Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You expressed some innate knowledge of Nebraska right here:
So fill us in!
What is it with you and misreading things? When I say I wonder why Iowa is different from Nebraska or South Dakota, it means I DON'T KNOW WHY IOWA IS DIFFERENT FROM NEBRASKA OR SOUTH DAKOTA. So I don't know what innate knowledge you're referring to. That question SEEKS knowledge.
Are you asking how do I know Nebraska is in the same region as Iowa? Answer- a map of the United States of America.
Yes, and it's called stop forcing my statements to mean what YOU want them to mean and let ME determine what MY point is.
If you say something that many posters think has little evidence to support it, such as support of women's suffrage reflected an "urban mindset":
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay
I brought up women's suffrage as a category that highlights a certain national trend/tendency amongst the rural mindset that contrasts with the urban mindset.
posters will focus that statement and tend to find your others statements less believable. Posters are reading your statements as you write them, if you mean something else, correct yourself but you haven't done so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay
Again with the nitpicking to avoid the point I'm making just so you can take pot shots at what I said. YOU make assumptions about what I said that lead you to bogus conclusions. America at large DID make the statement, and rural America wasn't listening, to get behind the women's vote. THAT DIDN'T MEAN WOMEN DID NOT YET HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO VOTE.
And I have tried to educate you. America at large telling rural America to get with the program and let women vote is NOT America at large telling rural America to pass women's suffrage in their legal processes. It IS America at large telling rural America to get with the program and change their lingering attitudes EVEN THOUGH WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, attitudes which seek to "put a woman in her place" and grumble against the gains in social power and freedom that women attained.
Posters have commented again and again that women's suffrage gained first acceptance in predimonately rural areas. You have chosen to dismiss the comments, for reasons you've failed to convince to me. In any case, since men were the only voters in the states that adopted women's suffrage, the attitudes of the men in these rural states (in some other not-so rural states for women's suffrage, the rural population large enough a good portion of rural men must have supported it) must have supported it.
Your blanketing of rural America as anti-women's right or at least rural America as one place, then — since you brought up women's suffrage, something from nearly 100 years ago doesn't work. Not even today does it work. A rural Maine resident is likely to be more liberal (by a lot) than an urban Mississippi resident, at lesst the white ones.
This thread has also gone way off-topic and have had numerous personal attacks. If posters find your explanation unconvincing, it may mean you've done a poor job of explaining rather than "they don't get it".
if you mean something else, correct yourself but you haven't done so.
Not true. I have clarified again and again and again the context to which I brought ALL my examples used of social issues- the trend in attitudes nationally in the past few decades. Yet despite me HAVING CLARIFIED (you call it corrected), I STILL got the same insistence from the same people, as if my clarifying/correcting didn't make a bit of difference- they were STILL going to tie my posts to what they wanted to tie my posts to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Posters have commented again and again that women's suffrage gained first acceptance
And I responded that MY point was not on where the issues BEGAN, where they FIRST came into being, but rather what the national ATTITUDES have been in the past few decades. And I even gave parallel examples, one being Roe v. Wade, as to how the national attitudes in recent times in terms of Democrats vs. Republicans is a completely DIFFERENT THING than whether a democrat or republican was the woman who sued for her rights, or whether a democrat or republican were the attorneys who argued the case in front of the supreme court, or whether a justice who voted in favor of choice was a democrat or republican. HOW it originated was not my point- ATTITUDES were, and I've stated that over and over. Those posters can comment all they want on where it BEGAN, but as I said before, leave me and my posts out of that, don't target MY posts with those comments, because MY posts have nothing to do with origins. And me repeating that to them again and again didn't seem to make a dent in their tendency TO cite my posts with their comments about where suffrage FIRST came into being.
They were simply talking about something different from what I was talking about, yet they kept citing my posts in their talking points, EVEN AFTER I clarified (you called it corrected) the context from which I was speaking. Social attitudes well after the fact stand on their own independent of how or where those social issues were first legally promulgated. That is also a sentence I have repeated. Yet folks seem to act as if I have not. (or as if they want to ignore that I have just so they can cite my posts using something out of context in an attempt to refute my posts).
At this point, I only wonder if they were THAT incapable of understanding the context after my having repeated it again and again or if they simply didn't care what my context was, all they cared about was using any means to refute my posts, even using a context I repeated was not mine. And honestly, I wonder why you now repeat their focus on where it was FIRST put into place in posts directed to me when I've made it clear that where it was FIRST put into place is not the context of my stance.
If posters find your explanation unconvincing, it may mean you've done a poor job of explaining rather than "they don't get it".
Don't know how much clearer I can get than
I'm not speaking of where a thing originated, rather I am speaking of the national trend of attitudes ABOUT the thing over the past few decades regardless of where it originated.
What's poor about THAT explanation of the context? What about THAT explanation still leads people to think I'm referring to where a thing originated?
And all my examples and points are still about national trends in urban versus rural attitudes from a political perspective. The OP made the tie between the urban and a liberal philosophy, and I'm exploring that tie (and the natural converse of rural to conservative philosophy) as well as what makes the places that are different, different.
It votes more republican by a large margin than Iowa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay
A solidly and reliably red rural state.
The first post is probably correct; I don't feel like doing some prolonged research to check. The second quote is incorrect. Nebraska is the most urban of the Great Plains states, unless you count Oklahoma as a GP state as well (which some do, some consider it the south). Excluding OK, Nebraska has the largest city in the Great Plains, Omaha. 69% of Nebraska's population is urban; most of its residents live in the Lincoln and Omaha areas. Omaha is a typical "garden-variety liberal" city. Because Nebraska can split its electoral vote, in the 2008 election it cast 4 votes for McCain and 1 for Obama, district 2 (Omaha and the rest of Douglas County and urbanized Sarpy County). This election, all the congressional districts went for Romney.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
