ciplexian
Member
- Dec 15, 2004
- 69
- 6
- 6
Adam's Apple said:Before I decide if I want to put a dog in this fight, what specific "states" are we talking about?
The most obvious ones: Texas and Massachusetts (as well as others).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Adam's Apple said:Before I decide if I want to put a dog in this fight, what specific "states" are we talking about?
ciplexian said:The most obvious ones: Texas and Massachusetts (as well as others).
Adam's Apple said:I read Sullivan's article, and I don't know how he can logically compare Massachusetts statistics to Texas. These statistics are based on state population figures per thousand, and the population of Texas is about four times that of Massachusetts. [/quoite]
That's why its per thousand.
Sullivan is also not consistent in his comparison of the divorce rate and the abortion rate. In stating divorce rates he keeps the comparison to the states because Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate of the 50 states; however, on abortion where Massachusetts does not have the lowest rate of the 50 states, Sullivan compares U.S. abortion rates to abortion rates in other countries. Up to the point where he chooses to discuss abortion figures, his comparisons had been based on state figures. To me this is typical liberal writing--bend the facts to support your thesis. If the facts are not there, then bring in a totally different argument.
Ok, the abortion rates comparison should be across countries not states.
Adam's Apple said:To me Sullivan's comparison would have been more believable if he had compared Texas, not to Massachusetts, but to Florida or New York, states with populations more nearly the size of Texas. And Massachusetts, not with Texas, but with Indiana or Washington State, where population is more nearly the size of Massachusetts.
And I believe the reason Sullivan didn't compare the abortion rate for Massachusetts with Texas was because Massachusetts' rate was higher, so he looked around to see where America's abortion rate could be compared unfavorably. (A favorite tick of the liberals) From the tone of his article, it was clear he wanted to be sure that the reader got the impression that people in the Blue States (who voted for Kerry) were superior to people in the Red States (who voted for Bush). You no doubt noticed that the people he chose to denigrate in this article were all right-wingers.
Just my opinon, but what do I know? I'm just one of those people who live in Red State America where ignorance, closed minds, prejudice, etc., abound--nothing at all like the people living in those enlightened Blue States.
Adam's Apple said:To me Sullivan's comparison would have been more believable if he had compared Texas, not to Massachusetts, but to Florida or New York, states with populations more nearly the size of Texas. And Massachusetts, not with Texas, but with Indiana or Washington State, where population is more nearly the size of Massachusetts.
And I believe the reason Sullivan didn't compare the abortion rate for Massachusetts with Texas was because Massachusetts' rate was higher, so he looked around to see where America's abortion rate could be compared unfavorably. (A favorite tick of the liberals) From the tone of his article, it was clear he wanted to be sure that the reader got the impression that people in the Blue States (who voted for Kerry) were superior to people in the Red States (who voted for Bush). You no doubt noticed that the people he chose to denigrate in this article were all right-wingers.
Just my opinon, but what do I know? I'm just one of those people who live in Red State America where ignorance, closed minds, prejudice, etc., abound--nothing at all like the people living in those enlightened Blue States.
Mariner said:how conservatives and Bush supporters seem to be one and the same here.
How exactly is Bush a great conservative president?
His fiscal policies are completely non-conservative--running up enormous debt is not the way a conservative runs a household. Starting a war and not paying for it isn't the national personal responsibility that conservatives harp on.
His gov't growth policies have not been small-gov't conservative--the gov't has grown 6-7% per year under his management, vs. 3-4% per year under Clinton.
His social policies have been only token-conservative--a hundred million for faith-based initiatives, some restrictions in sex education and abortion--but he's also been liberal, adding a Medicare prescription drug benefit.
His international policy--invading and remaking Iraq in our own image--is so profoundy liberal that even most liberals are against it.
So where are the "conservatives against Bush"?
Mariner.