Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, royiv said:

Or you could look at that map and infer that there are a lot of people out there that vote against their own self interests. Let’s take West Virginia as an example. In the most recent election, voters in West Virginia went for Trump 70/30. West Virginia is the second most federally dependent state in the union. Trump ran on a platform of slashing government jobs and spending on federal programs so those cuts would hit West Virginians hard, yet they overwhelmingly voted for the platform. 

Got it.  So the idea is now we lump voters into a monolith on a state by state basis and project how, from behind our computers the 'why' of the way each person votes?  Seems like a great idea.

  • Fuck You 6
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
Just now, RockwallJim said:

Got it.  So the idea is now we lump voters into a monolith on a state by state basis and project how, from behind our computers the 'why' of the way each person votes?  Seems like a great idea.

What are you blathering about? It’s pretty well understood that a whole lot of people vote against their own best interests. This isn’t some new phenomenon.

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, RockwallJim said:

Ok, great.  So now we are subdividing states by truly red, kinda red, kinda blue and truly blue?  Are we also going to create a purple state group? It appears you are trying to now shift from a statistical conversation to a nuanced conversation.  

I was not aware purple states did not exist. I thought we had been talking about them forever. The swing states. Are you accusing me of making up this concept? You kidding me? This is why I think you are playing stupid or being intentionally obtuse

And I am not shifting anything. I was just explaining the point the map was trying to make. You didn't use any statistics besides going "hey there are five here vs five here" I didn't see a statistical breakdown of Democratic states versus Republican states.

And just because I find the point the map is trying to make doesn't mean I find it very convincing. Every single state is very divided into Republican voting areas versus Democrat voting areas. If we were really going to analyze this concept from a serious perspective we would probably have to break it down by county. But that is rather stupid. It isn't a joke or point that serious that deserves this kind of obsessive analysis. Most farming areas get federal subsidies, and most farming areas vote Republican so...that's a thing. For whatever that's worth.

And we have kind of weird things like Alaska, which has tons of natural resources and a small population, being presented as a big taker of federal money. But it is probably true in a technical sense, as there are lots of federal lands there. Similarly Hawai'i has a lot of military bases and so forth. 

I don't think the map means that much, but at least I am smart enough to understand the point being made.

Edited by Valmy77
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, royiv said:

What are you blathering about? It’s pretty well understood that a whole lot of people vote against their own best interests. This isn’t some new phenomenon.

First off, I haven't blathered once. I also don't think I ever brought up anybody voting for or against their interests.  What I brought up was the reductive nature of that map and the fact it doesn't nearly present the 'gotcha moment' they thought it did.   Which is why I asked what exactly the point of it was?

  • Fuck You 5
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
Just now, Valmy77 said:

I was not aware purple states did not exist. I thought we had been talking about them forever. The swing states. Are you accusing me of making up this concept? You kidding me? This is why I think you are playing stupid or being intentionally obtuse

And I am not shifting anything. I was just explaining the point the map was trying to make. You didn't use any statistics besides going "hey there are five here vs five here" I didn't see a statistical breakdown of Democratic states versus Republican states.

And just because I find the point the map is trying to make doesn't mean I find it very convincing. Every single state is very divided into Republican voting areas versus Democrat voting areas. If we were really going to analyze this concept from a serious perspective we would probably have to break it down by county. But that is rather stupid. It isn't a joke or point that serious that deserves this kind of obsessive analysis. Most farming areas get federal subsidies, and most farming areas vote Republican so...that's a thing. For whatever that's worth.

And we have kind of weird things like Alaska, which has tons of natural resources and a small population, being presented as a big taker of federal money. But it is probably true in a technical sense, as there are lots of federal lands there. Similarly Hawai'i has a lot of military bases and so forth. 

I don't think the map means that much, but at least I am smart enough to understand that point being made.

Well, we can agree to disagree then.  I think that map, at best, was an attempt to push a narrative that doesn't match reality...especially when taking into account (as you've stated) the razor thin margins of voting within each state.  I think if you weighted each state's population (texas and florida being #2 & #3) you'd find that map doesn't really prove any theory at all...you know the whole correlation vs causation thing.

  • Fuck You 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, RockwallJim said:

nteresting chart, although written with a very marginal grasp on facts or reality.   Allow me to pick this apart point by point.   Let's begin with "throngs of racist fascist christians".  

Nazi Germany was an overwhelmingly Christian nation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

54% Protestant

41% Catholic

That's 95%.

The chart is correct. There were throngs of racist fascist Christians who supported Hitler. Protestants the most. That's a fact of historical reality. 

Of course, to those who are not brainwashed and know real religious history, this is no real surprise. 

Now, be sure to tell everyone at Sunday School tomorrow what you learned on the internet. 

 

Edited by BevoAbyss
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BevoAbyss said:

Nazi Germany was an overwhelmingly Christian nation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

54% Protestant

41% Catholic

That's 95%.

The chart is correct. There were throngs of racist fascist Christians who supported Hitler. Protestants the most. That's a fact of historical reality. 

Of course, to those who are not brainwashed and know real religious history, this is no real surprise. 

Now, be sure to tell everyone at the Megachurch tomorrow what you learned on the internet. 

 

Could you fucking temper the atheist talking points for a moment?  I've asked you a dozen times and you keep pushing the same shit, because you're a zealot.  There is a SIGNIFICANT faction of Christians who absolutely oppose the fundagelical viewpoint, but your bigotry doesn't let you see it.  Fuck you for being smart enough (allegedly) to grasp the concept but for refusing to even consider it.  You're as bad as the megachurch assholes.  Literally.  (And by that I mean LITERALLY.)

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, BevoAbyss said:

Now, be sure to tell everyone at the Megachurch tomorrow what you learned on the internet. 

 

Will everyone stand and slow clap?

Posted (edited)

I see the apologists showed up on cue. 

Of course, not every Christian supports what's happening in America. But they are not running the show. 

But it seems the majority voted for Trump (see table below).

And the Christian fanatics who voted for Trump are running the show and they are imposing a fascist theocracy. That's a fact. That's Project 2025.

That Nazi Germany was overwhelmingly Christian is a fact. That does not mean every Christian supported Nazism. But it sure seems like most did. 

Those aren't "atheist talking points." Those are facts. Too bad y'all can't handle those facts because you were raised as Christians.

Adios.

 

2024 Voters Circled.jpg

Edited by BevoAbyss
  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, RockwallJim said:

Even though on this map the 2 largest "electoral points to Trump States" are in the column with net dollars towards DC as were 3 others....for a total of 5 states.. while there was the exact same number, 5, of "electoral points to Harris States" that were net dollars from DC.  Seems this map (to an intelligent person) displays nearly zero correlation.   BUT NEVER LET FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY, RIGHT?

You realize that there are 50 states, yes?

Posted
1 hour ago, RockwallJim said:

What is an intelligent person supposed to take from this map?  I'm sure you're trying to make some point here, but I'm not sure exactly what it is?

weird self own because it's pretty obvious what that map is saying. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, BevoAbyss said:

I see the apologists showed up on cue. 

Of course, not every Christian supports what's happening in America. But they are not running the show. 

But it seems the majority voted for Trump (see table below).

And the Christian fanatics who voted for Trump are running the show and they are imposing a fascist theocracy. That's a fact. That's Project 2025.

That Nazi German was overwhelmingly Christian is a fact. That does not mean every Christian supported Nazism. But it sure seems like most did. 

Those aren't "atheist talking points." Those are facts. Too bad y'all can't handle those facts because you were raised as Christians.

Adios.

Adios?  Are you turning tail, pussy?

1)  you don't know the actual numbers, you know the fractions.

2) do you actually think it's in our best interests to alienate a huge voting block THAT IS ALIGNED WITH YOU?

 

You have the tactical acumen of my chihuahua, and she's a fucking idiot.

Posted
7 minutes ago, BevoAbyss said:

I see the apologists showed up on cue. 

Of course, not every Christian supports what's happening in America. But they are not running the show. 

But it seems the majority voted for Trump (see table below).

And the Christian fanatics who voted for Trump are running the show and they are imposing a fascist theocracy. That's a fact. That's Project 2025.

That Nazi German was overwhelmingly Christian is a fact. That does not mean every Christian supported Nazism. But it sure seems like most did. 

Too bad y'all can't handle those facts because you were raised as Christians.

Adios.

 

2024 Voters Circled.jpg

"Ladder, pair of pliers, it's a different book"

SK

Posted
7 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

Anyone here "Stand Up For Science" yesterday?

I took to the streets for the science rally, with cool sign in hand. Saw a boisterous, agitated, happy-dejected crowd of about 1000 people in the metropolis where I attended the really.

-- Crowd size was more than I expected, but tiny considering the million+ population of the metropolis and surrounding burbs.  So, about 1 out of 1000 people attended from the area.

-- Lots of funny and piognant signs. Too many to post here.  

-- Saw many faces that seemed depressed-dejected ... and downright angry.

The speakers (local scientists and local politicians) had their lines. But other than saying "fight back" and "demand a seat at the table," there was not much of a plan.

Two hours of a rally .... then it disappears. 

https://standupforscience2025.org

But, I feel good for going.

And trust me, my ongoing international art project will not ignore what is going down in America.

No fucking way! 

Science.jpg

This is literally the first I heard of it.  Great cause, shitty promotion.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Adios?  Are you turning tail, pussy?

What a badass! Beaver gonna fight me on the church parking lot? 

Lulz.

Across decades, I have written numerous articles and books that state my positions on a variety of topics that involve art, science, philosophy, politics, culture, and sometimes religion and beliefs. In public. With my name on it. Stuff that goes way way way beyond "atheist talking points" or stuff in Surly.

And no publisher or editor or reviewer or commenter has called me a "bigot." Or a "pussy." Only you Beaver. But, then, you're an internet tough guy, I guess.

"Adios" because it is pointless for me to continue. 

4 decades of debating with religious believers and apologists ... many with PhDs in theology at UT and elsewhere ... not merely your local megachurch bible thumper or online poster ... and I still can't fully remember that it is utterly pointless to argue with them. 

Yet, I still sometimes get sucked in. My bad.

There are no amount of facts or logic will convince anyone anything who believes that the Creator of a universe .... with two trillion galaxies and three sextillion stars .... stretching across 93 billion light years .... has a special behavioral plan ...  just for them ... on a fraction of a tiny ball of dirt and water ... orbiting a flaming ball of hydrogen ... in a remote part of a single galaxy.  

I am plainly stupid for arguing at all ... with any religious person in Surly .... or on this planet ... or in this galaxy ... or in this universe.

So, yes, adios. 

 

Edited by BevoAbyss
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, RockwallJim said:

Interesting chart, although written with a very marginal grasp on facts or reality.   Allow me to pick this apart point by point.   Let's begin with "throngs of racist fascist christians".  Are you under the impression that Nazism had christianity as a core tenant of that political movement?

I think we found the less than marginally intelligent guy here.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
1 hour ago, RockwallJim said:

Got it.  So the idea is now we lump voters into a monolith on a state by state basis and project how, from behind our computers the 'why' of the way each person votes?  Seems like a great idea.

Do you contest the contention that Trump's voting base is strong in states that take more than they give?

I mean, we're all awestruck at your point by point obfuscation that I bet makes you the smartest guy in the room with your pals, but can you deny the general correlation actually being discussed?

One doesn't have to delve into your poor grasp of history to answer that.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
On 3/5/2025 at 2:58 PM, wood said:

Absolutely 100% fearless. If I ever have to go into battle, I want her fighting beside me.

And not one of those cowards said a thing. Just roast them. EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Adios?  Are you turning tail, pussy?

1)  you don't know the actual numbers, you know the fractions.

2) do you actually think it's in our best interests to alienate a huge voting block THAT IS ALIGNED WITH YOU?

 

You have the tactical acumen of my chihuahua, and she's a fucking idiot.

Get your people back in line.  The rest of us are tired of their hypocritical asses fucking up everything.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
12 minutes ago, BevoAbyss said:

What a badass! Beaver gonna fight me on the church parking lot? 

Lulz.

Across decades, I have written numerous articles and books that state my positions on a variety of topics that involve art, science, philosophy, politics, culture, and sometimes religion and beliefs. In public. With my name on it. Stuff that goes way way way beyond "atheist talking points" or stuff in Surly.

And no publisher or editor or reviewer or commenter has called me a "bigot." Or a "pussy." Only you Beaver. But, then, you're an internet tough guy, I guess.

"Adios" because it is pointless for me to continue. 

4 decades of debating with religious believers and apologists ... many with PhDs in theology at UT and elsewhere ... not merely your local megachurch bible thumper or online poster ... and I still can't fully remember that it is utterly pointless to argue with them. 

Yet, I still sometimes get sucked in. My bad.

There are no amount of facts or logic will convince anyone anything who believes that the Creator of a universe .... with two trillion galaxies and three sextillion stars .... stretching across 93 billion light years .... has a special behavioral plan ...  just for them ... on a fraction of a tiny ball of dirt and water ... orbiting a flaming ball of hydrogen ... in a remote part of a single galaxy.  

I am plainly stupid for arguing at all ... with any religious person in Surly .... or on this planet ... or in this galaxy ... or in this universe.

So, yes, adios. 

 

So you care more about winning the theological argument than you do about the future of America?  What a typical American libertarian/atheist dipshit.  

And you were the one who said "adios", so try not to get too butthurt when somebody takes that as an admission that you can't hang.  I'm very impressed with your articles and books and decades and whatnot.  I'm sorry your editors didn't have the stones to call you what you are, which is a bigot.  Pussy.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Get your people back in line.  The rest of us are tired of their hypocritical asses fucking up everything.

I have no power there.  Work with those of us who are aligned with you.  I can't convince a racist trumpy voter to vote otherwise.  It ain't my crowd, just as it ain't yours.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

you do about the future of America?

If you're the future of America, then we're all fucked. World leaders in name calling!

Just like Trump, the guy you claim to oppose. Look in the mirror dude. You enable his fat ass.

Edited by BevoAbyss
Posted
1 minute ago, BevoAbyss said:

If you're the future of America, then we're all fucked. World leaders in name calling!

Just like Trump, the guy you claim to oppose. Look in the mirror dude. You enable his fat ass.

Yeah, you're the problem, not the solution.  The last time I voted for a Republican was in 1984 when I was snowed by Ronald Reagan's survival of a bullet.  But yeah, I'm your enemy, you fucking fool.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

Nazi Germany was an overwhelmingly Christian nation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

54% Protestant

41% Catholic

That's 95%.

The chart is correct. There were throngs of racist fascist Christians who supported Hitler. Protestants the most. That's a fact of historical reality. 

Of course, to those who are not brainwashed and know real religious history, this is no real surprise. 

Now, be sure to tell everyone at Sunday School tomorrow what you learned on the internet. 

 

Not what I asked.  What I asked was if Christianity was a tenant of Nazism?  i.e. was it endorsed by the political ideology?

1 hour ago, South Austin said:

I hereby declare you Blather McBlatherton.

I've been called worse.

  • Fuck You 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, RockwallJim said:

Not what I asked.  What I asked was if Christianity was a tenant of Nazism?  i.e. was it endorsed by the political ideology?

I've been called worse.

*tenet

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

Do you contest the contention that Trump's voting base is strong in states that take more than they give?

I mean, we're all awestruck at your point by point obfuscation that I bet makes you the smartest guy in the room with your pals, but can you deny the general correlation actually being discussed?

One doesn't have to delve into your poor grasp of history to answer that.

I contention, if you will, is that there is no correlation between the electoral votes of a state and whether or not that state is a net contributor to, or recipient of federal funds.  That map was a sophomoric attempt to paint a group of people as being hypocrites so you can then discount their political beliefs.  Nothing more.

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

*tenet

You win the spell check wars.  Congratulations.  

  • Fuck You 5
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, RockwallJim said:

I contention, if you will, is that there is no correlation between the electoral votes of a state and whether or not that state is a net contributor to, or recipient of federal funds.  That map was a sophomoric attempt to paint a group of people as being hypocrites so you can then discount their political beliefs.  Nothing more.

You win the spell check wars.  Congratulations.  

You are new here. Don't fuck around with the spelling/grammar police.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
Just now, InkaUtexas said:

You are new here. Don't fuck around with the spelling/grammar police.

I'll consider myself warned.   I've learned you can always tell when a person has nothing of consequence to add to the discussion if they do 1 of 3 things.. 1. grammar police, 2. swear, 3. ad hominem attacks.    Pardon the pun, but the 2025 trump card is when they label somebody a Nazi.  When they use that, it's because they have nothing more convincing to add.   

  • Fuck You 7
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
Just now, RockwallJim said:

I'll consider myself warned.   I've learned you can always tell when a person has nothing of consequence to add to the discussion if they do 1 of 3 things.. 1. grammar police, 2. swear, 3. ad hominem attacks.    Pardon the pun, but the 2025 trump card is when they label somebody a Nazi.  When they use that, it's because they have nothing more convincing to add.   

well, see, you can say that all you want. But there are 2 or 3 really smart people on this subject on this thread.

You should meet Ana. He is an expert on all things Russia/Ukraine.

Posted
6 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

well, see, you can say that all you want. But there are 2 or 3 really smart people on this subject on this thread.

You should meet Ana. He is an expert on all things Russia/Ukraine.

I'm happy to meet / engage anybody on a spirited debate / exchange of ideas....I'm also fully prepared to take responsibility for having a comma in the wrong place or using a : when a ; should've been used.  I'll also give extra effort to the affect vs effect usage, their vs there, your vs you're...I know these are all important things

  • Fuck You 6
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, RockwallJim said:

there is no correlation between the electoral votes of a state and whether or not that state is a net contributor to, or recipient of federal funds.

This is an outright false statement. There is, in fact, a strong correlation supported by the data. Now, you can very well contend that correlation does not equal causation, as you and others rightly point out that it's a difficult apples-to-apples comparison due to the presence of federal assets (e.g., national parks, ports/bases/ports, CBP, and so on).

Still, if grounded in facts, that could be an interesting and enlightening topic for discussion by zeroing in on federal programs targeting individuals needing some sort of financial assistance. Given that Blue states tend to have higher median household incomes than Red states, it's not outrageous to assume that citizens of those states would require less help and yet pay more in federal income taxes. But, of course, conducting that analysis should also include consideration of the cost of living. By and large, however, I'd agree from the discussion above that breaking it down by county would be a more precise measure of the transfer of dollars.

You're welcome to peruse the data on tax dollar flows from states to DC and then back again to the states. This briefer is pretty well sourced and very recent (Feb 2025): https://www.moneygeek.com/resources/states-most-reliant-on-federal-government/

image.thumb.png.3baeaa3403f0d985949334cca63e7aae.png
image.thumb.png.df064b6f3c39f039a6b5832d52da545c.png

image.thumb.png.17f0629e84aabd62de4104e9bb68ecfb.png

image.thumb.png.375350d8b94e81ea721c02b3c0c2b427.png

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

RE: the government and military self-censoring their content.

My boy was asking me about US nuclear testing after WWII, and we watched a documentary on Operation Crossroads.   On a whim, I decided to look up the US Navy website.  Check out the banner across the top of the page:

 

Screenshot2025-03-08at7_23_56PM.thumb.png.a5310bad5e6d15dd368808ee7008ea14.png

  • Rage+1 4
Posted
50 minutes ago, RockwallJim said:

I'll consider myself warned.   I've learned you can always tell when a person has nothing of consequence to add to the discussion if they do 1 of 3 things.. 1. grammar police, 2. swear, 3. ad hominem attacks.    Pardon the pun, but the 2025 trump card is when they label somebody a Nazi.  When they use that, it's because they have nothing more convincing to add.   

1. Your grammar sucks,

2. Fuck you,

3. You're a moron.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
3 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

Across decades, I have written numerous articles and books that state my positions on a variety of topics that involve art, science, philosophy, politics, culture, and sometimes religion and beliefs.

You should post the links. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 hour ago, RockwallJim said:

That map was a sophomoric attempt to paint a group of people as being hypocrites so you can then discount their political beliefs.  Nothing more.

If you declare it, it must be so.

Posted
4 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

You realize that there are 50 states, yes?

I sure do.  Would you care to expand on which states you claim are proving your point and which states aren't? 

  • Fuck You 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

weird self own because it's pretty obvious what that map is saying. 

I'm pretty sure that map proved nothing.  Right off the top I was able to discount 20% of the sample size as directly opposing the theory.   

39 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

1. Your grammar sucks,

2. Fuck you,

3. You're a moron.

clever.

  • Fuck You 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

This is an outright false statement. There is, in fact, a strong correlation supported by the data. Now, you can very well contend that correlation does not equal causation, as you and others rightly point out that it's a difficult apples-to-apples comparison due to the presence of federal assets (e.g., national parks, ports/bases/ports, CBP, and so on).

Still, if grounded in facts, that could be an interesting and enlightening topic for discussion by zeroing in on federal programs targeting individuals needing some sort of financial assistance. Given that Blue states tend to have higher median household incomes than Red states, it's not outrageous to assume that citizens of those states would require less help and yet pay more in federal income taxes. But, of course, conducting that analysis should also include consideration of the cost of living. By and large, however, I'd agree from the discussion above that breaking it down by county would be a more precise measure of the transfer of dollars.

You're welcome to peruse the data on tax dollar flows from states to DC and then back again to the states. This briefer is pretty well sourced and very recent (Feb 2025): https://www.moneygeek.com/resources/states-most-reliant-on-federal-government/

image.thumb.png.3baeaa3403f0d985949334cca63e7aae.png
image.thumb.png.df064b6f3c39f039a6b5832d52da545c.png

image.thumb.png.17f0629e84aabd62de4104e9bb68ecfb.png

image.thumb.png.375350d8b94e81ea721c02b3c0c2b427.png

 

Interesting stats. Still searching for your point...I'm sure you're trying to make one.

  • Fuck You 6
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
4 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

The chart is correct. There were throngs of racist fascist Christians who supported Hitler. Protestants the most. That's a fact of historical reality. 

There were throngs of them in the US too. 

IMG_2085.jpeg

  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...