You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Post Neoconservatism
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
Quote from dddooo:
Death rates from motor vehicle accidents are 75% higher in Red than in Blue States (1.9 vs 1.1 deaths per 100 million miles traveled). Occupational fatalities were 7.9 per 100,000 workers in Red states and one-half that (3.8) in Blue states. Workers are more than twice as likely to die on the job in Red states as in Blue states. Red states had an average of 23.9% tobacco smokers whereas Blue states had 20.5%. Infant mortality rates are 57% higher in Red state than in Blue states (8.3 deaths per 1,000 live births in Red states vs 5.3 in Blue states). You are safer and healthier in a Blue state than in a Red state.
In education, the high school graduation rate (percent of incoming ninth graders graduating) averaged 61.3% in our Red states and 73.4% in our Blue states. Blue states had a 12.1% advantage. Child poverty was more prevalent in Red states, with an average of 19.6% compared to an average of 14.1% in Blue States.
Violent crimes (offenses per 100,000 population) has scattered data but the average for Red states is 499 vs 357 in Blue states.
http://www.my-oped.com/stories/storyReader
Jeez, I can't believe I have sunken so low to have to respond to this garbage. Dddooo, I know we have discussed this before, but there is no such thing as a red or blue state. In 1984, Reagan carried 49 out of the 50 states. That made the entire country Red no? And William Jefferson Clinton I believe carried 45 of the 50 states in the 1996. That made 90% of the country blue no? In 2008, it's very possible that John McCain will carry 47 to 49 states making the entire country red again. What the hell is the point to this childish exercise except demonstrating your shortcomings of a byproduct of our lousy public school system?
Actually you do have a point, Bush's job approval rating is below 50% in 43 states, including his native Texas:Quote from Maverick74:
Jbut there is no such thing as a red or blue state.
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateBushApproval060216Net.htm
Mav, why is there a need to call his comments "childish?"
Are you really playing adult here?
I thought you were above unprovoked flaming.....
Are you really playing adult here?
I thought you were above unprovoked flaming.....
Quote from Maverick74:
Jeez, I can't believe I have sunken so low to have to respond to this garbage. Dddooo, I know we have discussed this before, but there is no such thing as a red or blue state. In 1984, Reagan carried 49 out of the 50 states. That made the entire country Red no? And William Jefferson Clinton I believe carried 45 of the 50 states in the 1996. That made 90% of the country blue no? In 2008, it's very possible that John McCain will carry 47 to 49 states making the entire country red again. What the hell is the point to this childish exercise except demonstrating your shortcomings of a byproduct of our lousy public school system?
Quote from dddooo:
Actually you do have a point, Bush's job approval rating is below 50% in 43 states, including his native Texas:
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateBushApproval060216Net.htm
So why then do you keep going with this BS charade about blue and red states? We live in a purple country with different shades of blue and red and they change every election year. I swear to God, of all the arguments I hear from the left, this state color bs really takes the cake. Stop drinking the Kool Aid!
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Mav, why is there a need to call his comments "childish?"
Are you really playing adult here?
I thought you were above unprovoked flaming.....
Why is me calling his comments childish flaming? I really don't think it is. Any comment that leans on color coding in my opinion is pretty childish. There are plenty of smart people on this forum that should be able to make a comment without getting out a map and filling in the state colors with red and blue crayons. Yeah, I believe it's childish, not flaming.
Yes Mav, it is flaming and unnecessary ad hominem.
You know that.....
If your position is "smarter" there is no need to call his position "childish."
You know that too.....
I only bring this up because you have claimed in the chat room that you don't flame unless provoked....or something to that effect.
You know that.....
If your position is "smarter" there is no need to call his position "childish."
You know that too.....
I only bring this up because you have claimed in the chat room that you don't flame unless provoked....or something to that effect.
Quote from Maverick74:
Why is me calling his comments childish flaming? I really don't think it is. Any comment that leans on color coding in my opinion is pretty childish. There are plenty of smart people on this forum that should be able to make a comment without getting out a map and filling in the state colors with red and blue crayons. Yeah, I believe it's childish, not flaming.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Yes Mav, it is flaming and unnecessary ad hominem.
You know that.....
If your position is "smarter" there is no need to call his position "childish."
You know that too.....
I only bring this up because you have claimed in the chat room that you don't flame unless provoked....
I still don't understand how a guy whose primary argument centers around color coding is not childish? Isn't this how we use to make arguments in Kindergarden? I stand by what I said, his comments were childish. Dddooo is smarter then that and he is capable of articulating himself better then having to revert to I'm Blue and you're red. Like John Stossel says, give me a break!