Check out county map for 2004 Pres. election

Scroll down.

The county map to me is the most telling about the urban vs. rural divide.

It’s interesting to me because years ago, I think rural tended to be more Democratic didn’t it?

Also interesting article by Zogy - The Polls, the Pundits, and the Elections of 2004.

Take this image in conjunction with the NY article that Tom posted in another thread, and consider the implications.

My take is that different people choose to live in either urban or rural areas because of their preferences, upbringing, etc. I live in the city, but I’ll bet it is no surprise at all to tell you my dream is to live in the country.

There is a HUGE disconnect between small communities and the requirements of city life. Urbanites can’t fathom not needing sewer and water hookups and getting their garbage picked up at the curb. Rural folk have difficulty appreciating the need for stopping the neighbor from burning his leaves or his garbage or not keeping that rat infested '71 pinto rotting next to the garage.

The needs are disparate. The function of government to each group is entirely different, isn’t it?

There is a HUGE disconnect between small communities and the requirements of city life. Urbanites can't fathom not needing sewer and water hookups and getting their garbage picked up at the curb. Rural folk have difficulty appreciating the need for stopping theneighbor from burning his leaves or his garbage or not keeping that '71 pinto rotting next to the garage.
I agree. I grew up in the engine-pyramid on your front lawn, so I know it well. I relate intellectually more to urbanites but I like the rural folk better.

The needs are disparate. The function of government to each group is entirely different, isn't it?
Yes but there is some commonity. Food on the table at night, good education for kids, freedom to express views & pratice religion, etc.

Speaking to that point, I bet you will see the birth rate amongst the rural hgher than the urban therefore creating more red than blue population wise if this trend were to continue. It is a whole lot tougher to add a room onto your cramped city apartment to accomodate Junior than to move down the road to a bigger house in the city. The opposite is true in the burbs and countryside. People plan families differently. I think the environment leads to the beliefs and not the other way around. A religion that shuns abortion and values marriage as a procreation tool is going to fly much more in the country side where the religion matches what people live every day. In the city, it doesn’t seem to make sense. Avoiding having 50 kids in the city makes sense. You have no place to put them and the cost of living is higher. These are all generalizations, but what I see as the reason for such a divide is that Americans are living in different worlds as Pete points out adn why the red side grows more and more. I don’t honestly beleive people are making objectve choices in elections. They can’t. We are humans and everything is subjective. So Bush happened to appeal to a certain batch of folks with a rural/suburb paradigm when looking at the world.

My dad is a zoologist and has a lot of books and reasearch from folks I read as a kid. A lot of folks in academia say they can attribute how politics will work depending on populations, their densities, and environmental factors. Could this be an indicator of their hypothesis? I persoanlly contend that we humans give ourselves much more credit than we deserve. We have a bit more animal to us than we want to admit.

Quote (Bubbagump @ Nov. 05 2004,12:12)
I don't honestly beleive people are making objectve choices in elections. They can't. We are humans and everything is subjective. So Bush happened to appeal to a certain batch of folks with a rural/suburb paradigm when looking at the world.

Some would see this differently .... to each his own.

See what differently? Objectivity or how Bush appealed to his votig block. If you think you are objective and somehow infalliable in your judgements of the way things really are, then you are a lucky person to have such gifts. The rest of us are limited to what our eyes, ears, mouths, hands, and noses tell us and unfortuantely for most of us, we have prejudices, faults and a limited view of the the universe (whether we want to admit it or not) from which we can make our judgements.

A religion that shuns abortion and values marriage as a procreation tool is going to fly much more in the country side where the religion matches what people live every day. In the city, it doesn't seem to make sense. Avoiding having 50 kids in the city makes sense. You have no place to put them and the cost of living is higher.

I hope I am not understanding you to say that abortion should be more popular in the city because it keeps the number of "kids" down. Do you see abortion as a viable method of birth control? How about self control????

Seems to me, abortion is a different animal altogether, and not influenced by where you live. It’s more a ‘heart’ thing like those who are saddened when animals are mis-treated.

What pro-choice people don’t seem to understand is that pro-life folks look at abortion as murder.

If someone took their kid to a doctor and asked him to kill the kid because it’s inconvenient to have him, everyone would get upset. That’s how pro-life folks look at abortion. To them, it doesn’t matter if the baby is in the womb or not, it’s still a human life.

Not all professing Christians are convinced that life begins in the womb, mind you. But when they do, hopefully you can understand why they take abortion so seriously.


tj

What pro-choice people don't seem to understand is that pro-life folks look at abortion as murder.
Some pro-choice people do understand that (like myself). I don't personally like abortions but having the right to get one is different than actually getting one IMO.

If someone took their kid to a doctor and asked him to kill the kid because it's inconvenient to have him, everyone would get upset. That's how pro-life folks look at abortion. To them, it doesn't matter if the baby is in the womb or not, it's still a human life.
Respectfully, I don't think it is quite as simple as this.

I once read a good article on the abortion issue. It basically said that we've already figured out the "where life begins" issue as a society/people. That's why we have two different terms: still-birth & miscarriage. The article used the following example to illustrate: we would think one would be "abnormal" if someone took a miscarriage & had an elaborate funeral for it. Likewise, we would feel the same way if someone took a still-born & flushed it down the tiolet (pardon the graphic image here). I tend to agree with this.

Having said all that, I think women should NOT get abortions if possible. Whether we should overturn Rove vs. Wade - I don't personally think so.

Wow, you took my statement into left field. Abortion certainly is used to keep the number of kids down and folks do use it that way. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but it is what abortion is often times used for. If I had to guess I would guess that there are higher rates of abortion in urban areas and the environment and population desity is the reason for this. Let’s not get into symantics on how abstinence or condems are prefereable or the morality of the subject. That’s a different thing and not what I am talking about here. There are different ways of looking at the issue and I am just trying to illustrate a possible answer as to why the politics of the country/burbs turned out so differenrt from the urban in this election. Abortion is not the issue I am talking about, the cultural integration and population density changing the voting habits and values of people is the issue I am talking about. I am not about to touch abortion as a subject in this forum with a 1000 foot pole.

EDIT: Actully, rereading your statemnt Terry, yes, I am saying that I would guess that abortion is more popular in dense urban areas to keep the kids down and that is a result of population density. That’s not a statement or judment on it’s morality, just a hypothesis as to the way things are. You added the word “should”. That is not what I am saying. I am saying statistically it would not surprise me if it is more prevealent in urban areas. I don’t think much of anyone thinks abortions should be encouraged, including myself, even in the pro-choice camp. I would say to keep the kids down one “should” wear a rubber or keep their hands to themselves.


All this to say, this election turned out to be Country Mouse versus City Mouse.

Some pro-choice people do understand that (like myself). I don't personally like abortions but having the right to get one is different than actually getting one IMO.

That's like saying " I don't personally like murder but having the "right" to commit one is different that actually commiting one." Kind of like saying I don't have the need to kill and unborn child today but I would like to retain that right in case I screw up and get someone pregnant and don't feel like raising or having to support another child.

I once read a good article on the abortion issue. It basically said that we've already figured out the "where life begins" issue as a society/people.

Yes , we've figured it out. It's at conception. Unfortunately, many choose to ignore that so they can live with the killing.

Abortion certainly is used to keep the number of kids down and folks do use it that way. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but it is what abortion is often times used for.

You really don't know if that "right or wrong"?

If I had to guess I would guess that there are higher rates of abortion in urban areas and the environment and population desity is the reason for this.

That may very well explain why they voted for Kerry. I don't believe it is because of population density. It has to do with life style. IMO

I am saying that I would guess that abortion is more popular in dense urban areas to keep the kids down and that is a result of population density.

And I say it is not so much to keep kids down but as a way to file bankrupsy on their moral debts. The problem is that they are killing children to do it.

All this to say, this election turned out to be Country Mouse versus City Mouse.


Or, the Moral Majority versus the Moral Bankrupt.

It’s responses like this that fuel the divide IMO. You’ve misunderstood me on at least 2 major points & I don’t see the need to try to explain myself once again.

Abortion certainly is used to keep the number of kids down and folks do use it that way. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but it is what abortion is often times used for.


You really don't know if that "right or wrong"?

Oh, I have my opinion. I just choose not to muddy the waters here. Not passing judgement publically is not the same as knowing/not knowing. You can state a fact or a statistic and not state a judgement to it. I can say that I would guess the percentage of abortions per capita is higher in urban areas. That is stating a statistic or hypothesis. Saying it is right or wrong is another thing and I am not about to open that can of worms here. I am sticking to the empirical or my half way guess as to what the empirical might be.



If I had to guess I would guess that there are higher rates of abortion in urban areas and the environment and population desity is the reason for this.


That may very well explain why they voted for Kerry. I don't believe it is because of population density. It has to do with life style. IMO

And I would say life style is heavily determined by environment. Population density is very much a part of one's environment. Try spending a weekend in a Japanese hotel. Population density has very much changed their environment thus their life style causing the hotel rooms to be about as big as dresser drawer.



All this to say, this election turned out to be Country Mouse versus City Mouse.



Or, the Moral Majority versus the Moral Bankrupt.
On the other side, how many people voted for Kerry to hopefully stop what they see as an unjust war? Or they are concerned with our economy and their ability to put food on the table? That is just as much a moral goal. Sorry, but judgemental behaivior is a peeve of mine. It irks me to hear folks dub themselves as moral. This is very unlike me, but you found a big throbing nerve of mine. I usually keep my cards close to my chest as far as my personal beliefs on any forum because it is no ones buisness publically and I am not here to proselytize, but you got me this time. Matthew 7:1-5
On the other side, how many people voted for Kerry to hopefully stop what they see as an unjust war? Or they are concerned with our economy and their ability to put food on the table?

As if he had a clue how to fix any of that.
I can tell you the secret to putting food on the table. Go to work every day and do the job you were hired to do. It works, not matter who the president is.

It irks me to hear folks dub themselves as moral

What irks me is to see seemingly intelligent folks, dubbing immoral behavior as normal and valid, simply because it’s fashionable, or widespread. If that statement was meant for me, you are wrong. I am simply pointing out immoral behavior.

I usually keep my cards close to my chest as far as my personal beliefs on any forum because it is no ones buisness publically and I am not here to proselytize, but you got me this time.

I try to keep my cards on the table.

Matthew 7:1-5


"Judge not, that you be not judged.
For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.
And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?
Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye?
Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.


You forgot the rest.

Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.
"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent?
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

Just a few more since you like the Bible.

Jeremiah 1:5, NIV. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."


Psalm 139:13-14, NIV. "For you created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well."

Exodus 20:13, NIV. "You shall not murder

Blessings

still4given,

what is worse - a terminated life only a few weeks out from conception, or yet another hopeless child born into poverty and neglect ?

does a 3 week old organism, comprised of a relatively few cells, experience pain and anguish over its missed life opportunity ? Is its consciousness developed enough to feel the horror of impending death ?

does it occur to you that for people without religious convictions, most of your arguments about the sanctity of life (even pre-foetal) are illogical ? Your sense of morality is based on a faith many people equate with a nursery-rhyme. Your sense of morality does not apply to anybody but yourself.

Do you understand that an unreligious person has every right to object to religiously-based views such as yours being imposed upon them by a govt ?

Roe vs. Wade doesn’t mandate or promote abortion. It gives people the right to use it if they need or choose. You, and other religious people can go on living your life as if that right doesn’t exist, nobody forces you to exercise it. See, it doesn’t affect you if somebody you don’t know chooses to have an abortion, everybody is free to act as they like, free of govt interference or religious edicts. You seem to advocate changing that. By doing so, you seek to limit other people’s freedom according to your personal views, and you advocate using your goverment to enforce that limitation on freedom. I’ll bet you call out for governmental non-interference in people’s lives, except for times like this when it suits you.

Roe vs. Wade doesn't mandate or promote abortion. It gives people the right to use it if they need or choose.

No, Roe vs. Wade doesn't make abortion legal. There is no law that makes abortion legal. What Roe vs. Wade does is create a wall of confidentiality behind which abortion may occur.
Quote
I once read a good article on the abortion issue. It basically said that we've already figured out the "where life begins" issue as a society/people.


Yes , we've figured it out. It's at conception. Unfortunately, many choose to ignore that so they can live with the killing.
This is a sticky subject so I use these comments not to pass judgment but to point out a dilemma that seems to get fluffed over....I struggle with these in my own reasoning.

Let's say "Yes , we've figured it out. It's at conception" is a given fact, regardless.

What about birth control pills? I don't mean the morning after pills, though they can fall into this category. Normal birth control pills work by faking the body into thinking it is already pregnant. When that happens fertilized eggs will no longer implant in the wall of the urterus...i.e. You can't won't pregnant if you are already pregnant.

What happens to these fertilized eggs? They die and are flushed away.

Why is this not as morally wrong as an early term abortion?

I also can't reconcile "except in cases of rape or incest" but that's another discussion.
Quote (still4given @ Nov. 08 2004,14:08)
On the other side, how many people voted for Kerry to hopefully stop what they see as an unjust war? Or they are concerned with our economy and their ability to put food on the table?


As if he had a clue how to fix any of that.
I can tell you the secret to putting food on the table. Go to work every day and do the job you were hired to do. It works, not matter who the president is.

It irks me to hear folks dub themselves as moral

What irks me is to see seemingly intelligent folks, dubbing immoral behavior as normal and valid, simply because it’s fashionable, or widespread. If that statement was meant for me, you are wrong. I am simply pointing out immoral behavior.

I usually keep my cards close to my chest as far as my personal beliefs on any forum because it is no ones buisness publically and I am not here to proselytize, but you got me this time.

I try to keep my cards on the table.
I should have known better. I should always know better than try to have an amongst those who would rather judge than discuss the issue. I postulate that population densities is a factor in the forming of ones values and how one voted in this past election. That's all I care to discuss. I don't care to pass judgement on whole populations of people. I don't care to discuss the morality of abortion. Just know, prejudices don't fly with me.
Let's say "Yes , we've figured it out. It's at conception" is a given fact, regardless.

That's exactly what I was NOT saying - it's not at conception. However, I understand that some people think it's conception & think that abortion is murder. The point of the article that I cited is that, on a pratical level, we've figured out that a stillborn child is not the same a miscarriage, and we grieve/deal with them differently. And I'm not saying that this is necessarily a justification for keeping abortions legal.

I would compromise on the abortion issue if I thought it would bring our country together. However, I wouldn't like to go back to the day where women get illegal abortions from illegal doctors. BTW - haven't abortions gone up over the last 4 years?

Phoo raises alot of other good points. I'm sure Republicans don't use contraception or birth control pills though :p