?
****edit
Oops. Forgot about Little Rhody. She's all blue too.
I would argue that a liberal Catholic, is the real heretic. At least in regards to what is accepted by the Catholic Church.HappyFlappyEnabler wrote:RickD wrote:Actually, I don't think either map lines up one way or the other, with ufo sightings.edwardmurphy wrote:It's actually far more amusing to use a map that shows voting records by county. You get a much more detailed picture, not to mention strong evidence that you've got it backwards.
But, there are 3 states where every county in the state is blue. Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts. And Massachusetts is also the most Catholic state in the union.
What's the correlation between being the most Catholic, and arguably, the most liberal?
****edit
Oops. Forgot about Little Rhody. She's all blue too.
'Catholics' have a high rate of identifying as such but not actually practicing... Also, even practicing catholics -minus the latin mass parishes- are generally more liberal than their heretic brethren.
I'm still curious how they elected a mormon though
RickD wrote:I would argue that a liberal Catholic, is the real heretic. At least in regards to what is accepted by the Catholic Church.HappyFlappyEnabler wrote:RickD wrote:Actually, I don't think either map lines up one way or the other, with ufo sightings.edwardmurphy wrote:It's actually far more amusing to use a map that shows voting records by county. You get a much more detailed picture, not to mention strong evidence that you've got it backwards.
But, there are 3 states where every county in the state is blue. Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts. And Massachusetts is also the most Catholic state in the union.
What's the correlation between being the most Catholic, and arguably, the most liberal?
****edit
Oops. Forgot about Little Rhody. She's all blue too.
'Catholics' have a high rate of identifying as such but not actually practicing... Also, even practicing catholics -minus the latin mass parishes- are generally more liberal than their heretic brethren.
I'm still curious how they elected a mormon though
Socialism cannot sustain itselfHappyFlappyEnabler wrote:....It would depend on wether you categorize a "liberal catholic" to entail both social and economic policy. I'm probably semi-economically liberal and socially semi-conservative. And i'll be damned if I'm going to be called a heretic by Rick The Heretic.
Liberal economics fit pretty nicely into church theology; see: jesuit social justice.
Amazing how those of the left want everything done for them...edwardmurphy wrote:Define "socialism."
-Merriam Webster Dictionary
socialism
noun so·cial·ism \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
...a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
edwardmurphy wrote:I know what the word means, B.W. I was asking because, based on our previous discussions, you seem to have your own personal dictionary. Since you're opting to go with a mainstream definition can you now explain how you can apply that word to the mainstream Democratic Party with, I assume, a straight face?
edwardmurphy wrote:First off, it's the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. Don't be childish.
Regarding big government, last I looked the government has gotten bigger under every administration, regardless of party, for years. Last time there was a Republican in office he put us in two wars, neither of which was in the budget, and created the massively gigantic Department of Homeland Security. And Bush started his presidency in peacetime, with a strong economy and a balanced budget, courtesy of the Democrat who preceded him. Small government and fiscal responsibility are meaningless Republican talking points. The illusion falls apart with a cursory glance at the facts.
As far as Democratic policies favoring a free market, sure they do. There's a lot of space between a laissez faire approach and actual socialism, although that subtlety seems to be lost on you. Regulation is good. Busting monopolies, punishing collusion, and protecting consumers from shady practices are all good things. Testing drugs before they get to the consumer, making sure food is labeled truthfully, and ensuring that products are safe and reliable are good things, too. Granted, the system is pretty well broken, thanks to greedy scumbags on both sides of the aisle, but it was good back when it worked and it would be good again if we got it fixed. Again, I expect that I lost you here as well.
Saul Alinsky? Cloward-Piven? They made some valid points about poverty, although their methods were sometimes questionable. I haven't heard much about them in 30 years, apart from occasional crazy, paranoid rants from buffoons like Glen Beck. I was talking about the contemporary Democratic Party. You know, Hillary Clinton? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? The not-remotely-socialist darlings of Wall Street? If we're going to talk about radical populists who recognized the wrongness of crushing poverty and enormous inequality you should really include Jesus. He wasn't a socialist or a capitalist, neither of those concepts having been invented in his lifetime, but his ideas lined up a lot more closely with the former than the latter.
Regarding Obama talking about fundamentally transforming America, so what? Show me where he said he wanted to make America socialist. Better yet, show me any evidence whatsoever that the US has become, in any way, a socialist nation under his administration. You get way too concerned about soundbites. In reality Wall Street is booming, corporate profits are through the roof, the wealth gap has widened, organized labor continues to weaken, and the banks still get to do whatever they want with near complete impunity. Long story short, reality doesn't line up at all with the Merriam-Webster definition of "socialism."
