Pass The Ammo

“I will never vote for anyone that votes God out of school or government. Government just needs to stay out of our God, that’s all.”

And the Republicans are a Godly alternative? Excuse me, but in between the Foley gay sex scandal, the Abramoff scandals, Tom Delay’s little misadventures, Melhman’s coming out of the closet, and giving exclusive multi-billion dollar Iraq contracts to Halliburton (did I miss anything?) I think the idea that the republicans are the “party of family values” or “god’s party” is seriously comprimised. The republican party is selling conservative americans very short at a time when America really needs smart responsible leadership.

“in perspective, republicans generally arn’t parading around down gay street, in not but a thong and a rainbow flag.”

heh, I obliged to point out that despite what you might see on TV or whatever, the dems aren’t either…

most democrats are decent people too, which is why it’s such a disappointment that our leaders are, as a group, a bunch of cads…

The fact that gays are members of the democratic party does not make them representative of the democratic party. in fact, it is pretty dumb to try to identify anyone as a “typical democrat” or republican, because America is place where you get ALL types, and rightly so.

i know you werent literally saying that dems as a group “parade down gay street” etc. but it’s easy for people to get the wrong idea, especially over the internet, where the tone of that sort of thing can be unclear.

Gay pride parade = 97% democrat? (or more likely, an amalgamation of liberal groups)

ok granted - it might not be exactly true, but near enough. but then to say:
therefore, the democrats = homosexual, or the party of homosexuals?

sorry, but nope. Just as the GOP accepts all kinds under its big tent, so the democrats… it is one of the great frustrations and beauties of the American system of government (which I personally have a ton of respect for, as do you, i know) that it requires us to compromise - “i don’t like your views, or lifestyle, but i can accept it.”

Personally, i think the new balance of power (with the dems taking congress) is a good thing, because it means that neither party can dominate, as should be the case when the country is divided nearly 50-50.

Makes sense to me, same way the green party is the weed party

Want another example? A lot of foreigners think of america as a radically divided and very conservative country, and dismiss its politics on these grounds. and one of the images that does the most to promote this idea is the map below, that i’m sure we’ve all seen before:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/statemapredbluelarge.png

Makes sense, dont it? But is it accurate/truthful? This map ignores three major problems:

1) The population of the states shown. Places like tiny rhode island have twice as many voters as considerably larger wyoming. You get the idea… (if you insist, i can explain further)

2) What about “purple” states, where the amount of dems and republicans is nearly even?

3) What about places that vary politically by smaller areas than the state? (e.g. by town or county)

The solution?

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

1) Adjust the size of the states according to their population

2) fade colors from red - purple -blue to show margin of victory (note

3) Split the map up by county to show more nuanced regional differences (if you split by a denomination less than county - e.g. district - the amount of data becomes impractical)

So, which map do you think gives a more accurate perception of American politics?

None taken. As your intro to PTA suggests, I take everything you put up with a grain of salt, and in good humor. But this site isn’t all in jest is it? Sometimes, you ARE being serious, right?

Plus, in this case, the person I was originally responding to was Terry Mcghee, and I’m pretty sure he was being serious, so I took him (a little bit) seriously.

But these things are difficult to tell over the net, so if i took it completely the wrong way, then my bad.

Sorry man, never did, never will.

I dont know if thats crossing the line, of course the government should know if someone poses a threat to the nation. Im not sure how I feel about keeping the records for forty years; I dont think they should keep records on people who have a low score on whatever scale they’re using.

I’m not sure guns are as good a solution to the terrorist panic as just having a bit more confidence in our selves and america as a country. Make no mistake, the terrorists are a scary bunch, but a bunch of lunatics hiding in caves with AK-47s don’t pose a threat to our nation. and as CS points out, “security” or “safety” are an illusion. there are so many other things that are more likely to get you than a bunch of islamic terrorists, i don’t see how anyone can seriously be in constant fear of these loons.

What bothers me is that these “likelyhood of being a terrorist/criminal” scores, which are made by some random supercomputer in a government facility somewhere, are impossible for the public to see, or to argue with. And the fact that these scores might be used to actually determine who gets government contracts, jobs, liscenses for things, etc. instead of the current assessment processes is borderline absurd. “I’m sorry sir, but the computer has decided you MIGHT be a terrorist or criminal, so you can’t have this job.”