Are all hicks republicans?

Why are a lot of the more rural areas traditionally conservative republican?

I know there are plenty of answers to this but lets hear what you guys think...Poor education? Religion? Nascar? Hunting? Incest?

"democrats win when people think, republicans win when they don't" - bill clinton (quoting someone else).

those are also the same areas that have seperate bathrooms for 'coloreds', that attend church 'religiously' and talk shit behind the back of everyone in the neighborhood.

or in other words, because they're fucking ignorant.

Check this out..

This is an email going back and forth with someone from my work..This should get some laughs..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there are Redneck values, and then there is backwoods ignorance.

Ain't nuthin' wrong with an educated Southern Boy with good ole southern

values. For me it is mostly about who stands for what I believe in (or

at least the closest to it) As a matter of fact my Doctor is a good ole

southern boy :) I am proud to be a "Redneck", I am from a small Southern

town, and we don't have the problems most of the country has because we

do things differently. Not to say they don't have their problems.

However, people are a lot happier, even if they don't know it (don't

have the stress, and fast lifestyle). But, like I said, you have your

values, I have mine, etc. If Kerry stands for what you believe in then

you are absolutely right in voting for him. I would never fault ya for

doing what you believe in Bro. Just as I expect not to be mocked for my

beliefs. I tell you since I started that darn website, I have had to

learn a lot of tolerance etc. You have die hard Pre-crash fans, die

hard post-crash fans, ones like me who like em both, and then there are

the "yankee" fans, then there are the "Southern" fans. What I am

getting at is, the reason the site took off so fast and so big, is I

don't allow anyone to get on and bash someone for their beliefs or

preferences, etc. It is also the reason I am the "ONLY" website that

the folks in the band will do interviews with. I know it aint politics,

but I feel that everyone has the right to make their own decision

without being harassed about it. Now, a little teasing may be ok

though, lol.

******

Technical Services

-----Original Message-----

From: Cluetwo

Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 5:35 PM

To: *****

Subject: Re: Voter Guide/ Know your facts.

You don't want a redneck doing surgery on your child then why would you

want

a redneck leading your country?

Lets just leave it there. Thanks for being a good guy either way,,.

Cluetwo..Stole this line from seeking

----- Original Message -----

From:*****

To: "Cluetwo"

Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 5:27 PM

Subject: RE: Voter Guide/ Know your facts.

> Hey the way I see it neither one of em are my idea of the perfect

> leader. But ya know us Rednecks, we will vote for the Redneck, lol.

>

*****

> Technical Services

>

something about machismo and right wing 'values' go hand in hand.

as my dad has said, this is white men, desperate to hang onto the last little bit of power they have.

it kinda translates to the whole party.

i think it is like the square/rectangle thing.

all republicans are hicks, all hicks arent republicans. or something.

alotta the blue collar sector goes to the dems. socially at least.

peace.

I've been debating on the army website alot lately. I hadn't realized before how open the political discussion was. Anyways something ridiculous like 3/4ths of the army is republican. And quite a few of them are good debaters. But I've been shaking things up alot. Making way for the revolution. ;)

^good work.

i've wondered about that.

yes, yes they are.... that is why bush is so appealing to them......

they're also largely A-type personalities that do what they're told and don't question things. i'm sure a large number of cops are republicans too.

same reason why most entertainers/actors/musicians are democrats.

basically, republicans are just fucking retards. they are not all 'hicks' however. not by a long shot. there are plenty of educated republicans...actually, that's kind of a total oxymoron. ha. forget it.

It's interesting, because not all republicans are hicks, but most hicks are republican...youve got all these lower income people voting for a candidate that exclusively helps out higher income families. I think theres a lot of reasons for this, most of which are the result of the media....

And all thinkers are democrats, but all democrats aren't thinkers too. I'm 3/5's hick (don't like country, nascar, but tolerate pro wrestling, cheap beer, and hunting) but was helped out from a very early age to see that there is more to the world than the tv cares to tell us. There are lots of democrats here in upstate that would like George Bush to win, I don't know, because hick trumps political allegience for other hicks? Bush's simple mindedness and fake accent reveal enough hick for most of them I guess. I know people like this, and you best believe that they're getting to the polls Nov.2 just like they get up early on Sunday.

...i think a lot of it boils down to rural people being scared of big city life and changes to the life they're known...alot of rural towns have the same families that have been living there for generations...they don't like chnage...so they see the republicans pushin 'good 'ol american values' and they're all for it...ignorance plays a big part...

I always tell myself I'm not going to allow myself to be drawn into these discussions, but somehow or another, I always give in to temptation.

You guys should know better than to believe silly statements like "all Republicans are hicks." For the better part of 150 years, the South was completely dominated by the Democratic Party. The Democrats were the party of the South before the Civil War, as well as after the Civil War. All through the 1880's and 1890's, when the Jim Crow laws were passed, the Democrats presided. There were actually shooting wars in the South, one of which occurred about twenty miles from where I live, in the town of Richmond-Rosenburg, Texas, in which the racist, white supremacist Democratic Party shot it out with the Republicans on the grounds of the Fort Bend County Court House, and in the "downtown" area of Richmond-Rosenburg. The fight lasted three days, until Governor Sul Ross could get companies of the Texas militia and several Texas Rangers there to quell the fighting.

The argument was about the Republicans organizing black people to vote, and running a black candidate for Sheriff, in 1896, I believe.

It has been said on this website that some nefarious shift occurred in Republican politics in 1948, and the Party of Lincoln suddenly was over-run by white racists. Does this make sense to you? I agree that the Republican party has become a good deal more conservative than in the past, but the Democratic Party has become much more liberal than in the past. Where BOTH parties at one time had a conservative and a liberal wing, the Republican liberals have largely decamped to the Democrats, and the conservative Democrats have decamped to the Republicans. Neither party has a lock on things like better education, or good national defense, or lower taxes, but to listen to their rhetoric, you might get the idea that the fat-cat Republcans would just be pleased to see everyone starving in the street while they smoke cigars and drink brandy, or that the Democrats are busily undermining the Defense Department, looking for ways to strangle business and recruiting people to welfare just to hasten the death of capitalism.

Both major political parties in the U.S. are dominated by families that have their origins in the up-Eastern Ivy League. Bush may have been a "C" student, but he was a C student from YALE. George H.W. Bush may like to play "oil man" and "Midland cowboy" but he comes from CONNECTICUT, and he also graduated from YALE. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a political candidate for President that does NOT come from an Ivy League school. And the same is true of most of the cabinets of recent Presidents.

You can't have it both ways.

Use your powers of discrimination to sift the wheat from the chaff. If you think that Mr. Kerry would fight the war in Iraq differently, then look into his statements about it. Either he's lying in his speeches, or he intends to rapidly increase troop concentrations in Iraq if elected.

Neither party can do things very much differently than they are doing right now. They run from the extremes (left and right, respectively) but they must GOVERN FROM THE MIDDLE. The government of the United States cannot take an extremist stand for very long. Mr. Clinton found this to be true, so did George H.W. Bush.

No president is perfect. They all wind up facing situations that are nearly unsolvable. Mr. Kerry is driven to the left, trying to appease his more liberal supporters, who are sure to howl, if he gets elected, that they have been betrayed, when he begins to swing back to the center to govern the country.

As far as a political tendency being funded by the super-rich---do you not fing George Soros' investment of millions and millions to defeat George Bush somewhat suspect? What do you suppose Mr. Soros hopes to gain? I know if I spent millions of dollars to help put a Democrat in office, I would expect a lot more than a weekend in the Lincoln bedroom in return.

...kabar...it's good to see you in these conversations finally, since you're one of the only people that has a vastly different perspective...however...once again you just talked about a bunch of stuff that is completely off topic...150 years ago both parties were completely different, since then we've seen multiple smaller parties be usurped into the main parties and have their views shift accordingly (populist party, the dixiecrats, etc.)...while the history lesson is interesting, it's not very relevant today...

...the question raised is why rural areas are more likely to lean to the republican party and versely why educated people are more likely to lean to the democratic party...

...as far as George Soros goes...your point has no weight...what's worse? a billionaire investing his own money to stop a politician he doesn't agree with (...a politician, mind you, that completely changed the way races for president are run and will be run from here forth by spending more money than anyone in history)...or a billionaire that invests his money more discreetly and is paid off with cabinet seats and no bid contracts?...you can't complain about the democrats playing the game that carl rove republicans started in the first place...

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 21 2004, 12:21 PM

You guys should know better than to believe silly statements like "all Republicans are hicks."

Quoted post

I never suggested all Republicans are hicks. I did say most hicks are republican. that could be an overstatement, and the term hick may not be the best choice of words...but the question asked is far from being silly...I'm not trying to take a cheap shot at any group of people, republicans or rural citizens...so dont take this thread the wrong way, and if anyone has I appologize...but I don't think anyone has been able to fully answer the question yet

Well, thanks, Porque, it's nice to be here.

However, I don't see that my statement is off-topic. Richmond-Rosenburg is a town in a rural area. It was Democratic for years and years and years, as was the rest of Texas. Texas has millions of rural residents, but like everywhere else, the majority of our population is urban or suburban. And Texas is very Republican now, something that would have been unthinkable when I was twenty.

The Democrats moved to the left so far on many social issues that they left many loyal Democrats behind. A lot of older people I know say "If my father knew I voted Republican, he would turn over in his grave! I never thought I would cast a vote for a Republican in my life." The lines have been drawn in a battle over the culture of the country. The convictions that are most deeply held seem to go deeper than party loyalties. Support for abortion, religion, gay marriage---these things that are tenets of the Democrats are deeply offensive to many people, both rural residents and city people. The right to keep and bear arms is as sacred to them as is the right to free speech. These are not lightweight issues. They are things that are profoundly changing the way life is lived in this country, and there are millions of people who are adamantly opposed to these changes, just as there are millions of supporters.

We vote, more for the issues than the candidate. To characterize all Republicans as "hicks," or "rednecks" is absurd. Really, to characterize anyone or any group as all one thing or another is absurd. There are good things and bad things about every candidate, and in the end, it is only the final vote of the Electoral College that really matters. We do not vote for a candidate. We vote for an Elector, really. And he or she votes for the candidate.

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 21 2004, 01:21 PM

Bush may have been a "C" student, but he was a C student from YALE.

Quoted post

he was a C student at yale who went there as a second choice, becuase some no-name law school in texas refused him entry based on insuficent test scores! he didn't get into yale because he deserved it, he got in because his father went there and was a huge alumni donator. he got in there the same way he got into (and subsequently out of) the national guard.

just listen to the way bush talks for christ sakes. i have a better vocabulary than he does and i dropped out of fucking high school! you will never in a million years convince me that he earned even a C average at yale (where he was incidently busted for selling fake ID's.)

as for george soros,

dude has given (i believe) billions of dollars to reform education and to help develop fledgling countries. he's one of the largest philanthropists in history. as far as many people are concerned, soros included, the future of the world itself is dependent upon getting bush (and more importantly his people) out of office. to someone with more money than they could ever possibly spend, dropping 15 million dollars to insure the future of humanity is nothing. as porque said, be concerned with the people who don't make their intentions known, not those who do. bush's pioner and ranger campains are far more nefarious than soros, who, along with teh uber wealthy william buffet, has been very outspoken about bush's tax plans. going on record as saying the common people are getting screwed, and you yourself should be footing more of the bill is a pretty unambiguous stance.

kabar, i think you're taking an obviously tongue in cheek topic a bit too seriously.

just to bring up guns again, since you cant seem to have any opinion on anything without involving them yourself, what did you think about kerry flat out saying that he did not support the ammending of any constitution that limits americans freedoms, and that he would NEVER try to take our guns away from us? yes, he did say that the weapons ban should stay in place, but we both know how absolutely meaningless that was. bush also said he supported the ban.

so since that was your big anchor issue, what is your excuse for voting republican now? since you can no longer use the 'dems-want-ma-guns' excuse? and you also cant use your 'mother knows best' excuse, since the republicans are the ONLY ones to enact laws that restrict personal freedoms and choices. democrats want us all to play fair, republicans want us to play their game, or not play at all.

yet still you support them. why? your arguments make absolutely no logical sense when faced with reality (which seems to be a bit of a trend, but whatever.)

how can you spend so much time typing without answering the question?

you have monologues, not discussions.

...and what about the nra supporting bush, and more importantly, blatantly lying about kerry's position on guns...kerry is the same kind of gun owner that the majority of the nra is...a hunter...

...let me go back to the original issue that was brought up...i really do believe that the rural vote comes from a misguided perception of 'american values' and teh 'american dream'...these are things that the republican party proudly tout as being in defense of and working to restore in our society...but the values that these represent only existed in this country for a short amount of time in the fifties...when working class families were able to survive on the money they made relatively comfortably, more young men were going to college, women stayed home and raised the kids...fact of the matter is that these things only existed fro such a short amount of time that it's completely ubsurd to believe that these are true american values and traditions...

...but people are scared of society now...and instead of facing the issues that directly deal with the problems, they chose to escape from them by pursing a false reality...for the lowerclass it's teh belief that we need to restore these american family values, that somehow thaings will get back to the good 'ol days that they remmeber from being kids...and for the upper class it's the belief that more money will make them happy and not have to deal with these things (move to the suburbs...ignore the problems are they don't affect you) it's not their problem and it's not their fault...

...bush went to harvard too...got an mba with a c average there too...

Originally posted by symbols@Oct 21 2004, 02:43 PM

how can you spend so much time typing without answering the question?

 

you have monologues, not discussions.

Quoted post

practice, apparently.

harvard and yale....hmmm. maybe it's just me, but isn't there a pretty serious 'rivalry' between harvard and yale? graduating from one, then going to the other seems nearly treasonous to me. unless of course, you are for some reason barred from getting your masters at the one you did your undergrad at. hmmmm. i wonder what bush's rational was for switching schools.

i know i'm venturing into 'conspiracy theory' territory, but whatever.

actually, fuck that. i'll bet my car that if we were both tested, i'd dance circles around that simian motherfucker, and i've got a half assed high school diploma and 5 years of community college under my belt (yet still no associates). the dude is a complete moron. there is no possible way that even someone with a high-average IQ could be in his position, with all the handlers he has, and still be as fucking clueless as he is. the guy is jello wrapped in a suit. without cheney he's nothing.

ha, so i guess you could say he's got 'dick for brains'.

seeks/sadly, pun intended.

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 21 2004, 09:21 AM

In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a political candidate for President that does NOT come from an Ivy League school.

Quoted post

Clinton went to Georgetown University...

Ronald Reagan went to Eureka College...

Jimmy Carter went to the Naval Academy in Annapolis...

Richard Nixon went to Whittier College and Duke University Law School

Gerald Ford went to University of Michigan but did go to Yale law school...

Lyndon Johnson went to Southwest Texas State Teachers College...

Dwight D. Eisenhower went to West Point...

...my point here is as much that you personally over generalize very often in your arguments. I see this a lot also in the general assumptions many republican minded people make (though Democrats aren't all little Chomsky's either). I realize your statement was non-partisan but your attitude isn't. The world is not being run by New England liberals who want to set every criminal free, take away your guns, turn the country into a communist dictatorship, abort all babies, and give blinged out welfare checks to anyone that asks...

Originally posted by porque@Oct 21 2004, 01:49 PM

kerry is the same kind of gun owner that the majority of the nra is...a hunter...

 

Quoted post

Exactly. The kind that crawls around on his stomach, hunting deer with his trusty 12 gauge double-barrel. Shit cracked me up.

I honestly don't really view the whole Democrat/Republican (or liberal/conservative, if you will) boundary as intelligent/ignorant. I've been looking at both with the same scrutiny for quite some time now and to me it boils down to two fundamentally different ways of thinking and viewing life in general, mostly based on morals. When moral bases differ, the whole evaluation of things as right and wrong will differ as well, and it's pretty much impossible to "disprove" one with the moral base of the other. It's similar (in more ways than one) to the science/religion gap... you can't evaluate religion with science's fundamental underpinnings (reason), and you can't do the same to science with those of religion (faith).

Mammero---I think that your statement makes a lot of sense, and explains why the two groups are so adamantly opposed to one another. I've had the feeling for a long time that the U.S. is developing a fundamental schism that may someday again result in civil war.

I think that the "intelligent/ignorant" thing comes from a long standing liberal tendency to label anyone who was opposed to civil rights, school busing or affirmative action as "ignorant." This seems to have morphed into a tendency to label anyone who disagrees with any part of the liberal agenda at all as "ignorant." Since the meaning of ignorant is "uneducated," the implication is that if only these opponents of whatever just knew the facts, they would no longer be opposed. This may or may not be true, I don't know. It might be true for some people.

But there are a whole lot of people who just remain flat out opposed to many of the changes that have been fostered, and it is not likely that they will ever change their minds. They might be forced into silence, but it's not likely that they will ever be converted.

As an aside about a remark up the stack about the ineffectiveness of the assault weapons ban---yes, it was ineffective. One of the main results of the AWB was to create a domestic market for AK47 receivers, because the ban was against imported assault weapons. So the assault weapon manufacturers and wholesalers got together, imported all the parts of AK47's except the receiver, then assembled them on a 100% American-made AK47 receiver. These weapons were a lot more expensive than the imported AKS's and MAK-90's, but at least we could get assault rifles. They sold like hot cakes.

The assault weapons ban was all about COSMETICS, what the rifles LOOKED LIKE. Stupid bullshit. The liberal anti-gunners are complete idiots. Now, just about everyone I know who bought AR-15 rifles with the bayonet lug cut off and the flash suppressor replaced with a welded-on A-2 "muzzle break" is quickly replacing the barrels with standard AR-15 barrels. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno sold more assault rifles and cases of ammunition during the Clinton years than in ALL OF HISTORY, by their idiotic, fascistic behavior.

And, they cemented the beliefs of millions of gun owners that the Democratic Party is crazy and just wants to disarm all Americans for no reason whatsoever. Mr. Kerry can go shoot shotguns as much as he pleases, I will never be convinced that he is anything but the enemy of the Second Amendment. Just about everyone I know feels the same way. We do not trust him.

The bottom line is that if they want to disarm us, THEY MUST HAVE A REASON FOR WANTING TO DO SO. What is it? It cannot possibly be so dumb as disarming millions of law-abiding patriots because of the criminal actions of less than 1/10 of 1% of the gun owning public. That is just too transparently stupid. WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO DISARM THE POPULATION? Well, obviously, because if we are armed, WE CAN RESIST. So it's pretty obvious to me that anybody who wants to take militia-grade weapons away from me must have something pretty fucking bad in store. No thanks. I guess I just can't go along with surrendering my assault rifle. Or my stockpile of ammunition.

If you guys can't understand this, well, then I guess you just can't. Be my guest, surrender all your weapons. But I won't. And I will continue to vote against anybody who supports the disarmament of the civilian population.

kabar, jusus fucking christ dude, THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED!!! why the fuck cant you EVER answer a simple fucking question?! you obviously read what i said, because you went off on the one portion of it that allowed you to resort to your bag of rhetoric. what about the rest of it though? what abotu the points i brought up?! what about the fact that kerry in no uncertain terms said I WILL NOT SUPPORT THE TAKING OF GUNS FROM CITIZENS? what about the fact that bush admitted he SUPPORTED the assault weapon ban? what about the rest of the questions i asked?! trying to have a conversation with you is seriously one of the assanine events in the history of mankind. TALK TO ME, NOT AT ME. dont recite me your NRA reactionary bullshit, if i wanted that i'd pick up a pamphlet. im trying to have a DISCUSSION, which is why i ask questions. you're trying to hold a fucking lecture.

"The liberal anti-gunners are complete idiots. "

i hate to break it to you tiger, but there are just as many liberal gun owners as there are republican, conservative 'anti-assault weaponers'. quite with your bullshit statements that have absolutely NO basis in facts. the assault weapon ban was supported by nearly every law enforcement organization in the country. a group that happens to be predominately conservative. i brought up the fact that the assault weapon ban was bullshit to prove that your rational was bullshit as well. NO ONE has taken any actual measures to keep guns out of your hands since REAGAN in 86, when he banned fully auto weapons. reagan, in case you dont remember, was a republican. clinton and janet reno reacted to an out cry from the people. they passed some bullshit law for 'show' that accomplished nothing to make THE PUBLIC happy. the MAJORITY of america, i'm willing to bet 3/4ths, which is a larger margin than you'll find nearly anywhere, think that assault weapons should be banned.

jesus dude, you seriously need to take a fucking look at yourself and the bullshit you talk. you're a fucking teddy ruxbin stuck on loop with a charlton heston tape in your back. it's tired as fuck. you say you'll never support a candidate that supports the disarming of american citizens. kerry said he does not support that either, so what is your rational for voting for a arguably retarded fundamentalist lunatic who has done more to TAKE AWAY the freedoms of your 'freedom loving brothers and sisters' than ANY LIBERAL DEMOCRAT EVER?! please fucking explain that. if you cant, then go the fuck away already!

seeks/a VERY liberal, educated voter who owns a pre-ban ak, a 40, a .380 and a mossberg 590 tactical shotgun, so don't fucking tell about liberal anything.

Seeks man, I am 100% with you on that, but it's honestly a little dispiriting for you to keep on insulting Kabar. The guy fails to answer pretty much all questions you make, and I know it can get downright infuriating, but at least he keeps a solid level of respect that I think should come from both sides. Losing your cool like that seems a bit petty, and in my eyes, definitely weakens what is a perfectly solid argument on your part.

i considered that, and actually toned down the post accordibly, ha, but honestly, im just fucking sick of it. i dont care about taking some 'high road' or about looking 'professional'. if my language 'weakens' my argument, that's fine, it's still leaps and bounds stronger than his one-track babbling. when it's a discussion, i treat it as such, but as it stands, it's not. it's like talking to a god damn brick wall, so i vent my frustration accordingly.

i know you're right, but honestly what you're seing is the 'tempered' version. it would be nearly impossible for me to continue caring about the subject, but approach such ridiculous circumstances in any other manner. it could be done, but then it wouldnt be me, an i gotta keep it real, ya heard.

;)

seeks/criticism accepted, and noted.

Seeking, what john kerry says and what he does are two different things

in 2003 he sponsored a bill that would make pretty much ALL semi auto rifles and shotguns illegal

check the bill out: Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003

kerry is trying to curtail rights

so is bush

fuck them both

Roger Callero for president 2004

as far as i can tell, the bill was just to reauthorize the original bill.

either way, i dont give a shit. kabars militias are useless and will never accomplish a single thing, ever. no one is scared of them. not the government, not the corporations, not other countries, no one. they're a joke, period.

despite my owning of one, there is really no good reason for your average person to own an AK. it serves no practical purpose.

the problem is a society that relies on guns, not guns in society.