Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 6, 2012.
Haha! Look at how stupid and poor the south is! This makes me feel better and superior!
Also. New Mexico - 38, not in the bottom three. Woohoo!
lmao that you got beat by arizona, dawg
Sen. Steve Stockman tweets: "Where am I? Find out Monday"
Please say jail, please say jail...
OZK seems oddly defensive about the South.
His schtick is considering white Southerners an unfairly stereotyped group. He's right to some extent. People make fun of Appalachia ("hillbillies") for being poor, white farmers/ranchers/sharecroppers ("rednecks") for being poor, city dwellers ("white/trailer trash") for... well... yeah. Their ignorance and bigotry and social conservatism come from systems set up by the wealthy-- plantation owners historically and now their modern heirs.
To some extent. Not acknowledging that blacks comprise huge portions of the populations of the lowest-ranked states (Louisiana, South Carolina, Mississippi, D.C.) is... inappropriate. Poor whites in the South have always taken comfort in the fact that blacks are generally worse off.
its a more defensible schtick than his usual MRA fare
I don't disagree.
since "the bottom of a river" and "jail" are unlikely possibilities, im hoping the answer is either "'hiking' 'the' 'applachian trail'" or "BENGHAZI"
Well he was flat out accusing heels of being a smug northerner for posting an article.
Who are you even responding to Lord of Vivec?
Even and Maik.
. . .they didn't disagree with you?
My family goes back several generations in North Carolina and I'm not as defensive about the South as OZK is.
Oh, I didn't know we had new rules in the JCC that you only reply to people that are fully disagreeing with you.
By starting your remark with "Well he was," you gave the post an explanatory tone. I didn't and don't see why that tone was merited since we had neither expressed confusion with your original post nor contested the truth of its sentiment. Why would you reiterate something in that fashion given the circumstances?
Today was a curiosity to me as to why the right wing all of a sudden has Putin love. This morning Huckabee said (lol) Steven Segal did something Obama has never been able to do and became friends with Putin. Mitt Romney just recently said Putin has been a better President that Obama. I thought perhaps it was an Olympics thing. Be friends with the Olympics and therefore Putin and bad mouth Obama over it. Then it hit me. the anti gay policies of Russia. The Right loves it.
sure milquetoasty repubs love putin. he is a statist douche who, as you point out, reaffirms their generally anti-gay sentiment.
So there is this poll out that I heard about this past weekend where Obama has only a 46% approvale rating. That's sounds kinda bad until the same poll says 80% of the country does not trust the GOP to run the country properly
Approval polls are stupid. They're too generalized. They don't ask people why they "approve" or "disapprove," so they could be easily answering out of ignorance or have stupid reasons for their feelings. It also has no relevance in the middle of a lame duck president's term.
And it doesn't mean anything. Congress always has rock-bottom approval ratings, yet incumbents are overwhelmingly reelected.
At this point due to gerrymandering.
Not necessarily. California isn't gerrymandered and I don't think the chances of incumbents winning are much lower than average, if at all. There are more than one factor, such as incumbents having more resources by default (the ability to send out ostensibly non-campaign-related newsletters to their constituents, for example), incumbents being more experienced campaigners, incumbents being able to play the "experience" card to contrast with their opponents, incumbents having the full party apparatus behind them from the start instead of having to face an opponent in a primary (incumbents getting "primary'd" is rare), the opposing party not devoting much resources in solidly "red" or "blue" districts and running bad candidates as sacrifices, third party or "independent" alternatives being rare, the voters being lazy/apathetic/comfortable with the status quo...
I disagree. I think it's useful as a generic metric, especially regarding perception -- who's winning the 24/7 media war and who's framing the public debate better. It's not useful for electoral terms, but the question isn't "will you vote for this person," now is it? Otherwise statistics like cross-party approval would be of even more limited utility.
I don't think it's a useful metric of who's "winning." I, for example, don't "approve" of President Obama, but that doesn't mean I'm siding with John Boehner or Fox News or something. I suppose I'm something of an anomaly, though.