We the People Have Spoken

Blogger Liz said...

Wow. Beautiful.

2:06 PM  
Blogger Carter said...

What you need to do is compare that map to a map of population density. You will see that the majority of Bush votes, as is stated according to said map, is heavily located in less populated areas. Our country's future is being decided by people who live in the hicks. Which hurts the country, because it presents a skewed picture of our country. That map makes it look like Bush won over 80 percent of the country when he was only how many votes over Kerry?

I am having all types of problems with my computer, and now my site is being unresponsive. HOwever, I did want to let you know, that I do find you to be a great adversary, and I hold nothing but respect for your views. I think we do hold a lot of similiar tastes, excluding our obvious political differences.

blog ya later.

6:46 PM  
Blogger The G-man said...

Sean what is your fixation with hating us folks who live in rural areas? Remember, Democrats are supposedly the party of tolerance and yet you display such intolerance of those who are different from you!

We won the election fair and square and now you're just displaying your sour grapes.

Why don't you get out of that smoggy city of your's once in a while and visit the "fly over" states. I'm beginninng to think that all that smog is effecting your ability to reason clearly.

9:39 PM  
Blogger 1138 said...

I understand how Carters post sounded but I think I understood the real intent.

Example Big Horn County Montana vs Rhode Island both places I've been.

Big Horn Sq. Miles: 4,995
Rhode Island Sq. Miles: 1,045

Big Horn Voters 2004: 4307
Rhode Island Voters 2004: 415560

Big Horn has roughly 1% of the voters that Rhode Island has but is roughly 500% larger in land area.
Rhode Island is less than 1% the size of the entire state of Montana but has 158,543 more people.

This creates a visual distortion when viewing a map, no matter how the ballots were cast.

The Electoral College is supposed to help balance this out, but a standard map of the states will never illustrate it. I've seen a few maps around that adjust for population and size, I'll hunt for one - when you do see it, the 51% - 48% split falls into perspective and shows that we are divided by our votes more than our borders.

It's not hicks vs city slickers, or the miles between us but I can accept that the more rural segments of our population see less benefit from taxes than do the urban populations and hence see less need for the infrastructure that taxes support. That in my opinion is the real problem with the way taxes are apportioned at the federal and state levels.

11:33 PM  
Blogger The G-man said...

...and that is also why taxes should be levied by the state and not the federal government. What is good for New York is not necessarily what is good for Montana. We see little of the benefits from federal taxes and yet still pay the same portion as someone else. Why should we pay for problems that we do not create?

Unfortunately, Sean's post was what it was and your attempt to excuse it falls short of that goal. He is presenting very much a case of "us" versus "them". Urbanites against rurals. Metrosexuals vs "hicks".

I am fair enough to allow that your party has been handed a very bitter pill. You've seen your candidate for president handilly defeated and your party's leadership in the congress stripped away and replaced by Republicans. I can excuse some amount of "sour grapes" and griping. But this goes too far. In comments on other blogs he's gone so far as to flat out state that he feels "us rurals" are "dumb rednecks". However we all know that there's just as many dumbasses (per capita) in cities as there are in the country.

11:50 PM  
Blogger honestpartisan said...

You're wrong on a factua; basis about the distribution of federal spending. New York City, Chicago, and urban areas in general send far more money to the federal government then we get back in receipts and rural areas get back much more than they pay out in taxes.

5:32 PM  
Blogger honestpartisan said...

Oh, and one other question. If you believe in states' rights as you say that you do, do you then disagree with Republican proposals to inject the federal government into areas that have always been the province of states, like tort law and the defiinition of marriage? How about the law banning so-called "partial-birth" abortions? What is the basis for the federal government to have a say on that?

5:43 PM  
Blogger The G-man said...

I can't help but notice that despite your claim that I'm wrong, you've not brought any proof to the contrary.

5:55 PM  
Blogger The G-man said...

First off, on gay marriage: I could give a rat's ass one-way or the other. Really doesn't concern me. Some folks however are not like me and care deeply about the issue.

Next, Partial Birth Abortions: I am against all abortions except as required by medical necessity and rape. Certain things we do in life have consequences. If one is not prepared to deal with the consequences you should engage in the behavior. No if's and's or but's. Just because mom's a skank that can't keep her legs closed, does not mean that the baby should be murdered. It was after all not the baby's misstep.

Lastly, I'm not certain what you are trying to get at with tort law. I will say this. Lawyers by and large are a blight on the land. They live on the misfortunes of others. Don't get me wrong, I've met a few good ones who were in the profession to help others, but I've met far more who are in it just to get rich. It is in their interest to see a judgment levied in excess of what's fair, simply so they get a larger cut. Their greed costs all of us a lot! Look at all the stupid warnings that have to adorn every product that we buy. That means that a company needs to hire a lawyer just to put a box around their product! The proceeds from a court case are supposed to go to ameliorate the suffering of the wronged, not to fatten some attorney's wallet!

I find it interesting that you Democrats, who are supposedly the party of the poor, have a problem with going after ambulance chasers.

6:10 PM  
Blogger honestpartisan said...

First, as far as some authority on the question of relative tax burdens, this link to the Tax Foundation ( http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html ) shows that rural states (the red states, mostly) receive more in tax revenue from the federal government relative to their contributions than the urbanized states, most of the states who voted for Kerry.

Second, you missed my point about tort law, gay marriage, and partial-birth abortion. I was not asking about your views about those issues on the merits. I was wondering how you felt about the Republicans, ostensibly the party of states' rights, which you seem to endorse, trying to federalize these issues. Under what provision of the Constitution is Congress authorize to ban partial-birth abortion? Why should Congress make laws about torts and marriage, traditionally state issues?

3:12 PM  


<< Home

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com