MonteZuma

Haha. BS.

Bush didn't order the invasion of Iraq to protect Iraqis. There have been many rulers in recent history that have been worse that Hussein.

Rich people vote republican out of self interest.Right wing politics favours capitalists/big business/the rich. I don't think this statistic nullifies anything. I doubt it proves this at all. Intellect obviously affects your political affiliation. You have demonstrated that high income earners often vote Republican, and low income earners often vote Democrat. Most of us knew that. Wealthy kids that go to expensive universities and become CEOs of big companies will continue to vote for tax cuts and a better deal for big businesses. I think it was about much more than that.

Ooh! Nearly missed this: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~montie/vote.jpg Wow...city folk vote Democrat and rural folk vote Republican

Statistically, certain populations do have different levels of education. That is one of the reasons why they are often called 'disadvantaged'. Your own quote singled out Native Americans, Hispanics and Blacks. Rural people are also disadvantaged in terms of access and at!@#$%^&*udes to tertiary education. Every exit poll and every election analyst disagrees with you. Some more raw data for you to analyse: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/res...0/epolls.0.html Can you figure out what this means? Let me help: * You are more likely to vote Democrat (at the last election) if you did not graduate high school *or* if you have a postgraduate degree. * You are more likely to vote Republican if you graduated from high school or a Bachelors degree or are an undergrad. This is starting to explain some of the differences. Obviously if you want to compare the relationship between education and voter behaviour you need to look at more than just high school graduation statistics. I think we both learned something In any case, I think these results coincide with my initial theories about why city/urban/suburban people vote Democrat more often than rural people. On average, graduates do have higher IQs than non-graduates, but you're right. The graduation rate is affected by many things. Education does change your view on the world though though - and therefore can change how you vote. The best indicator of intelligence is the ability to understand and/or solve complex problems. My *opinion* is that republican 'solutions' to complex problems are ill-conceived. Kleenex? BS. You are deluded.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you had any comprehension skills you'd know when I was stating an opinion. As I said, I agree with Recombo, who already made the point that you are trying to make (and he did it in just a few lines ). You are splitting hairs and ignoring the main argument - which is that there is a general difference in the political affiliation of rural folk and the rest (whatever you want to call them). Not every city in the world has a downtown ghetto district filled with poverty-stricken native and african americans and hispanics, so the point you make is meaningless in many US cities and the rest of the world. I lumped urban and suburban in the same category (it is the convention here. There are no ghettos - disadvantaged people live in the suburbs where housing is cheaper). If you want to discuss differences between three community groups (urban, suburban and rural), then I'd refer you back to this statement: I still don't feel like writing an essay' date=' but if I did, I'd probably divide communities into 5 groups: Urban (to make you happy - I like to make people happy [img']http://www.ssforum.net/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img] ) Suburban Peri-urban Rural Regional towns Maybe I'll go into that tomorrow?

I agree with pretty much everything you've said recombo... (which feels kinda wierd ) But....for the sake of discussion, I disagree with this.... Automation is one of the reasons many rural communities are in decline. Farms in the North America and Australasia have some of the lowest numbers of workers per hectare because their farms are highly automated and chemical reliant. There is much less need for farm labour. Machines are cheaper to run than people. Sure some jobs are created to produce and maintain the equipment and supply the chemicals, etc, but this hasn't outweighed the loss of farm workers. In fact I think there has been a decline in employment in this area in the last 30 years. The biggest job growth in the rural sector is in wholesale and retail sales - and most of those jobs are in regional centres and cities. Farmers are being replaced by machines.

I have a few unformed theories on why urban [edit: and suburban] populations are more left wing: * Higher standard of education in urban [edit: and suburban] areas * Diverse populations - exposure to all kinds of minorities (sexual, racial, financial, medical, etc) * More wage earners and less self-employed (as %age) Because of this, I think many people in cities [edit: and suburbs] support the things that left wing politics stands for (equality, social justice, workers rights), and they recognise the role government plays in this. I guess the opposite is true for right wingers. For the most part, rural folk live in a monocultural and intolerant society. Outsiders, including state and federal governments - and city folk, are distrusted. Rural folk therefore support governments that are generally less interventionist and promote 'traditional' values. Obviously there are exceptions. If I felt like witing an essay I'd say something about those too. $0.02

Who is the smartest person on the planet? Anyway.....Why do rural folk support republicans/right wing politics? It seems to be a worldwide phenomenon. Isolation? Self-reliance? Xenophobia? All of the above or something else?

If you want a multi-party system, proportional representation is the way to go... http://www.fairvote.org/pr/q_and_a.htm

If this forum is still here for the next US election or the next big military strike or something similar then it will definitely get out of hand again. For the moment it is all lightness and goodness - which is kinda boring.

I don't think Dav is bashing America. Even Americans realise that they live in the most litigious society in the world. The story was invented in the US and posted on an American website by an American. Dav just linked it for the humour value. Nothing to be offended about that I can see.

Nice.

No. What spin? Which point?

Cute....but huh? Why? Rubbish. The Missouri ordinance was passed by rump legislature, and the Kentucky ordinance was voted on by a small convention of confederate soldiers. They weren't supported by the people of those states. If only it was as simple as that. Anyway. The fact remains that every state that seceded (whether or not you include Missouri or Kentucky) were slave states. Do you get all your facts from tour guides?

A funny story but.... http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blcigar.htm

Nice site.

Maybe. But most of their economic growth was achieved through their own efforts. The US (and the world) would be in strife if Japan and China stopped buying US debt.

I referred to the raw data at heritage.org. You referred to comment. We didn't quote the same source at all. Anyway. What Akai said.

If you really want to understand an issue yourself you should learn the value of raw data and primary sources. As a wise man once said: Also: tax cuts are the last thing the US needs right now.

It didn't? Please, inform me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You should inform yourself rather than rely on others. This is a good starting point: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/...k/fed_spend.pdf Hint: Compare the Reagan and Clinton years.

You're childish. Republican dogma does not equal facts. No it didn't. But they do help buy votes from dumb voters.

I'm not sure about that. I suspect military spending and tax cuts might have more to do with it. When you compare US loans to others against US borrowings from others, the US is still almost $2 Trillion in debt. Half of all US taxes go to repaying debt. Tax cuts are the last thing the US needs. Is it any surprise that the Euro has been outperforming the US dollar?

If the rich actually paid the top tax rate I might agree with you Ducky. But the rich have the means to avoid a lot of tax - a lot more than low and middle income earners can avoid. I doubt that it would be unusual for the super rich to pay less than 10 or 20 cents in the dollar tax by being clever about when and where they invest or spend their income.