I know why Midnyte votes bush....

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » November 6, 2004, 6:32 pm

Forthe wrote:Sirton narrows the list to top 10 cities just to support his case, in this case claiming 50\50 in metro areas (i.e. 5\10 sounds better than 1\5 top5),

Disease travels more rapidly in dense areas!

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » November 6, 2004, 7:10 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:
Kelshara wrote:Houston is a shithole. That is all.
I found Houston to be a pretty nice place actually, a lot different than what I was expecting! I can't speak for living there, but a vacation there was fucking great!

That's because you were with me!

I've lived in Houston all my life and it is OK. It's not a shithole but its not as fun as Dallas or Austin. Our city government has been pretty worthless over the last 10 years or so but I think its getting better (I hope). Great food everywhere, horrible traffic, lots of road rage, and shitty air. (I'm sorry Sirton, but the air sucks all over the city. It is just more concentrated in Pasadena)

If you know where to go you can avoid the rednecks and meet some cool people. The art community is healthy and the gay community is close-knit and the two tend to congregate in the same locale, so it is essentially the coolest part of town.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » November 6, 2004, 7:25 pm

There only reason for calling it that is the city is in Texas and they hate Bush.

You're an idiot. I used to live in Texas, most likely will live again in Texas. But it wont be Houston if I can help it. Hated the people (way ruder than in Austin, SA or Dallas), hated the city, seemed to be fairly polluted and dirty and I am sure the economy is great but when I hate living there I wont be back

I'll take any of the 3 I mentioned over Houston any day.

However, Houston has Tia's. That is enough to visit it every now and then.

The art community is healthy and the gay community is close-knit and the two tend to congregate in the same locale, so it is essentially the coolest part of town.

A couple I've known forever used to have an appartment in the gay area. They were a tad bit out of place being a hetero couple but it was a decent area to live in for sure.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » November 6, 2004, 7:51 pm

Kelshara wrote:...Hated the people[in Houston] (way ruder than in Austin, SA or Dallas)

Must respectfully disagree with you here, Kelshara. Dallas has BY FAR more rude people with worse attitude problems. Traffic is worse there and Dallas has an "elitist," snobbish feel to it that isn't present in Houston as far as I've seen (especially post Enron collapse).

Granted, Austin and San Antonio are a lot more laid back and friendlier than either Houston or Dallas. I love visiting Austin and San Antonio and go to those cities as often as possible. If Dallas fell off the map I would not be too sad overall.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 6, 2004, 8:13 pm

Drinsic Darkwood · Post by **Drinsic Darkwood** » November 6, 2004, 8:47 pm

Forthe wrote: Sirton narrows the list to top 10 cities just to support his case, in this case claiming 50\50 in metro areas (i.e. 5\10 sounds better than 1\5 top5), and coincedently the top 10 contains a decent number of texans.

Kerry did much better in metro areas in general than Bush. Even in deep red states Kerry did well in the metro areas where as Bush controls the rural areas.

I realize that; I would agree that in general Kerry did capture the votes of most urbanized areas much better than Bush. I wasn't arguing for or against Bush with my statement but instead clarifying Sirton's point. i.e. he's not claiming Bush did better than Kerry in the "top cities", but rather he did "nearly as well," even though I personally wouldn't give him that much credit.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » November 6, 2004, 8:47 pm

Lalanae wrote:and shitty air.

I had hear that this was because of Gov. Bush's stellar environmental policy.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » November 7, 2004, 11:39 am

Must respectfully disagree with you here, Kelshara. Dallas has BY FAR more rude people with worse attitude problems. Traffic is worse there and Dallas has an "elitist," snobbish feel to it that isn't present in Houston as far as I've seen (especially post Enron collapse).

I might have just been unlucky in Houston with traffic and people.. but it was my experience that Houston was worse of the cities. Personally, I also prefere San Antonio (where I lived) and Austin though! If I move back will most likely be one of those two..

Drolgin Steingrinder · November 7, 2004, 1:30 pm

Rekaar. wrote:
Damiarch wrote:What I see from that map, is all the dumb hicks living in the country voting Bush, and the intelligent Cityfolk living in the dense populated major cities voting Kerry.

You can't dump nuclear waste in the middle of a major city! You dump it in the country where the dumb hicks live.. hrmm maybe that's why they're so stupid. and why they voted Bush..

What a bitter elitist you are. Are you really that arrogant?

Might want to read that post in context, Rek, his post was no more arrogant than Winnow's:

Winnow wrote:Nice map. It points out in blue where the next nuclear waste dumps and missiles should be placed.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » November 7, 2004, 2:35 pm

Animalor wrote:
Lalanae wrote:and shitty air.
I had hear that this was because of Gov. Bush's stellar environmental policy.

Everyone knows I despise Bush, but our air problems existed long before he was governor.

Tinkin Tankem · Post by **Tinkin Tankem** » November 7, 2004, 10:53 pm

Back to the original chart with the IQ's vs. whom they voted for. Iowa is reported on your chart to have voted for Kerry when the state was won by Bush. I would also have to say that the information on the chart statistically couldn't be correct. Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are some of the best educated states per capita, Iowa being in the top five ( I think it's #3) and Minnesota along with Wisconsin are for sure in the top ten. So it would only make since that they divided it out so incredibly by age, gender, nationality so that they could pick one that was inline with there intended goal to show that _smart _ states voted for our savior Kerry, where as the _dum_ states voted for "Bush, the Tyrant."

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » November 7, 2004, 11:12 pm

Found something a bit more realistic. They are still estimates of state IQs though.

http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-States.htm

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » November 7, 2004, 11:19 pm

Lalanae wrote:That's because you were with me!

Ohhhh.. yea, ok, that could be it!

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » November 7, 2004, 11:41 pm

Lynks wrote:Found something a bit more realistic. They are still estimates of state IQs though.

http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-States.htm

man, people ARE fucking retarded, how the hell do you get 850 on the godamn SAT?

Tinkin Tankem · Post by **Tinkin Tankem** » November 7, 2004, 11:56 pm

Note the percentages. I'm assuming you are referring to Washington D.C. Which states that they only have 18% of HS grads being tested. Where as many of the other states are closer to 60-70% tested. Either way 862 isn't too pretty.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » November 8, 2004, 3:11 am

Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:
Rekaar. wrote:
Damiarch wrote:What I see from that map, is all the dumb hicks living in the country voting Bush, and the intelligent Cityfolk living in the dense populated major cities voting Kerry.

You can't dump nuclear waste in the middle of a major city! You dump it in the country where the dumb hicks live.. hrmm maybe that's why they're so stupid. and why they voted Bush..

What a bitter elitist you are. Are you really that arrogant?
Might want to read that post in context, Rek, his post was no more arrogant than Winnow's:

Winnow wrote:Nice map. It points out in blue where the next nuclear waste dumps and missiles should be placed.

So two wrongs make a right? Interesting.

Winnow was clearly not serious anyway, you're around enough to know his flippant nature.

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » November 8, 2004, 4:01 am

Xzion wrote:
Lynks wrote:Found something a bit more realistic. They are still estimates of state IQs though.

http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-States.htm
man, people ARE fucking retarded, how the hell do you get 850 on the godamn SAT?

You know all those girls that come in herds that care nothing but who they're going to fuck afterschool. And then the corresponding druggies in school, and then just the completely retarded people. Personally I got a 1290, and I knew a number of people who got under a 750. A few under 650 (TOTAL!) I got more than that on my MATH score. You'd be surprised how dumb people are.

But lets examine the new IQ evidence just for kicks, I posted the original chart as a joke, but lets see what this comes out to be on average:

Kerry's Average State IQ = 101.57
Bush's Average State IQ = 99.26

So, obviously all the kerry voters have read this so far, but since Bush voters are inherently dumber by 2.31 points, I will compose a series of pictures of dogs, cats, and firetrucks to depict what I have already said in simpler terms....

Mak · Post by **Mak** » November 8, 2004, 6:05 am

Xzion wrote:
Lynks wrote:Found something a bit more realistic. They are still estimates of state IQs though.

http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-States.htm
man, people ARE fucking retarded, how the hell do you get 850 on the godamn SAT?

You lower the standards. Why? So kids will feel better about themselves. So underprivileged youth can get into college. SO HS athletes can continue to play instead of study. So schools can look better than they really are.

Sounds to me, Xzion, that you're in favor of the "No Child Left Behind" program.