41% of West Virginians would rather vote for a felon than Obama

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Wolverine18:

Seanchaidh:

Wolverine18:
Obama has a base problem.

In West Virginia.

So Obama doesn't have a base problem.

People keep saying that but its BS. WV was a swing state that voted for Carter and Clinton and who currently has federal represntives that are Dem. The fact that he doesn't have support in a swing state is what makes it a base problem - thats where he should be trying to win.

42.6% for Obama vs 55.6% for McCain was how WV looked last time. Obama did better in Texas, Arizona, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, both Dakotas, and Montana. West Virginia was one of the few places that was more Republican than 2004 in 2008 (the others were Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.) Obama shouldn't be worried about West Virginia.

WouldYouKindly:

Seekster:
Hmm wonder if West Virginia and Virginia can be convinced to kiss and makeup before the election...one less battleground state never hurt anyone.

Oh come on, that is worse than the favorable redistricting with the representatives. If you get Virginia, we get Missouri and half of Arizona. Half Arizona becomes California and Missouri becomes part of Illinois.

I don't think you understand how the electoral college works...you don't get even tradeoffs.

Seekster:

WouldYouKindly:

Seekster:
Hmm wonder if West Virginia and Virginia can be convinced to kiss and makeup before the election...one less battleground state never hurt anyone.

Oh come on, that is worse than the favorable redistricting with the representatives. If you get Virginia, we get Missouri and half of Arizona. Half Arizona becomes California and Missouri becomes part of Illinois.

I don't think you understand how the electoral college works...you don't get even tradeoffs.

Why do people take me seriously when I'm being ridiculous?

I have to remind myself that jokes don't always come across in text.

WouldYouKindly:

Seekster:

WouldYouKindly:

Oh come on, that is worse than the favorable redistricting with the representatives. If you get Virginia, we get Missouri and half of Arizona. Half Arizona becomes California and Missouri becomes part of Illinois.

I don't think you understand how the electoral college works...you don't get even tradeoffs.

Why do people take me seriously when I'm being ridiculous?

I have to remind myself that jokes don't always come across in text.

Yeah I know exactly what you mean. I have taken to including a sarcasm tag like this (sarcasm) after something I say that is meant as sarcasm, even if its painfully obvious to me you can't always assume online that it will come across that way.

In a totally unrelated matter, we have now established what proportion of WV is comprised of fucking idiots.

farson135:
Third of all, since when has a president done anything to justify all the hatred they get? I like neither Clinton nor Bush but what people said about them was WAY out of line. And they are not the only presidents to receive unbelievable levels of hatred and scorn from the rival party.

Hoooold on there. Bush actually EARNED most of the invective he got. I won't bore anyone by reciting the BIG LONG LIST, but I'd like to remind you that Bush actually DID bring back torture, bungle his own War On Terror, spend money like it was going out of style, back a lot of SCARY police-state bullshit, POSSIBLY got into office via fraud, and invaded a country on premises that turned out to be bogus. He also really DID seem to be fairly stupid, inarticulate, and he looooved using imagery from the military that he managed to avoid any danger in via family connections.

Obama, as far as I know, is NOT actually a Kenyan national, a fanatical white-hater, a 'radical socialist', a Secret Muslim Terrorist Sympathizer, devoted to the destruction of Christianity, devoted to the destruction of Capitalism, devoted to the destruction of marriage, or whatever other insane slander the rightwingnuts have urped up this week. The situation is NOT as symmetrical as you're trying to paint it.

Admittedly, Clinton really DID cheat on his wife. Death's too good for him!

arbane:
Hoooold on there. Bush actually EARNED most of the invective he got.

So Bush earned being named as the next Hitler, the title of mass murderer and committer of genocide, among many many other bombastic and completely idiotic titles and insults?

but I'd like to remind you that Bush actually DID bring back torture

Torture had already been in place for a LONG time. Lincoln tortured American citizens during the Civil War and there are several instances where it was ordered during the 2nd World War and Vietnam.

bungle his own War On Terror

The war on terror is idiotic in the extreme but if you narrow the goal he did accomplish stuff (Al Qaeda is effectively neutralized, Saddam is out of power, etc).

spend money like it was going out of style

The people who authorize spending would be known as congress.

back a lot of SCARY police-state bullshit

Which had been floating around for years prior to 911 and only got passed by CONGRESS once everything was said and done.

POSSIBLY got into office via fraud

I will ignore that.

and invaded a country on premises that turned out to be bogus.

Hindsight is 20/20. Obama also invaded a nation based on faulty evidence.

The situation is NOT as symmetrical as you're trying to paint it.

Considering that Obama has done or continued just about everything Bush did including the invading/attacking of neutral nations) I see it as very equal.

Admittedly, Clinton really DID cheat on his wife. Death's too good for him!

Also this (despite all the agreements he let it happen and even when the UN just asked for some APCs to protect the civilians Clinton worried about the cost)-

image

And this (both for the fact that is happened and the fact that he fucked up the end game)-

image

Then you have the fact that he let this guy get away (hindsight is still 20/20 but I still included it)-

image

And on.

Seanchaidh:

Wolverine18:

Seanchaidh:

In West Virginia.

So Obama doesn't have a base problem.

People keep saying that but its BS. WV was a swing state that voted for Carter and Clinton and who currently has federal represntives that are Dem. The fact that he doesn't have support in a swing state is what makes it a base problem - thats where he should be trying to win.

42.6% for Obama vs 55.6% for McCain was how WV looked last time. Obama did better in Texas, Arizona, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, both Dakotas, and Montana. West Virginia was one of the few places that was more Republican than 2004 in 2008 (the others were Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.) Obama shouldn't be worried about West Virginia.

Yes because ignoring the fact swing states don't like you is wise *rolls eyes*

farson135:

Warforger:
That's more because Carter and Clinton represented more Conservative and Christian values than does Obama

Neither are conservative nor only Carter is really that Christian.

Yah no. Clinton had just risen up from the massive changes the Right has done to the term "liberal" and George Bush's term. Clinton opted out to adopt Conservative stances on many issues to deprive the Republicans of issues to hit him on and to get Conservative votes.

Carter on the other hand was that Christian, http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=24476 he's still doing it today. If you notice his campaign though, he always has a religious justification for much of it.

farson135:

Carter is from the south but Clinton really is not. Arkansas really isn't considered "the south". You could certainly consider it the south but it shares little in common with its southern neighbor.

You're joking right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States

I seriously don't see what could possibly make Arkansas much different than its neighbors, it seceded from the Union, it had slavery, it had black codes, for god's sake Clinton's mentor Fulbright was a segregationist. It's always been an integral part of the South, the only states which could be considered not too South would be Florida, Maryland, Delaware, or WVA since those states haven't always been too similar with the rest of the South.

farson135:

BUT (and this is a big but) West Virginia really isn't the south either. WV has more in common with Pennsylvania than it does with Georgia.

WVA historically has more in common with North Carolina, it's filled up with mountain people, farmers who rejected slavery as a threat to their independence, generally rural people in the Appalachian Mountains. That's why they split from Virginia in the first place, because they have such a different electorate than the rest of Virginia, and that's the same reason why North Carolina split from South Carolina.

Wolverine18:

Seanchaidh:

Wolverine18:

People keep saying that but its BS. WV was a swing state that voted for Carter and Clinton and who currently has federal represntives that are Dem. The fact that he doesn't have support in a swing state is what makes it a base problem - thats where he should be trying to win.

42.6% for Obama vs 55.6% for McCain was how WV looked last time. Obama did better in Texas, Arizona, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, both Dakotas, and Montana. West Virginia was one of the few places that was more Republican than 2004 in 2008 (the others were Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.) Obama shouldn't be worried about West Virginia.

Yes because ignoring the fact swing states don't like you is wise *rolls eyes*

It's not a swing state. 42.6% vs 55.6% is not a swing state. Is Texas a swing state? Obama did better there.

Seanchaidh:

Wolverine18:

Seanchaidh:

42.6% for Obama vs 55.6% for McCain was how WV looked last time. Obama did better in Texas, Arizona, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, both Dakotas, and Montana. West Virginia was one of the few places that was more Republican than 2004 in 2008 (the others were Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.) Obama shouldn't be worried about West Virginia.

Yes because ignoring the fact swing states don't like you is wise *rolls eyes*

It's not a swing state. 42.6% vs 55.6% is not a swing state. Is Texas a swing state? Obama did better there.

Of course it is. They have voted both rep and dem, last voted rep presidentally(and not by a huge margin as you show) and have voted recently for democrats.

Wolverine18:

Seanchaidh:

Wolverine18:

Yes because ignoring the fact swing states don't like you is wise *rolls eyes*

It's not a swing state. 42.6% vs 55.6% is not a swing state. Is Texas a swing state? Obama did better there.

Of course it is. They have voted both rep and dem, last voted rep presidentally(and not by a huge margin as you show) and have voted recently for democrats.

It may have been a swing state. And for another kind of democrat it might still be a swing state. But it has not ever been a swing state for Obama, nor should Obama treat it like one. 55.6% to 42.6% was typical of solidly red states in 2008. Obama won almost all of the swing states the last time around. What's left, like WV, is not a swing state. Not with that kind of margin. Like I said, HE DID BETTER IN TEXAS!

Warforger:
Yah no. Clinton had just risen up from the massive changes the Right has done to the term "liberal" and George Bush's term. Clinton opted out to adopt Conservative stances on many issues to deprive the Republicans of issues to hit him on and to get Conservative votes.

And yet there was Hillary care and few dozen other major spending increases plus the AWB. None of those are in the slightest bit conservative.

Carter on the other hand was that Christian, http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=24476 he's still doing it today. If you notice his campaign though, he always has a religious justification for much of it.

Try rereading what I said (minus the mistakes) - Neither are conservative and only Carter is really that Christian.

You're joking right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States

Arkansas is IN the southern US but it is nowhere near similar to "The South" in terms of culture. "The South" is very much a cultural idea as much as it is a geographic distinction. Texas kind of hovers between the south and the west in terms of culture.

I seriously don't see what could possibly make Arkansas much different than its neighbors

Are you going to try and compare Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Massachusetts) and New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_New_Hampshire)?

it seceded from the Union

So did part of the New Mexico Territory and part of the Indian Territory.

it had slavery

So did Oklahoma and Delaware but they are not generally considered "The South".

it had black codes

So did Indiana and many others.

It's always been an integral part of the South, the only states which could be considered not too South would be Florida, Maryland, Delaware, or WVA since those states haven't always been too similar with the rest of the South.

Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri are also not considered particularly "The South".

WVA historically has more in common with North Carolina, it's filled up with mountain people, farmers who rejected slavery as a threat to their independence, generally rural people in the Appalachian Mountains. That's why they split from Virginia in the first place, because they have such a different electorate than the rest of Virginia, and that's the same reason why North Carolina split from South Carolina.

Actually I was referring to the coal miner part not the agricultural part.

farson135:

Warforger:
Yah no. Clinton had just risen up from the massive changes the Right has done to the term "liberal" and George Bush's term. Clinton opted out to adopt Conservative stances on many issues to deprive the Republicans of issues to hit him on and to get Conservative votes.

And yet there was Hillary care and few dozen other major spending increases plus the AWB. None of those are in the slightest bit conservative.

I said he was more Conservative than say Obama, I didn't say he wasn't a liberal I said he was a moderate.

farson135:

Carter on the other hand was that Christian, http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=24476 he's still doing it today. If you notice his campaign though, he always has a religious justification for much of it.

Try rereading what I said (minus the mistakes) - Neither are conservative and only Carter is really that Christian.

Oh, that's what I was saying before anyway about the Christian part.

farson135:

You're joking right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States

Arkansas is IN the southern US but it is nowhere near similar to "The South" in terms of culture. "The South" is very much a cultural idea as much as it is a geographic distinction. Texas kind of hovers between the south and the west in terms of culture.

Uh what? "The South" is a geographic area because of its culture, now Arkansas isn't part of the Deep South but it's sure as hell a goddamn integral part of the South (notice how Arkansas and Kansas are the same words just one has two more letters, and yet they're both pronounced completely different). It's just as much in the South as North Carolina and Virginia and neither of those are in the Deep South.

farson135:

I seriously don't see what could possibly make Arkansas much different than its neighbors

Are you going to try and compare Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Massachusetts) and New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_New_Hampshire)?

? Yah they're both part of New England, both part of the North East and part of the North. I don't see what would possibly exclude Arkansas from begin part of the South.

farson135:

it seceded from the Union

So did part of the New Mexico Territory and part of the Indian Territory.

Yah, and those area's are Conservative strongholds and hold ties to the South, but even then Arkansas is way different since it was an actual state.....

farson135:

it had slavery

So did Oklahoma and Delaware but they are not generally considered "The South".

Yes, they are. Although Oklahoma wasn't a state until 1907.

farson135:

it had black codes

So did Indiana and many others.

And? Those were more keeping the whole business out of their lives, the ones in Arkansas were about keeping blacks in their servant role.

farson135:

It's always been an integral part of the South, the only states which could be considered not too South would be Florida, Maryland, Delaware, or WVA since those states haven't always been too similar with the rest of the South.

Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri are also not considered particularly "The South".

Yes, they are.

And 70% of the people on this site would vote for Charles Manson over Mitt Romney.

Partisanship > common sense. This is really nothing new, and certainly not isolated to WV. I don't see how anyone is surprised at a poll that says a large number of Americans are blind partisans.

cthulhuspawn82:
And 70% of the people on this site would vote for Charles Manson over Mitt Romney.

I think [citation needed] is what we should say here. No, you don't get to throw around hyperboles to weasel-word your way around "But the other side does it too!"

Warforger:
I said he was more Conservative than say Obama, I didn't say he wasn't a liberal I said he was a moderate.

He acted more moderate after the losses in 94 but he certainly is a liberal.

Uh what? "The South" is a geographic area because of its culture

Geographic areas are not defined by culture but by geography.

now Arkansas isn't part of the Deep South but it's sure as hell a goddamn integral part of the South

How? How the hell is Arkansas integral to the South?

? Yah they're both part of New England, both part of the North East and part of the North.

They are extremely different in terms of culture and are generally not considered as part of the same culture (at least not for the past hundred years).

I don't see what would possibly exclude Arkansas from begin part of the South.

Because most of Arkansas shares greater similarities with other parts of the country (which makes sense given the fact that Arkansas is a prime retirement spot for some reason).

Yah, and those area's are Conservative strongholds and hold ties to the South, but even then Arkansas is way different since it was an actual state.....

How exactly did the Indian Territory have strong ties to anyone?

Yes, they are. Although Oklahoma wasn't a state until 1907.

I have never in my life heard a person call either Delaware "The South".

And? Those were more keeping the whole business out of their lives, the ones in Arkansas were about keeping blacks in their servant role.

It was the same in Indiana.

Yes, they are.

No they really aren't. Texas is considered too much of a hybrid to really be "The South" and although people in East Texas share similar accents our culture is wildly different.

Missouri is more considered a part of the Midwest.

Arkansas is also a hybrid but, especially in the north, leans towards the Midwest.

Oklahoma is also generally considered Midwest/west but because of its high Native American population it is really neither.

Let me ask you something, aside from ascents what exactly do we Texans have in common with say a Georgian or a Virginian? Hell, we share more in common with Pennsylvanians which is why they came here by the truckload.

Did the felon run P.I. or a prison gang if so, he might be able to inspire loyalty better than Obama. He also wouldn't make meaningless statements with a lack of intent just to boost support. Even if he's a Aryan Brotherhood or Neo-Nazi, he would have a clear plan. It may be a fucking horrible plan, but at least it is one.

Don't mind my opinions, I don't really mean them. Obama has been mostly sufficient, yet wildly ineffectual. The whole coming out "in support" thing just rubbed me wrong though. I don't mind people using a meaningless vote to send a message. Obama sure uses meaningless messages to influence a vote.

farson135:

Uh what? "The South" is a geographic area because of its culture

Geographic areas are not defined by culture but by geography.

Ahuh, then what geography makes the South cut off from the rest of the country?

farson135:

now Arkansas isn't part of the Deep South but it's sure as hell a goddamn integral part of the South

How? How the hell is Arkansas integral to the South?

Um, because it's always been part of the South?

farson135:

? Yah they're both part of New England, both part of the North East and part of the North.

They are extremely different in terms of culture and are generally not considered as part of the same culture (at least not for the past hundred years).

They're considered American, they have similar ancestry similar history and really what have they disagreed over? Yah of course there are differences but that doesn't mean they're not part of the same region.

farson135:

I don't see what would possibly exclude Arkansas from begin part of the South.

Because most of Arkansas shares greater similarities with other parts of the country (which makes sense given the fact that Arkansas is a prime retirement spot for some reason).

I highly doubt that.

farson135:

Yah, and those area's are Conservative strongholds and hold ties to the South, but even then Arkansas is way different since it was an actual state.....

How exactly did the Indian Territory have strong ties to anyone?

The same way Texas did, Southerners migrated over there and settled the land and many Indians converted to Southern ways such as say slavery.

farson135:

Yes, they are. Although Oklahoma wasn't a state until 1907.

I have never in my life heard a person call either Delaware "The South".

Well congratulations then, but it's part of the South.

farson135:

And? Those were more keeping the whole business out of their lives, the ones in Arkansas were about keeping blacks in their servant role.

It was the same in Indiana.

No. Laws that discriminated against black people in the North were meant to keep them out of Northern life, laws in the South were meant to keep them in servitude, that is rather different.

farson135:

Yes, they are.

No they really aren't. Texas is considered too much of a hybrid to really be "The South" and although people in East Texas share similar accents our culture is wildly different.

Missouri is more considered a part of the Midwest.

Arkansas is also a hybrid but, especially in the north, leans towards the Midwest.

Oklahoma is also generally considered Midwest/west but because of its high Native American population it is really neither.

Let me ask you something, aside from ascents what exactly do we Texans have in common with say a Georgian or a Virginian? Hell, we share more in common with Pennsylvanians which is why they came here by the truckload.

Why don't you actually find out then? I'm sure as hell no one with a serious career in population studies or history would agree with your assertions based on how you think of states.

Vegosiux:

cthulhuspawn82:
And 70% of the people on this site would vote for Charles Manson over Mitt Romney.

I think [citation needed] is what we should say here. No, you don't get to throw around hyperboles to weasel-word your way around "But the other side does it too!"

But the other side "does" do it too. Unless you think they don't, in which case I would ask why you think one side would behave like this and the other side would not. There isn't an answer you could give that wouldn't boil down to something along the lines of "One side is stupid and partisan, and the other side rational and intelligent." But that's the same black and white, partisan thinking that is getting the people in WV to vote for a convict.

I think these people voting for a convict are morons as well. But some(i.e. not all) who call them out on it are just as partisan, and I find that totally hypocritical.

cthulhuspawn82:

But the other side "does" do it too. Unless you think they don't, in which case I would ask why you think one side would behave like this and the other side would not. There isn't an answer you could give that wouldn't boil down to something along the lines of "One side is stupid and partisan, and the other side rational and intelligent." But that's the same black and white, partisan thinking that is getting the people in WV to vote for a convict.

Of course I could not. Yes, I'm damn sure there are some dems that would prefer Charles Manson over Romney for the virtue of "not being Mitt Romney". But a hyperbole generally isn't a good way to prove a point, especially since 70% of this site isn't even all American.

I agree it's a stupid and completely irrational thing no matter who does it; but "They do it too!" is kind of weak.

But as I said, if the dems spin this one wisely they can even end up comparing Obama to Jesus. Uh, that'd be a riot in the "dis gonna be gud" way.

Vegosiux:

cthulhuspawn82:

But the other side "does" do it too. Unless you think they don't, in which case I would ask why you think one side would behave like this and the other side would not. There isn't an answer you could give that wouldn't boil down to something along the lines of "One side is stupid and partisan, and the other side rational and intelligent." But that's the same black and white, partisan thinking that is getting the people in WV to vote for a convict.

Of course I could not. Yes, I'm damn sure there are some dems that would prefer Charles Manson over Romney for the virtue of "not being Mitt Romney". But a hyperbole generally isn't a good way to prove a point, especially since 70% of this site isn't even all American.

I agree it's a stupid and completely irrational thing no matter who does it; but "They do it too!" is kind of weak.

But as I said, if the dems spin this one wisely they can even end up comparing Obama to Jesus. Uh, that'd be a riot in the "dis gonna be gud" way.

I wanted to lower that 70% after I posted it, should have made it 41. But I dont like editing posts like that since it could be cheating.

But anyway, I wasn't actually using the "but they do it too" defense. That's an argument tactic you use to defend behavior. But I was not defending the behavior of the people in WV. I was simply pointing out that the behavior is commonplace on both sides, and that nobody should be surprised by the fact that this convict is getting votes.

politician, felon, I really see no difference. I'd have to see what his views were before picking who to vote for.

I did not see anything in that article indicating that the voters actually knew this guy was a felon. They say he is "listed as Inmate No. 11593-051" but I am fairly certain that was not in reference to how he was listed on the ballot. Its also quite possible that people voted for him just as a matter of protest considering that the guy is never going to reach the actual ballot anyway. That is really more cheek than it is idiotic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mourdock-and-judd-vs-washington/2012/05/11/gIQA3EKGIU_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

According to this article the guy is indeed a joke and putting in his candidacy as a protest against "the status quo". The people voting for him, or at least most of them, are likely doing so as a form of protest.

So we seriously got nearly two whole pages of responses to this without anyone seeing the obvious? I am embarrassed for the Escapist.

Warforger:
Ahuh, then what geography makes the South cut off from the rest of the country?

It's not cut off. It is called the south because it is in the southern US but as a cultural distinction "The South" is very different from its geographic distinction. You already admitted Florida is not generally considered "The South" despite the fact that it is about as south as you can get in the continental US.

Um, because it's always been part of the South?

"The South" was first defined as a separate culture hundreds of years before Arkansas was even a part of the US.

They're considered American, they have similar ancestry similar history and really what have they disagreed over? Yah of course there are differences but that doesn't mean they're not part of the same region.

Those two states have very different cultures (I added those links for a reason).

I highly doubt that.

Have you ever been to Arkansas?

The same way Texas did, Southerners migrated over there and settled the land and many Indians converted to Southern ways such as say slavery.

You got it backwards. The largest tribes in the Indian Territory were already called the "civilized tribes" because they had adopted American culture. Problem, they got to the Indian Territory after they adopted elements of American culture and after this little event-

image

And I highly doubt they had many good things to say about America in general and the South in particular.

No. Laws that discriminated against black people in the North were meant to keep them out of Northern life, laws in the South were meant to keep them in servitude, that is rather different.

No, the laws did the same damn thing. The laws were no different from each other in language and effect.

Why don't you actually find out then? I'm sure as hell no one with a serious career in population studies or history would agree with your assertions based on how you think of states.

Actually you are talking to a historian right now.

farson135:

Warforger:
Ahuh, then what geography makes the South cut off from the rest of the country?

It's not cut off. It is called the south because it is in the southern US but as a cultural distinction "The South" is very different from its geographic distinction. You already admitted Florida is not generally considered "The South" despite the fact that it is about as south as you can get in the continental US.

I never said that. I said it was borderline, because the Southern part for most of the Florida's history was uninhabited, and it's been more recently settled by immigrants from Cuba along with Northerners and others hence why Southern Florida is more Liberal whereas Northern Florida is more Conservative.

farson135:

Um, because it's always been part of the South?

"The South" was first defined as a separate culture hundreds of years before Arkansas was even a part of the US.

Yah.....So? When Arkansas came into existence it was settled by Southerners who brought with them Southern culture and customs like say slavery.

farson135:

They're considered American, they have similar ancestry similar history and really what have they disagreed over? Yah of course there are differences but that doesn't mean they're not part of the same region.

Those two states have very different cultures (I added those links for a reason).

Yes, but do their political views differ too much? Their religious? But if I were to say someone from New Hampshire is from New England, you'd be arguing it wasn't since it's different to Massachussetts.

farson135:

I highly doubt that.

Have you ever been to Arkansas?

No, have you been to all parts of Arkansas and studied the whole population? That's like saying California is exactly like New Jersey because there are Asians in both area's.

farson135:

The same way Texas did, Southerners migrated over there and settled the land and many Indians converted to Southern ways such as say slavery.

You got it backwards. The largest tribes in the Indian Territory were already called the "civilized tribes" because they had adopted American culture. Problem, they got to the Indian Territory after they adopted elements of American culture and after this little event-

Did I say that? No I said there were Indians who conformed to Southern culture and lifestyle.

farson135:

And I highly doubt they had many good things to say about America in general and the South in particular.

Depends, many fought for the Confederacy in hopes of getting more recognition,many fought for the Union for the same reason, many fought each other over the issue of slavery.

farson135:

No. Laws that discriminated against black people in the North were meant to keep them out of Northern life, laws in the South were meant to keep them in servitude, that is rather different.

No, the laws did the same damn thing. The laws were no different from each other in language and effect.

Did you read those laws? The ones from Illinois and Indiana seek to limit African immigration into the state and to keep the existing African population separate from the white population. The ones from the South seek to keep Africans in a state of quasi-slavery.

farson135:

Why don't you actually find out then? I'm sure as hell no one with a serious career in population studies or history would agree with your assertions based on how you think of states.

Actually you are talking to a historian right now.

Nice, in what subject?

Warforger:
I never said that. I said it was borderline, because the Southern part for most of the Florida's history was uninhabited, and it's been more recently settled by immigrants from Cuba along with Northerners and others hence why Southern Florida is more Liberal whereas Northern Florida is more Conservative.

And Florida is not really the South. It has a lot of Latin culture but not a lot of southern culture.

Yah.....So? When Arkansas came into existence it was settled by Southerners who brought with them Southern culture and customs like say slavery.

By that definition the South can be considered English since so many Englishmen came to the south and brought their customs. The fact is that Arkansas brought in many different people from all over the US and that culture has mixed together. Once again Arkansas share more in common with other cultures than with the South.

Yes, but do their political views differ too much?

In a word YES. Massachusetts is very very liberal while New Hampshire is considered a libertarian stronghold. In fact New Hampshire's state motto is "Live Free or Die".

Their religious?

Yes.

But if I were to say someone from New Hampshire is from New England, you'd be arguing it wasn't since it's different to Massachussetts.

New England is a geographic distinction. I am arguing that New Hampshire and Massachusetts are not similar enough to be considered part of the same social sphere.

No, have you been to all parts of Arkansas and studied the whole population?

I was a park ranger in Arkansas for a year. And if you want to know where my working areas were, here you go-

image

That's like saying California is exactly like New Jersey because there are Asians in both area's.

That is nothing like what I said.

Depends, many fought for the Confederacy in hopes of getting more recognition,many fought for the Union for the same reason, many fought each other over the issue of slavery.

That has nothing to do with either assimilation or how much the tribes even liked the factions.

Did you read those laws?

Yes, in great, agonizing detail.

The ones from Illinois and Indiana seek to limit African immigration into the state and to keep the existing African population separate from the white population.

That is only a very small portion of the black codes in those states.

Nice, in what subject?

Central and Eastern European history from the medieval period to the end of the Imperial Age.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked