EPTOn September 13 2009 03:05 mcJ wrote:
I had to do this
I had to do this
With clips like this, for every truly stupid answer there's usually quite a few intelligent answers. That doesn't make for good television though.
The US According to the World - Page 3
| Blogs > Musoeun |
|
etch
Canada176 Posts
With clips like this, for every truly stupid answer there's usually quite a few intelligent answers. That doesn't make for good television though. | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.rustylime.com/pictures/2361.jpeg) If you're anywhere in Europe, yellow probably applies to you <3 | ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9110 Posts
On September 12 2009 19:40 disco wrote: ![[image loading]](http://i40.tinypic.com/29mvl3s.jpg%5B/IMG%5D) lol that is awesome | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
boesthius
United States11637 Posts
| ||
|
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
On September 13 2009 02:24 gjg.instinct wrote: The OP map is not accurate it all..if it was then everyone else in the world would be screwed. Most Americans are moderate and that BLUE / RED ideological polarizing map was propaganda for 2000/2004 elections. In reality the whole map would be "purple", with some patches of red in the deep south and some even smaller patches of blue near San Francisco and the New England States. Even most Americans are deeply misinformed about this because that blue/red map was such a strong theme ( but a deceptive one ) during recent presidential elections. The extremists on either end of the political spectrum realized it would help their respective campaigns to polarize the country as much as possible. This is a very good point that rarely comes up. All those red states still have 35-49% democrats, and the blue states have 35-49% republicans. It's not like any state is 100% one way or the other. Also, New England and the deep south are always the examples of polarized regions, but in fact the most heavily democratic state is Hawaii and the largest republican areas are states like Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, and Alaska. The US is quite moderate, but our two party primary system is a huge barrier to any moderate candidate ever being on the ballot for president. | ||
|
FastEddieV
United States614 Posts
I am from purple land and while I attempt to avoid stereotyping people outside California it is difficult. Maybe this is why but I can't be sure. I know the article is long but it is funny and cogent to the topic. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17847 Posts
On September 13 2009 03:45 Railz wrote: + Show Spoiler + If you're anywhere in Europe, yellow probably applies to you <3 Why? | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i31.tinypic.com/2lvy2hj.jpg) | ||
|
Mah Buckit!
Finland474 Posts
| ||
|
Meta
United States6228 Posts
So, once again, I blame religion for the stereotype of my home. | ||
|
Sentenal
United States12398 Posts
On September 12 2009 19:40 disco wrote: That is a very accurate world map. | ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
agreed, i grew up with some rednecks and i still know a few, there are pockets of hicks but not as many as you would think and most ppl just like to hunt and shoot guns at the range that aren't crazy ppl. there are still a lot of democrats in texas it's just that there are more republicans and religious nuts who give us a bad name and have major influence. go to austin and you'll find a hippy fest. | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
HAHAHAH You're KIDDING right? Very few Gun Loving Hicks in Texas? HAHAHAHAHA You don't live here if you honestly believe that. Everyone has a damn gun in Texas... I have 2 myself. That map in the OP is actually rather accurate -.- The only real exception to this is Austin... that's it. | ||
|
aeroH
United States1034 Posts
On September 13 2009 03:45 Railz wrote: If you're anywhere in Europe, yellow probably applies to you <3 i live in new york, and i approve | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 12 2009 19:53 Sadist wrote: I think the map puts the correct portion of michigan in the blue section imo ;d Aha, yeah. That part of the map is actually pretty accurate. | ||
|
Loanshark
China3094 Posts
| ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
On September 13 2009 06:50 Meta wrote: I live in the red, and yeah it's pretty much true. There are pockets of intelligent resistance here and there... but I haven't met many of them, and the religious fucked-up right that gives that stereotype to the area vastly outnumber them. So, once again, I blame religion for the stereotype of my home. And the blue area is one of the most corrupt places on the planet. The Bos-Wash corridor is a nightmarish land filled with arrogant hypocrites. Chicago is also quite corrupt and always has been, from Capone to the Daley's. I've lived in the DC area for most of my life. It's hideous. It's also one of the crime capitals of America, right up next to Pilidelphia and Detroit. And what's funny? DC has repeatedly been caught lying about the murder rates in the past to try to cover up just how bad it is. Foreigners always complain about how arrogant Americans are. Most foreigners have never actually dealt with an American hick; their interractions with Americans have been mostly limited to people from the Bos-Wash corridor and from the Pacific coast. :/ A lot of prominent American map hackers in Starcraft from those areas as well. :/ | ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
On September 13 2009 01:27 Tom Phoenix wrote: Personally, I am not one to generalise about Americans, since I have encountered Americans of various intelligence and wisdom. However, there are certain beliefs in the US that even force me (as well as other Europeans) to raise an eyebrow. For example, a lot of Americans believe that "nationalised health care = socialism". Yet, there are many countries in Europe that have nationalised health care (if not all of them), including a lot of countries that never experienced socialism, and I would hardly be able to call them socialist states. Socialism (in its simplest "ideal") is the control of the economy by the state for furthering the common good. It was originally proposed - as I understand it, but economics isn't my specialty so correct me if I'm wrong - as a method of transition to true communism, which is control of all "means of production" (read: economy) by the community as a whole for the benefit of the whole without need for "the state". So, handing over control of corporations to the government is socialistic. Since some parts of the bailout amount to a government buyout (and therefore control over) companies in the financial industry (and GM), the bailout was a socialistic move. Of course, the same goes for things like Social Security and Medicare, since again government tax money is being used to pay for stuff. Most people don't really realize this, as those programs have been around for a while, so they're American, and America Isn't Socialist! But the healthcare bill (or the most widely read health care draft proposal, to be technical) takes that same approach and extends it to significantly more people, and it's new, so people are actually noticing the socialistic tendencies involved. Europe's nationalized health care is also socialistic by definition - that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing, though. Most people tend to think, "Does it work?" is usually a much more important question than, "What is it?" Similarly, most societies throughout history, including America, have "socialized" their military spending, and justice spending. Of course, the key difference from pure socialism lies in justification - in America and, I think, Europe, government spending is done with the understanding (or at least the rhetorical justification, depending whom you ask) that it's really the people (through their representatives) spending their own money rather than "the state" doing whatever it wants because it's god on earth. Additionally we can still kick our government out of office if it starts doing things we don't like, meaning they don't have final control. The biggest concern of conservatives is the proliferation over the years of un-elected, essentially un-supervised government bodies and agencies that have been given increasing executive authority to regulate stuff. Many of Obama's favored agencies and programs are getting into this territory with his idea of (basically) government-sponsored community work (see: ACORN and Americorps or whatever it's called), and the healthcare bill (or again, the draft) would create yet another committee, unelected, that would be disposing of taxpayer money without answering directly to the public. (Bush was just as guilty of this as Obama, it's just that his thing was national security instead of health-care so he had the neo-cons on his side. To define my terms, neo-cons are the combination of business- and religious-right that favors big government that favors them, rather than the "traditional" conservatives and/or libertarians who favor a smaller Federal government in all areas. Neo-conservatism is probably the biggest "conservative" player in America right now and the usual MO of the Republican party - but essentially their only difference from mainstream liberalism is what they want to spend money on. See FOX news for business-neo-con. Go look at the National Review sometime for probably the biggest proponent of religious-style-neo-con. I can't off-hand think of any big libertarian or traditional conservative news outlet.) Like many other things though, the real question is how do exercise moderation - clearly some government spending is necessary (say, police, we all agree here, right?), we have to have some agencies have to remain more-or-less unelected if we want them to do a competent job (the FBI and FDA come to mind), and in some ways the centralized government probably can be more efficient than scattered individual effort. On the other hand, you can only demand so much in taxes before the economy starts to crumble and you can only have so large a deficit before it starts creating long-term problems, so there's a limit to how much money the government can spend safely, and then there's the question of how much of that money should be spent anyway. The economy tends to do best with tax levels as low as possible, and a better economy tends to mean a better standard of living. But of course there's more than the economy so we need some taxes and... yeah. What's the right amount of taxes and what should it be spent on? | ||
|
Vivi57
United States6599 Posts
Just add a level for norcal in between hick and california and put a few blue splotches in the red and you basically have all of it isn't most of the midwest/south a bunch of bible loving rednecks anyway? | ||
| ||
