Faith Freedom International :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Attention: Year 2009 is here Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.

Bush Bashing
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> World Politics

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Humanist

Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 8520
Location: Kentucky, USA

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 5:57 am Post subject:

CardinalFedra wrote:

Lastly, I would like to point out that in your posts on American demographics, that it seems to be that you are under the impression that America today is only made up of the descendants of the same people that inhabited America during the time of the Civil War and the attitudes of the descendants are the same as their ancestors. Aren't you aware of the massive immigration to America that has occurred in past 140 years? How would you classify the political views of Americans of eastern Europe/mediterrerean immigrant lineage or far east/mid East/southern Asian immigrant descent, or African or Latin American immigrant descent? Some of these people are not even of immigrant descent but are immigrants themselves. And what of the changing of attitudes of different sections of the country? New England used to be quite religious (does the phrase Banned in Boston, ring a bell?) now it is very secular.

I think you are being tad bit simplistic in your analyses.

Since the Civil War the demographics have totally changed. I know very little about their voting patterns. But I do know that my Italian friends tend to be conservative. My Irish friends tend to be liberal. My black friends tend to be liberal. My East European friends tend to be very conservative and bible thumping. I have no Asian friends.

I guarantee that I am being not just a bit simplistic in my analysis but incredibly simplistic because I am not writing a book, I am simply discussing points in a thread. But if there are two areas of the country that I think I know it is New England and the South. The reason I vacation so much in New England is that it is so different from my part of the United States. So I go there to try to understand the differences and enjoy the difference.

I would like to spend a winter in Maine in one of those farmhouses with the attached barn, near some little town with a good bar. Feed and milk the cows, go warm up, eat lunch, and then walk down to the pub and tell lies to all the good folks there. That would be a great time!
_________________
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

Humanist

Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 8520
Location: Kentucky, USA

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 6:16 am Post subject:

CardinalFedra wrote:

Quote:

In fact to first States to consider suceeding was MA, RI, VT, NH, CT and ME at the beginning of the War of 1812.

Oh and about those New England states considering secession. The Hartford Convention, in which the New England considered secession, was held at the tail end of the War of 1812, from Dec 15, 1814 to Jan 4, 1815. The Treaty of Ghent which ended the war, was signed on December 24, 1814, but news travelled slowly in those days. I often find it odd that generations of young American school children are taught, quite erroneously, that the primary cause of the War of 1812 was the British seizure of American ships and British impressment of American sailors. For if that were the case, why were the New England maritime interests so opposed to the war? Besides the French were seizing American ships as well.

The real cause of the war was the western frontiersmens' desire for more land which could only be obtained at the expense of the Indians. The frontiersmen suspected the British of arming and encouraging the Indians. Now the Indians, having no means of producing firearms, did need weapons from the British but I hardly think they needed any encouragement in defence of their land.

So my timing was off about the secession of the New England States. Sorry that I misrepresented that, I was just going from 25 year old memory.

You are correct on the western frontiersmen desire for more land in Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois. You are misinformed on the SUSPECTION of the British arming and encouraging the Indians. The British not only were arming the Indians, but also PAID the Indians to kill Europeans in Western Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois and Ohio. Against the treaty ending the American Revolution, the British continued to keep a fort and garrison at Detroit and several other places in Ohio to harass the Western side of the United States. 67% of the American soldiers killed in the War of 1812 were from Kentucky. Folks in Western Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois and Ohio could not wait to fight the English because of the bounty paid for scalps from the end of the Revolution to the Treaty of Ghent. In fact General Harrison took a good section of Ontario at the wars end and that is probably why the British were so willing to sign the treaty so they would not lose most of Canada.

I feel sorry for the Indians; however, in their quest to kick the Europeans off the continent they keep picking the wrong sides. First the French and then the British, plus during all that time they continued their tribal warfare. The Shawnee not only fought the Europeans in Kentucky, Western Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky but they continued their wars with the Cherokees to the South. It is hard to win a two front war.
_________________
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

CardinalFedra

Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 120

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:10 am Post subject:

Quote:

Well I never had creation science taught to me at my High School or under grad programs. (Post grad were all business.) My children were educated in the South and were never taught creation science. Had my children been taught that I would have been in the School Superintendents office seeking recourse.

I think you said, in another thread that you were in your 50s, the creation science movement didn't get under way until the 1980s so therefore you would have missed it. As for your children, I never said that every school district in the South or Mid West taught creation science, I only said that it is only in the South and Midwest, "The Bible Belt" that one hears of cases of creationism given equal time with evolution. Recent cases in Georgia and Kansas come to mind. And it isn't just creationism, its that whole "the founding fathers were Christians who founded America on Christian principles/America is Christian nation" malarkey. Personally, I always thought that the founding fathers were Deists and FreeMasons, who had a rather skeptical view, if not sometimes down right hostile view, of Christianity.

Quote:

I live in the South. I never go to Church except for funerals of friends and family. I am a registered Democrat. I voted for Bush. It had nothing to do with religion. It had everything to do with National Security and the War on Terror. Jerry Faldwell and Pat Robinson can say all they want about getting Bush elected and I will believe them no more than the sermons they preach on TV all the time.

I am quite aware of your lifestyle and views but the point is these religious nutjobs do have influence on Bush. Unless Bush is planning some sort of volte face (which I would love to see, though I doubt I will).

Quote:

I do know of scores of bible thumping folks who did vote for Kerry, so stereotypes do no good for any argument, but I totally depend on stereotypes to simplify my view of things.

But the overwhelming majority of religious right voted for Bush. Look at any breakdown of the election. As for stereotyping things to simplify one's view of things, that is a rather silly thing to do. Things ain't that simple.

Quote:

If you know so little about voting patterns and changes in voting patterns, how can you make such broad generalities?

crazy canuck

Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 6391

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:14 pm Post subject:

All Kerry supporters and all Us citizens who are tired of bible thumping, creation advocating, one religion, one god country southern crackers. Just yesterday one new country came in to existence. UNITED STATES OF CANADA. this will include, California, Oregon, Washington, whole Canada, those Kerry states of Illinois,Michigan etc in northern mid west states, all north eastern states, all those old US colonies.North Carolina will be perfect boundary. Now with population base, industries, oil , forestery, lots of fresh water, agriculture we can bit the hell out of those rednecks.!!! All those socialistic policies of Govt medicene, gay marriages etc wont be any issue. If you cut electricity in south in summer no one will live in those southen states. No one moved there before air conditioning.

Dan-Cannon

Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3144

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:22 pm Post subject:

crazy canuck wrote:

All those socialistic policies of Govt medicene, gay marriages etc wont be any issue.

You forgot partially implemented Sharia and limits on freedom of speech.
_________________
Islam is anti-infidel, therefor i am anti-Islam. - Dan Cannon.

I am the greatest minority in the world: an individual. - David Gulbraa.

crazy canuck

Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 6391

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:46 pm Post subject:

Dan-Cannon wrote:

crazy canuck wrote:

All those socialistic policies of Govt medicene, gay marriages etc wont be any issue.

You forgot partially implemented Sharia and limits on freedom of speech.

If we all follow Sharia laws then Muslims wont attack us and we will live in peace. All those male citizens of new country will be now entitled to four wives!!! I am tired of screwing my old lady, want some young bunnies!!!

maha_swami

Joined: 23 Oct 2004
Posts: 2770

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 8:32 pm Post subject: Re: Bush Bashing

Yohan wrote:

Aryan wrote:

Could some of you Bush bashers, ----- tell me just why you hate Bush so much?

Because Red Necks love Bush so much.

Why don't you just think of yourself with the racist 'Aryan' nick name and coming from the 'Red Neck' capital, South Carolina? Name me a Red Neck who didn't vote for Bush?

callin' someone a redneck is just as racist as the defined word "Aryan". ironically, aryan is not racist at all.

arya means nobility and intelligence (sanskrit). people in india have been calling themselves "aryans" for nearly 3000 years. so dear yohan!!!
are those indians racists too? especially, they still display their SWASTIKA openly and fearlessly in this whole wide world
_________________
kill kill kill kill (keeeel da infeeedels)
the 1st verse of koran

Humanist

Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 8520
Location: Kentucky, USA

Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:54 am Post subject:

Cyberite wrote:

Humanist wrote:

A great post from our resident bigot, cyberite.

Ah, nice low blow from the ignorant, Southern bigot—bigot against anything that is not American.

One must consider the source. No wonder they gave you the "golden boot" at age 50 and put you out to pasture.

CardinalFedra wrote:

". . .If you know so little about voting patterns and changes in voting patterns, how can you make such broad generalities?

Because that is the MO of the Southern "patriot" bigot, CF. HH has stated over and over again that he is, "Not an expert" in whatever the subject, and that it's, "Only my opinion." Yet, he is convinced that he is correct, without giving ANY supporting documentation. If if you present facts he will disregard them. It's almost Islamic.

Yup, the South is rising again—but, only because of the influx of non-Southerners.

Don't waste your time! This old dog is not about to learn anything new.

Bigot is "A person who is rigidly devoted to his own group, religion, race, or POLITICS and is intolerant of those who differ". I keep my previous post as correct and not as an insult. Your views of George Bush's Administration fits the defination.

Your description of the South is from a Bigoted point of view, also. Your response above is proof.

I am not an expect on most of these stujects and readly admit it. However, my dear Cyberite is an expect on everything. Your IQ is only surpassed by your ego. It is an article of faith that every statement anyone makes will get a negative response from brilliant Cyberite unless it is scripture and verse from you play book.

Plus the documentation you present, such as your "proof" the South is more religious than the North was just a list of membership in churches and actually had nothing to do with where those church members lived.

Quote:

One must consider the source. No wonder they gave you the "golden boot" at age 50 and put you out to pasture.

I was not forced to leave, but chose to leave. In fact I was asked to stay and offered a considerable raise. And I was 53, but they did put me out to pasture in that I got to move to the country and get away from all the big city crap.

Hopefully you will be financially able to choose when you can retire. Some of us stupid old dogs learned enough tricks to retire and do as we choose. While some of the brilliant still work.
_________________
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

CardinalFedra

Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 120

Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:45 am Post subject:

Pardon me for being a buttinsky, but

Quote:

Plus the documentation you present, such as your "proof" the South is more religious than the North was just a list of membership in churches and actually had nothing to do with where those church members lived.

Could you please explain why the "Bible Belt" (a term I believed coined some 80 odd years ago by HL Mencken) is located in the South? It's commonly acknowledged by both Northerners and Southerners that for past 85 years or so that South tends to be more religious than the North. Inspite of this stereotype, a new study was recently released that has both the more secularly minded North and the religiously minded South quite perplexed. It seems that divorce is more common in the South than in the North.

Humanist

Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 8520
Location: Kentucky, USA

Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:30 pm Post subject:

CardinalFedra wrote:

Pardon me for being a buttinsky, but

Quote:

The South probably is more "religious" than the North. But even in the South the majority don't go to church on a regular basis.

I have no idea about divorce in the South versus the North. I am not religious and have been married to the same girl for 38 years. So maybe Southern religious folks are not so religious after all.

If folks in the South want to be religious that is great. I am secular and I never have problems with the Bible belt folks.
_________________
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

yeezevee

Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 17115

Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:36 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Humanist: The South probably is more "religious" than the North. But even in the South the majority don't go to church on a regular basis.

Curious to know your opinion dear Humanist., South is More religious than North., Does it mean North is better than South?? Also , does it mean that the Church going majority are not that good as the people NOT going to Church??

with best regards
yeezevee

Humanist

Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 8520
Location: Kentucky, USA

Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 7:45 pm Post subject:

yeezevee wrote:

Quote:

Humanist: The South probably is more "religious" than the North. But even in the South the majority don't go to church on a regular basis.

I know little about religion in the North versus South because religion is not my interest. The South is more Protestant than the North, I assume.

My family was "Church of England" when we came to the U.S. in the early 18th Century. Virginia was mainly Church of England during the Colonial period. My daughter is the only religious person in my family and she is Episcopal, which is the "Church of England" in the U.S., (basically the same as the Catholic Church without the pope. During the “Great Revival” period in the South and Mid-West (circa 1800-1820) the Baptist and Methodists really made inroads into the “Church of England” and to this day they are the most prominent groups. I was raised Baptist. My mother was Methodist. My dad Episcopal who became Baptist.

The North abandoned slavery long before the South because they did not have the need for slaves. The South was agricultural and the use of slaves for the fieldwork was used extensively. The bible was used to damn slavery and to support it. There are big cultural differences between the North and South. The North and the South have different weather and different ideas, thus the Civil War, which went a long way to establishing a true central government. In my view the war was over “States rights” the folks from the North will tell you it was over “slavery”.

Conversely the North feels it is better and the South feels it is better. This election shows the same old divisions. Below is a link of the election, which totally discredits the split. It is more rural versus cities with some exceptions.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

A picture is worth a thousand words. The red area's are Bush wins by county and the blue are the Kerry counties. Please note the areas in Blue basically are cities. Kerry got the city folks and Bush got the non-city folks with some exceptions.
_________________
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

CardinalFedra

Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 120

Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 10:38 pm Post subject:

Quote:

A picture is worth a thousand words. The red area's are Bush wins by county and the blue are the Kerry counties. Please note the areas in Blue basically are cities. Kerry got the city folks and Bush got the non-city folks with some exceptions.

This is basically what I have been saying all along. Now Al Quaeda wants to try to kill as many Americans as possible. Thus Americans who live in densely populated cities are at a greater risk of terrorist attacks than those who live in sparsely populated rural areas. Yet the city folk voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. Now if Kerry was considered to be such an "appeaser" or "being soft on terrorism" why would city folk vote for him? I can't speak for all big city dwellers, but here in NYC, we are not noted for being soft or being cowardly.

Yohan

Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Posts: 7684
Location: USA

Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 10:49 pm Post subject:

Humanist wrote:

---There are big cultural differences between the North and South. The North and the South have different weather and different ideas, thus the Civil War, which went a long way to establishing a true central government. In my view the war was over “States rights” the folks from the North will tell you it was over “slavery”.

----- This election shows the same old divisions. Below is a link of the election, which totally discredits the split. It is more rural versus cities with some exceptions.---- Kerry got the city folks and Bush got the non-city folks with some exceptions.

In a broad sense one could say that Civil war was about "States rights", but only ONE 'states right' really mattered, the "right" of a state to 'own, buy and sell" the slaves. If there weren't no slavery there would be no Civil war. It is as simple as that! People in the South use the term "States Right" as a pretext to defend their civil war record because they are now too ashamed to have fought so hard to preserve slavery and lost it.

Now onto elections----. As I have pointed out before, this election was about the progressive versus the non-progressive; the civilized versus the rural (simple minded) and the enlightened versus the un-enlightened. That is the main reason one sees 'blues' in where such people live and 'red' in the other areas. The rural mindset (more pervasive in the South than in the North) makes easy prey for illiterate bible touting preachers. It was they who formed the hard core Bush supporters.

Humanist

Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 8520
Location: Kentucky, USA

Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:23 am Post subject:

Yohan wrote:

Humanist wrote:

Oh my! To over simplify the Civil War; all wars that I am familiar with are basically fought over economics or ideology. The American Civil War was certainly not ideological in my view. All of the original colonies of the United States were slave holding, that was just the way the world was at that time. The Civil War would have happened with or without slavery in the South. I hate to disagree with your statement, but the facts are that the American Civil War began long before 1861 and it was started with the “Missouri Compromise” in 1850 (?). It was an economic war because the South had to try to keep similar representation in the House to counter the North’s greater population.

I am not using the “States Rights” position to defend any civil war record I am trying to represent history. You are simply making statements based on little historic understanding. It is always best to over simplify history and simply pass on trying to understand why something happened. The South fought hard to keep slavery because it involved such a high investment for folks living in the South.

Your bigoted statement about rural folks being dumb and city folks being smart is disgusting. You are so brilliant why don’t you invest $2,000,000 in a farm and try to get you money back. Who in hell do you think feeds folks in the City? Those rural folks feed you! Are they “simple minded”? Most of the farmers around me have graduate degrees; however, most folks in the city proper do not. So how are these “simple minded” folks so “unenlightened”? These dumb farmers are the best at what they do in the world. American agriculture is the best, so why do you degrade the best in the world?

Quote:

The rural mindset (more pervasive in the South than in the North) makes easy prey for illiterate bible touting preachers.

You apparently did not look at the map when you made this statement. It did not look a lot more pervasive in the South than in the North to me. After all Kansas, Iowa, Indiana and Ohio are the “North”.

I think you had best look at the difference between rural and city folks instead of dealing with the split between North and South.
_________________
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

Display posts from previous:

	Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> World Politics	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 4 of 6

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum