Red vs Blue States

apple0154

apple0154

MEOW
Perhaps it's time to step back and take a look at the individuals who vote. We frequently hear condemnation of one party or the other forgetting that people, individual decent human beings, make up and vote for these parties so the question is, "Who are those individuals?" Are they "bad" people or just misguided? Following is an example specifically directed to the Democrats why they should consider individuals who live in Red voting states. North Dakota has voted Repub in the last four Federal Elections so let's take a look at the average North Dakotian.

 
apple0154 said:
Perhaps it's time to step back and take a look at the individuals who vote. We frequently hear condemnation of one party or the other forgetting that people, individual decent human beings, make up and vote for these parties so the question is, "Who are those individuals?" Are they "bad" people or just misguided? Following is an example specifically directed to the Democrats why they should consider individuals who live in Red voting states. North Dakota has voted Repub in the last four Federal Elections so let's take a look at the average North Dakotian.

Click to expand...

obviously a Canadian tourist.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously a Canadian tourist.....
Click to expand...

The lady in question was born and bred in North Dakota, a state that has voted Repub the last four Federal Elections. In the following video she explained she grew up in a small Dakota town and currently works as a receptionist at a clinic in Fargo. As she states, "Honestly, I had no clue these signs were for us." and this brings us back to what I have been saying which is Repubs tend to not think things through.


An educated, employed, well-spoken lady not realizing her thinking was skewed. Or, more to the point, not thinking, and therein lies the problem. The same that can be said concerning your "tourist" remark as a person who has lived their entire life in one place is not a tourist in that place anymore than the deer crossing sign was placed there to direct deers.

You replied to a post dealing with contorted thinking with erring thinking of your own. Very much similar to Republican thinking concerning ObamaCare. Skewed thinking that ObamaCare is going to be unaffordable followed by people thinking that healing the sick will bankrupt the country and it's better to let people die to the tune of 45,000 yearly. I suppose ones twisted thinking could result in them concluding the prevention of 45,000 deaths yearly could have an impact on jobs pertaining to undertakers and funeral directors and assorted others concerned with the death industry.

As is painfully evident the lady in the video is not a rare exception.

Thank-you for your post. :)
 
apple0154 said:
and this brings us back to what I have been saying which is Repubs tend to not think things through.
Click to expand...

but that would make you a Republican....because you missed the obvious truth that even states that predictably vote Republican need their ignorant minority Democrat bimbos.......
 
We need a lot of Republican-Democrat voter crossing signs. Now that's something I may not have a problem with paying taxes on.
 
apple0154 said:
Perhaps it's time to step back and take a look at the individuals who vote. We frequently hear condemnation of one party or the other forgetting that people, individual decent human beings, make up and vote for these parties so the question is, "Who are those individuals?" Are they "bad" people or just misguided? Following is an example specifically directed to the Democrats why they should consider individuals who live in Red voting states. North Dakota has voted Repub in the last four Federal Elections so let's take a look at the average North Dakotian.

Click to expand...

Holy prole... 'i just don't know why Minnesota and North Dakota would allow these deer crossings in such high traffic areas'... seriously? It saddens me that there are this many stupid people in the world.
 
apple0154 said:
The lady in question was born and bred in North Dakota, a state that has voted Repub the last four Federal Elections. In the following video she explained she grew up in a small Dakota town and currently works as a receptionist at a clinic in Fargo. As she states, "Honestly, I had no clue these signs were for us." and this brings us back to what I have been saying which is Repubs tend to not think things through.
Click to expand...

Just curious... do you think everyone in a blue state votes Dem and everyone in a red state votes Rep?
 
apple0154 said:
Perhaps it's time to step back and take a look at the individuals who vote. We frequently hear condemnation of one party or the other forgetting that people, individual decent human beings, make up and vote for these parties so the question is, "Who are those individuals?" Are they "bad" people or just misguided? Following is an example specifically directed to the Democrats why they should consider individuals who live in Red voting states. North Dakota has voted Repub in the last four Federal Elections so let's take a look at the average North Dakotian.

Click to expand...

I think some of our Red State friend are still trying to figure this out.


Just move the sign, right...:palm:
 
SmarterthanYou said:
really? sort of like how libs didn't think things through by making gun free zones assuming nobody with criminal intent would abide by not bringing a gun in to the zone?
Click to expand...

More like preventing atrocities committed by responsible, law-abiding citizens who suddenly snap. Compare the number of mass shootings by known criminals to those committed by "he was just a quiet guy who kept to himself" type individuals.
 
Superfreak said:
Just curious... do you think everyone in a blue state votes Dem and everyone in a red state votes Rep?
Click to expand...

Not everyone but it's reasonable to conclude a person is more likely to vote a certain way depending on where they live especially when a state has voted a certain way for the last four elections.
 
apple0154 said:
More like preventing atrocities committed by responsible, law-abiding citizens who suddenly snap. Compare the number of mass shootings by known criminals to those committed by "he was just a quiet guy who kept to himself" type individuals.
Click to expand...
so you're saying that it's way more important to prevent atrocities committed by responsible, law-abiding citizens who MIGHT snap, than it is to worry about people intent on killing as many people as possible because nobody else would have a gun?
 
hazlnut said:
I think some of our Red State friend are still trying to figure this out.


Just move the sign, right...:palm:
Click to expand...

It's classical Repub thinking the same way they think it's better for the country to let the citizens die rather than offer affordable medical care. Statistics have overwhelmingly shown government medical care saves a minimum of 1/3 the cost in every country that implements such a policy, yet, they continue to say it will bankrupt the country. The same way they say people on the other side of the world will welcome a foreign, invading power destroying their culture and way of life. It goes past merely differing points of view.

Perhaps it's time to coin a new phrase. From now on when we witness a typical Repub argument we can refer to it as "deer sign thinking". :)
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so you're saying that it's way more important to prevent atrocities committed by responsible, law-abiding citizens who MIGHT snap, than it is to worry about people intent on killing as many people as possible because nobody else would have a gun?
Click to expand...

Well, there are ways to address the problem without going from one extreme to the other such as limiting the bullet holding capacity, for example. Unfortunately, the Constitution limits the number of restrictions possible so one is compelled to work around it.
 
apple0154 said:
Well, there are ways to address the problem without going from one extreme to the other such as limiting the bullet holding capacity, for example. Unfortunately, the Constitution limits the number of restrictions possible so one is compelled to work around it.
Click to expand...
this is why you should refrain from trying to make 'policy' about things you know nothing about. tell us, firearms expert, how will it prevent mass shootings if a person intent on killing as many as possible when said shooter can no longer carry four 17 round mags and is forced to carry seven 10 round mags? and how in the hell can you consider yourself a supporter of the constitution when you bemoan the fact that it limits the government from infringing on rights, something that the framers intended?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this is why you should refrain from trying to make 'policy' about things you know nothing about. tell us, firearms expert, how will it prevent mass shootings if a person intent on killing as many as possible when said shooter can no longer carry four 17 round mags and is forced to carry seven 10 round mags?
Click to expand...


As I said smaller mags. Each time the person has to change the mag it takes time. A mag can hold less than 10. Maybe five. The point being one can look at different alternatives.

and how in the hell can you consider yourself a supporter of the constitution when you bemoan the fact that it limits the government from infringing on rights, something that the framers intended?
Click to expand...

Oh, please. The government limits rights all the time. Perhaps you should take a good look at the powers the government grabbed after 9/11. As for the Constitution it is referred to as a "living document". As wise as the Founding Fathers may have been they had no idea what the future held. They wouldn't have devised a formula to change the Constitution if they felt it was perfect for all time and like everything else change happens in increments.
 
apple0154 said:
As I said smaller mags. Each time the person has to change the mag it takes time. A mag can hold less than 10. Maybe five. The point being one can look at different alternatives.
Click to expand...
have you seen how fast someone can change magazines? the time difference between firing all 17 and changing a mag to fire 20 rounds is negligible, rendering your law useless. The biggest question I would have for you is would your silly law provide an exemption for all government agents?

apple0154 said:
Oh, please. The government limits rights all the time. Perhaps you should take a good look at the powers the government grabbed after 9/11. As for the Constitution it is referred to as a "living document". As wise as the Founding Fathers may have been they had no idea what the future held. They wouldn't have devised a formula to change the Constitution if they felt it was perfect for all time and like everything else change happens in increments.
Click to expand...
the framers knew there would be technological advancements, which is exactly why the wanted the government severely restricted. The constitution was meant to restrict the government, not used as a tool to restrict the people. and i've taken a good look at the governments expansion after 9/11. why do you think I am such an anti government individual?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top