Premier Rock Forum

[quote]States, however, differ significantly in white fertility. The most fecund whites are in heavily Mormon Utah, which, not coincidentally, was the only state where Bush received over 70 percent. White women average 2.45 babies in Utah compared to merely 1.11 babies in Washington, D.C., where Bush earned but 9 percent. The three New England states where Bush won less than 40 percent—Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island—are three of the four states with the lowest white birthrates, with little Rhode Island dipping below 1.5 babies per woman.

Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility (just as he did in 2000), and 25 out of the top 26, with highly unionized Michigan being the one blue exception to the rule. (The least prolific red states are West Virginia, North Dakota, and Florida.)

In sharp contrast, Kerry won the 16 states at the bottom of the list, with the Democrats’ anchor states of California (1.65) and New York (1.72) having quite infertile whites.

Among the 50 states plus Washington, D.C., white total fertility correlates at a remarkably strong 0.86 level with Bush’s percentage of the 2004 vote. (In 2000, the correlation was 0.85.) In the social sciences, a correlation of 0.2 is considered “low,â€

i guess thats a somewhat interesting post, but wouldn't it just be easier to remark that republicans are more likely to be family oriented and often times caucasian? a majority of minorities are democrats, and most democrat whites favor smaller families. thats the article i would have wrote. how about, stop the incessant racism instead of 'white, ideological inbreeding, which really has nothing to do with this article?

uziandari wrote:i guess thats a somewhat interesting post, but wouldn't it just be easier to remark that republicans are more likely to be family oriented and often times caucasian? a majority of minorities are democrats, and most democrat whites favor smaller families. thats the article i would have wrote. how about, stop the incessant racism instead of 'white, ideological inbreeding, which really has nothing to do with this article?

Andrew is saying that he wants someone to stop Republicans from passing on Republican-ness to large sums of children. His comment is based on the fact that white Republicans seem to be reproducing at a higher rate than white Democrats. I'm not sure where racism comes in. The article you would have wrote would not be related at all.


-Noah

Noah wrote:

uziandari wrote:i guess thats a somewhat interesting post, but wouldn't it just be easier to remark that republicans are more likely to be family oriented and often times caucasian? a majority of minorities are democrats, and most democrat whites favor smaller families. thats the article i would have wrote. how about, stop the incessant racism instead of 'white, ideological inbreeding, which really has nothing to do with this article?

Andrew is saying that he wants someone to stop Republicans from passing on Republican-ness to large sums of children. His comment is based on the fact that white Republicans seem to be reproducing at a higher rate than white Democrats. I'm not sure where racism comes in. The article you would have wrote would not be related at all.


-Noah

point taken. i still don't see where inbreeding comes into it. why is one political party more wrong than another? i can understand one being against george bush as a political leader or a person even, but a good number of our greatest presidents were republicans. i just dont see why everyone involved in artistic expression, i.e. acting, music, etc, is so die hard anti-republican. take note that i didn't say democrat. and the running argument is that democrats are more open-minded, but i don't see anything open minded about being adamantly and sometimes abusively against someone elses opinions. to each his own.

uziandari wrote:point taken. i still don't see where inbreeding comes into it. why is one political party more wrong than another? i can understand one being against george bush as a political leader or a person even, but a good number of our greatest presidents were republicans. i just dont see why everyone involved in artistic expression, i.e. acting, music, etc, is so die hard anti-republican. take note that i didn't say democrat. and the running argument is that democrats are more open-minded, but i don't see anything open minded about being adamantly and sometimes abusively against someone elses opinions. to each his own.

If open-mindedness = being as accepting of bigotry and ignorance as one would be of any other position, then Ive no time for any open-mindedness. The Republicans proudly won the last election on the backs of middle American homophobia and rather questionable beliefs about "morality" and its place in govt. I hold no truck with either of these things. I am proudly closed-minded about that.

I'm perfectly ok with many individual Republicans. I often find large chunks of their political beliefs distasteful, but as long as they dont embrace hatred and fear like their party regularly does, I dont mind disagreeing with them as reasonable people are wont to do. But their party and their party's leaders can suck my dick.

Oh, and please feel free to name me one (or more) of those "great" Republican presidents from the 20th century. Ive no interest in any prior to the modern age; the whole "Party of Lincoln" thing is a sham. The GOP of today shares nothing with Lincoln.

to each his own.

Not when you're talking about who runs a country.

uziandari wrote:why is one political party more wrong than another?

i just dont see why everyone involved in artistic expression, i.e. acting, music, etc, is so die hard anti-republican.

Here's a good example of why:
http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4839

uziandari wrote:...the running argument is that democrats are more open-minded, but i don't see anything open minded about being adamantly and sometimes abusively against someone elses opinions. to each his own.

I think it's pretty clear that the modern Democratic party is waaaaaaay more "open minded" than the modern Republican party on just about every pertinent issue. I mean, are you fucking kidding me?

The title of this thread reminded me of a funny news story I read last week:

National Front Disco

These conservatives breed like rats.

endofanera wrote:Oh, and please feel free to name me one (or more) of those "great" Republican presidents from the 20th century. Ive no interest in any prior to the modern age; the whole "Party of Lincoln" thing is a sham. The GOP of today shares nothing with Lincoln.

i always liked teddy roosevelt.
speaking of inbreeding, didn't teddy's niece eleanor grow up to marry his cousin franklin roosevelt?
both democrats.
hmmm...