People talking of splitting USA (red-blue map)

[Unintentional]

People talking of splitting USA (red-blue map)

Originally posted by Elea@Nov 5 2004, 08:08 AM

I've seen this floating around since the elections....
It may be a joke, but it translates much of what many americans are thinking...the rest is to witness.

​

One point that picture makes clear is that the critics of Bush supporters will not get anywhere whatsoever calling them "stupid" or "dumb". Many admittedly voted for Bush because of their values. If you call them "stupid" or "dumb" you are calling their values "stupid" or "dumb".

Which is more stupid and dumb? Having no values or having values? I know the very definition of post modernism is that their is no absolute wrong or right, but to people with stong moral values, that sounds the most stupid of all.

To many, abortion is wrong. Gay marriage is wrong. Fighting for the other side while still a commisioned officer and then claiming you are a war hero is wrong. Legislating robbery of the rich to give to the poor (who are most likely poor because of behaivior that people in "Jesus Land" do not agree with) is wrong. Their are many many other examples. I personally do not think all those things are wrong, but I do feel that some of them are. The more the left piles on and on for causes that have no absolute right or wrong, the less votes they will get in "Jesus Land".

 

[August]

People talking of splitting USA (red-blue map)

Cornelia,

I have been thinking about who, as the story goes, Titor would be. Retro or Metro? Rep or Dem? It has been occupying my thoughts much.

But a couple of nights ago I spoke with someone who had never heard of Titor (and I did not bring it up), she had some good insight, and I now think I have a good idea of the "sides" in his imaginary story.

Actually, I think Titor's family was Blue/Dems/Metro. And here is why:

Forget about the red states. County by county they voted for Bush. We mostly are talking about vast expanses of land sparsely populated. I am not going to pretend I know why the red states are red, what reasons brought them to vote for Bush. But I do know blue states very well and what the thinking is like up here.

The division everyone is talking about is missing the mark. It is not red vs blue on a state vs state level. It is the division within the blue states. An internal red vs blue conflict if you will. As an example a town in VT voted 706 to 334 Kerry over Bush; depending on local politics and distribution of power, well...

A city is the worst place to be in this imaginary conflict. It is easy to cut off supplies to a city or suburb. And we now have a volunteer army that is practiced in urban fighting.

If all the "true blue" people within the blue states i.e. blue county, blue voter started to disappear or have their houses regularly searched, then this group would need to get out to the "country" but the country here is not a red state but one of the numerous rural pockets within the blue states. Likewise, Titor's "enemy" being in the "city" does not mean the millions of metropolitan citizens who voted for Kerry, it means the forces who controlled what was easy to control: Marines on Wall Street.

I posit the "true blues" in Titor's fantasy are the new consititutionalists. Boston has more colleges and universities per square foot than any other city in the west. This does something to the entire population associated with such a city. Boston and similar cities means more sensitivity to immigrants, a better read population, a population more about "don't tread on me" than "an eye for an eye" and so on. When the NWO comes knocking on Boston's door, we will see flight, fight, and people who quiver when you mention Revere or Throeau, Lexington or Concord will be on the nightly corporate news.

I posit Titor's conflict takes place in mostly or only the blue states and the target is the "true blue" metropolitan population.

 

[Cornelia]

People talking of splitting USA (red-blue map)

During my endless commuting (well, 10 miles only after all ) on my scooter from home to work and back, I thought a lot of Titor last days.
And I came to your EXACT conclusion! I was almost to email you this because I knew you were captured in an endless worry like "How is it possible I agree with Titor if he's just another gun-rights bushist Libertarian?".
Well, now we got the answer.
And don't forget: Titor said that, while there were a lot of people fleeing from cities, there was another crowd ENTERING the cities in order to find security!
About the map, he didn't mention it as "look at the counties on our side", but "look at the safest counties". He meaned it is quite safer to be in the middle of nowhere than in rioting cities... and also in case of nukes.

(Glad we came to the conclusion Titor was not a Rep... LOL! :lol: )

 

[Elea]

People talking of splitting USA (red-blue map)

Originally posted by Unintentional+Nov 5 2004, 07:58 AM--><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Elea@Nov 5 2004, 08:08 AM

I've seen this floating around since the elections....
It may be a joke, but it translates much of what many americans are thinking...the rest is to witness.

​

One point that picture makes clear is that the critics of Bush supporters will not get anywhere whatsoever calling them "stupid" or "dumb". Many admittedly voted for Bush because of their values. If you call them "stupid" or "dumb" you are calling their values "stupid" or "dumb".

Which is more stupid and dumb? Having no values or having values? I know the very definition of post modernism is that their is no absolute wrong or right, but to people with stong moral values, that sounds the most stupid of all.

To many, abortion is wrong. Gay marriage is wrong. Fighting for the other side while still a commisioned officer and then claiming you are a war hero is wrong. Legislating robbery of the rich to give to the poor (who are most likely poor because of behaivior that people in "Jesus Land" do not agree with) is wrong. Their are many many other examples. I personally do not think all those things are wrong, but I do feel that some of them are. The more the left piles on and on for causes that have no absolute right or wrong, the less votes they will get in "Jesus Land".

[snapback]14184[/snapback]​

[/b][/quote]

I'd like to remind you this should not be a pro-Bush forum, like you obviously are. I'm only highlighting the point John Titor made so please keep on track. I know perfectly well why people voted for Bush.

 

[StarLord]

People talking of splitting USA (red-blue map)

Elea, thanks for posting. However, the tilt light has just lit up and horns are a honking, you are about as mistaken as those folks who thought the world was flat. This place is oh so most definately NOT pro bush. You get another chance at the spinning wheel.

 

[pauli]

People talking of splitting USA (red-blue map)

Elea said:

I'd like to remind you this should not be a pro-Bush forum, like you obviously are. I'm only highlighting the point John Titor made so please keep on track. I know perfectly well why people voted for Bush.

Starlord responded:

Elea, thanks for posting. However, the tilt light has just lit up and horns are a honking, you are about as mistaken as those folks who thought the world was flat. This place is oh so most definately NOT pro bush. You get another chance at the spinning wheel.?

Actually, Starlord, I think she was trying to say something else. She is trying to make the comment that Uni should not be touting a Pro-Bush line. This to my mind is not a kind, nor good thing, to do. As far as I remember, this forum has people of many different political stripes. Each of us has our own opinion and, so far, we have been rather tolerant of each other's positions - even if we don't agree and have serious arguments with one another.

I have to assume, Elea, that you are new enough to the forum that you haven't learned that all of us have a right to be here and share our own thoughts and opinions. This includes you as well. But please do us the courtesy in the future to be respectful enough of a person to either disagree, without telling the person to "buzz off" (no matter how nicely it is said), or ignore that person's posts.

I hope I haven't offended you by saying this. I just think it needed to be said.

Oh, and if I remember correctly, Uni didn't vote for Bush. He said he was more interested in the Libertarian candidate. Correct me, Uni, if I am wrong.

 

[JediStryker]

People talking of splitting USA (red-blue map)

I believe the point being made is that this thread is not political in nature, and that there's no need to tout the political line. However, with the introduction of that graphic, I can understand Uni's decision to respond. In the immortal words of Will Smith "Don't start none, won't be none!".

In any case, please indeed stay on track.

BTW, I supported Bush. So this forum is defintely a mish-mash of political interest, and does not explicitly lean one way or another.

 

[pauli]

People talking of splitting USA (red-blue map)

Oops! Where are my manners....

Elea, welcome to the Forum. ><

 

[Darkwolf]

People talking of splitting USA (red-blue map)

When the NWO comes knocking on Boston's door, we will see flight, fight, and people who quiver when you mention Revere or Throeau, Lexington or Concord will be on the nightly corporate news

With what? Spit wads, or is the Mass legislature working on regulating those too. Its not the true blues alone who are going to do anything. The left vision of a revolution caried out by an emotion charged mob will die in a hail of autocannon fire and gas the second it becomes an actual threat.
The true blues may be on the constitutionalist side, but for anything to work out they are going to need those "gun rights, libertarians" to show them how, and probably provide the bulk of the skill, manpower, and know how.
Lets face it, people from Boston College don't know how to farm, survive in the woods, get their own food, fight, and they sure as heck don't know how to shoot.

The self sufficent folks out in the plains and mountain states for one, already have known for years that something like that was coming. They know how to shoot, and all I've mentioned, plus do things like build rifles, machine guns, and morters in a small town machine shop.
If these people suddenly feel betrayed by their man, thats when this grows legs.
Phil

 

[Judge Bean]

People talking of splitting USA (red-blue map)

Originally posted by August@Nov 5 2004, 02:18 PM
Cornelia,

I have been thinking about who, as the story goes, Titor would be. Retro or Metro? Rep or Dem? It has been occupying my thoughts much.

But a couple of nights ago I spoke with someone who had never heard of Titor (and I did not bring it up), she had some good insight, and I now think I have a good idea of the \"sides\" in his imaginary story.

Actually, I think Titor's family was Blue/Dems/Metro. And here is why:

Forget about the red states. County by county they voted for Bush. We mostly are talking about vast expanses of land sparsely populated. I am not going to pretend I know why the red states are red, what reasons brought them to vote for Bush. But I do know blue states very well and what the thinking is like up here.

The division everyone is talking about is missing the mark. It is not red vs blue on a state vs state level. It is the division within the blue states. An internal red vs blue conflict if you will. As an example a town in VT voted 706 to 334 Kerry over Bush; depending on local politics and distribution of power, well...

A city is the worst place to be in this imaginary conflict. It is easy to cut off supplies to a city or suburb. And we now have a volunteer army that is practiced in urban fighting.

If all the \"true blue\" people within the blue states i.e. blue county, blue voter started to disappear or have their houses regularly searched, then this group would need to get out to the \"country\" but the country here is not a red state but one of the numerous rural pockets within the blue states. Likewise, Titor's \"enemy\" being in the \"city\" does not mean the millions of metropolitan citizens who voted for Kerry, it means the forces who controlled what was easy to control: Marines on Wall Street.

I posit the \"true blues\" in Titor's fantasy are the new consititutionalists. Boston has more colleges and universities per square foot than any other city in the west. This does something to the entire population associated with such a city. Boston and similar cities means more sensitivity to immigrants, a better read population, a population more about \"don't tread on me\" than \"an eye for an eye\" and so on. When the NWO comes knocking on Boston's door, we will see flight, fight, and people who quiver when you mention Revere or Throeau, Lexington or Concord will be on the nightly corporate news.

I posit Titor's conflict takes place in mostly or only the blue states and the target is the \"true blue\" metropolitan population.

​

The "red staters" do not belong to Bush, but to the one they believe embodies "moral values." These "values" are "moral" only insofar as they rail against unorthodox sexual expression-- they excuse lying, theft, and murder by public officials.

If Bush disappoints these virtuous ones, they would put him on a rail and run him out of town, and they would blame Washington D.C. and everyone in it for subverting their way of life.

You can find so many potential enemies of the State...