• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New USA map making the rounds

Harry, where can I get a copy of that? Please, do tell!
 
My preference would be to give all those states to Canada since they lean toward gun control and socialism. They would fit in better in a country like that.

California however, give them to Mexico. Boom, Mexico is a world power overnight.
 
for some reason I can't get the image to attach (just as an avatar). I can e-mail it to anyone if they want to try and put it up. Just PM your e-mail.

sorry.

btw, Sezme, Alaska is green because it's red! (Bush state)
 
I think Canada should invade California--and I'm not saying that selfishly, as I live in CA. I think it would be good for Canada. Look, we have farming, industry, high-tech, movie studios, and Disneyland--not to mention, you'd have a warm-weather province! Think of the increase in tourism. And how about this--America dethroned big bad Saddam Hussein, but take over California and you could take out The Terminator! Oh, the points that would score with the international community. Plus, if you take out Washington state on the way down, you'd get a twofer. Bill Gates and The Terminator.

So, come on Canada...invade California in '05.
 
I noticed your avatar on another thread, Harry and was going to ask you where you got that (or if you made it yourself). I did a quickie search but couldn't come up with anything. Thanks for finding it, Zakur! I'm printing out copies to pass around. Excellent work, whoever made this.
 
I'm amused by this map too:

blog_Election_Map_04.JPG
 
The blue areas should be labeled: "Probable terrorist targets" and the red areas should be labeled: "Unlikely terrorist targets."

The folks who are in the places most likely to be hit uniformly felt that Kerry was the better man.
 
Brown said:
The blue areas should be labeled: "Probable terrorist targets" and the red areas should be labeled: "Unlikely terrorist targets."

The folks who are in the places most likely to be hit uniformly felt that Kerry was the better man.
Click to expand...

Did you read the key? People who voted according to ethics went for Kerry, morality went to Bush.

Pick your own definition of "ethics" and "morality", of course...
 
Matabiri said:
Did you read the key? People who voted according to ethics went for Kerry, morality went to Bush.

Pick your own definition of "ethics" and "morality", of course...
Click to expand...

I guess when Clinton was president, the "ethics" part of the map was switched over to Bob Dole.

In regards to you liberals using religion as a straw-man to criticize Bush, again, you don't research facts. That's why you keep looking silly and losing elections. Here are some hard facts.

Percent of Catholics voting for Bush in Ohio- only 55%.
Percent of Catholics votong for Bush in Fla.- only 57%.

Not much more than he got in the total popular vote.
 
easycruise said:
In regards to you liberals using religion as a straw-man to criticize Bush, again, you don't research facts. That's why you keep looking silly and losing elections. Here are some hard facts.

Percent of Catholics voting for Bush in Ohio- only 55%.
Percent of Catholics votong for Bush in Fla.- only 57%.
Click to expand...

Catholics are a minority of Christians in the US.

And they've traditionally been voting Democrat for generations....it's only in the last couple of decades that they started switching to Republicans.
 
easycruise said:
I guess when Clinton was president, the "ethics" part of the map was switched over to Bob Dole.

In regards to you liberals using religion as a straw-man to criticize Bush, again, you don't research facts. That's why you keep looking silly and losing elections. Here are some hard facts.

Percent of Catholics voting for Bush in Ohio- only 55%.
Percent of Catholics votong for Bush in Fla.- only 57%.

Not much more than he got in the total popular vote.
Click to expand...

Who's guilty of the strawman here?

:id:
 
Matabiri said:
Did you read the key? People who voted according to ethics went for Kerry, morality went to Bush.

Pick your own definition of "ethics" and "morality", of course...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I saw the key, and I wasn't quite sure of the point (which is why I suggested my own key). You are right, the definitions of "ethics" and "morality" are in question. It appears my definitions of those terms are in conflict with the definitions applied by many Americans. In my humble judgment, the President of the United States, leader of the free world, Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, top executive of the nation ran a negative, dirty, unethical and immoral campaign, and has no basis for claiming any moral high ground.
 
corplinx said:
My preference would be to give all those states to Canada since they lean toward gun control and socialism. They would fit in better in a country like that.
Click to expand...

Washington does not lean toward socialism.

However, I agree, given those states to Canada immediately, along with their citizens.

Then you can figure out what you have left in Jesusland.
 
Brown said:
The blue areas should be labeled: "Probable terrorist targets" and the red areas should be labeled: "Unlikely terrorist targets."

The folks who are in the places most likely to be hit uniformly felt that Kerry was the better man.
Click to expand...
That occurred to me on the day after Election Day as well.
In my humble judgment, the President of the United States, leader of the free world, Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, top executive of the nation ran a negative, dirty, unethical and immoral campaign, and has no basis for claiming any moral high ground.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
jj said:
Washington does not lean toward socialism.

However, I agree, given those states to Canada immediately, along with their citizens.

Then you can figure out what you have left in Jesusland.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see a map showing which states are net contributors to the federal budget and which are net recipients when everything including medicaid, military expenditure, federally funded research, disaster relief etc is taken into account.
 
Brown said:
Yeah, I saw the key, and I wasn't quite sure of the point (which is why I suggested my own key). You are right, the definitions of "ethics" and "morality" are in question. It appears my definitions of those terms are in conflict with the definitions applied by many Americans.
Click to expand...

My definitions too - but I guessed that those who were polled basically meant:

"ethics" - being considerate of how ones actions control others
"morality" - being judgemental of others

In my humble judgment, the President of the United States, leader of the free world, Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, top executive of the nation ran a negative, dirty, unethical and immoral campaign, and has no basis for claiming any moral high ground.
Click to expand...

As a foreigner forced to watch US TV during the campaigns, I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom