Why was it...

from PolMach Forums
Why did people in places like Ohio and Iowa care about things like Terrorism. Abortion and Homosexuality?

It makes no sense to me, because most places that have to actually face these issues were blue states, like my home state New York. I mean seriously, what sort of idiot terrorist would have attacked Ohio, and how many gays live in Iowa... New York has the biggest gay population in the country, and we are the ones in daner of attack not these rednecks in the so-called "heartland" of America. Can anyopne tell me why these people think they know better than the people who have to deal with these issues head-on?
politics
8,118 views 16 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
First off, Ohio didn't vote for Bush because of Terrorism. I think you should get your facts straight first. If you have the wrong assumptions, you are bound to get the wrong conclusion. Ohio top reasons for voting for president is:values and economy. Second, are you telling me the only people in NY can vote for terrorism issue? That is the dumbest idea I have heard today (not meant to attack you personally, just the idea). Using your argument, the only people who should be allowed to vote for war/peace are soliders because they are the one actually in harm's way. More so than you, NYorker. In that case, most solider voted for Bush -- by a much greater marign than the marign in New York votes for Kerry. First, get the facts right, then be logical.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
No I said like people in New York. Most coastal states voted for Kerry, and they are the palces threatened by terrorism mostly. Very few of the Bush states have anything worth attacking, that I can see. Also, some values are good to have, but others are just ridiculous... Also, sorry if this offended anyone in a swing state, but I just don't understand you logic.... btw, if our nation is so united and equal, then how come almost every single major politician is white?
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ha ha ha . Good question on politicans. Well, maybe because there are more white people. There are only 13% blacks (mayeb 15%). I do see about 10% of the politicans are blacks. A better question should be men versus women because you certainly don't see half of the politicans as females.

I understand your argument, but I think you missed mine. You said that coastal people understand terrorism because they have a higher probablity to be attacked which I agree with you. But that should not prevent others to vote or to have a say on it. Otherwise, only soldiers should have a say on war because they have a much much much higher probablitiy to be killed. -- I am using your logic.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
good point, but still do those people know what it's like to think you'll be walkin' down the street and then suddenlt BOOM!!! somebody blows something up across the street. Also, no offence, but all we need to do is invade one more Arab nation, and we have a 21st century crusade on our hands whether we like it or not....
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am unsure if your last reply is about Iraqis suddenly get killed on the street or American GI suddenly get killed on the street. In the case, you are talking about Iraqis. I suppose today Iraqis are killed by sudden event instead of a gradual death. First of, I still like to point out the death caused by oil sanction is 100 times more higher. Second, I rather get shot on the street then starve to death. Why do I say that? Because I could have a normal heathy joyful life versus a slow painful suffering life. I am not saying it is good to be shot at. I am saying it is better.

The choice Bush has to make in 2002 was not between war and peace. It was the following choice: 1) continue the oil sanction, 2) lift the sanction and let Saddam free, or 3) invades Iraq. Forget about our national security question for one second, just for the Iraqis sake. The former two choices are more bloody for them.

By the way, crusade is a horrible event in my opinion, but we may differ for the reason. Crusade was technically a defensive war. If you remember, it was the Turks who invaded the Byzantine, and the Byzantine Emperor got really concerned and wrote a letter to the Roman Pope for help. Of course, then the Pope called for the crusade against Muslium invaders to free the fellow Christians. In short, crusade was a defensive war. It was not an offensive war. So you may ask me why I against it. Well, the crusaders were very barbaric. They killed any Mulsium they capture, versus the Muslium didn't do that to the Christain (at least not to large extend). It is ironic, the invaders (Muslium) was more gentle and humane. Anyway, another reason I hate the crusade is that the western church crusaders were supposively free the Eastern Orthodox from the Turks. The crusaders end up killed the Byzantines people. It was one big mess. From a historical perceptice, we were more like the old Muslium who invade but alot more humane.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blchron_xian_crusades02.htm
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
You can edit my posts? buy it says you're a citizen... Also, I didn't say anything offensive...
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I was not trying to delete your post. I accidently submit the same post twice. Since I cannot delete mine second "duplicated" post. I simply edit it as "delete".
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #2 By: hpelgrift - 11/6/2004 3:27:44 PM
No I said like people in New York. Most coastal states voted for Kerry, and they are the palces threatened by terrorism mostly. Very few of the Bush states have anything worth attacking, that I can see. Also, some values are good to have, but others are just ridiculous... Also, sorry if this offended anyone in a swing state, but I just don't understand you logic.... btw, if our nation is so united and equal, then how come almost every single major politician is white?


First off you better look again if you think the coasts voted for Kerry: Link
There are no black politician for the same reason a 3rd party will never be in the white house again. Lack of funds for campaigning. Also what do you call Barak Obama? And lastly you do not need to "understand" their/my logic.
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
I said ALMOST ALMOST read carefully, plus even though Obama won he is the 3rd African American to be a senator out of 100's of white people.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #11 By: hpelgrift - 11/6/2004 4:34:46 PM
I said ALMOST ALMOST read carefully,


Even almost isn't right look at the eastern seaboard. Actually the map I linked is the incorrect one. The first one linked is a registered voter map. The one I'm linking now is the actual "VOTING" map
Link
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good stuff Dr. Miler. By the way, I think hpelgrift is a little kid because he doesn't seem to know history very well. So don't take it too seriously. .