Crime in the Red States
The red states already have higher rates of drug addiction, alcoholism, teenage pregnancy, divorce, spousal abuse and all the other social ills that “Christians” like to preach against. So it figures the red states would have higher crime rates too.
Here’s an article about the eleven most dangerous cities in America. Most of these cities are in red states.
Coincidence?
Orlando — tied with Birmingham for 3rd place — was rated the “angriest city in America” a few years ago (road rage, general rudeness, stress-related illnesses, etc.) Maybe it’s a backlash against seeing Pluto and Mickey Mouse smiling at you everywhere you go.
These numbers are sure to get worse and worse as Republicans keep gutting the infrastructure. Or as Weepin’ John Boehner would say — so be it.
Labels: Eleven most dangerous cities, John Boehner “so be it”, Orlando angriest city, red states crime
posted by Tom Harper @ 6:55 PM
11 Comments:
I am sure the Orlando thing is a reaction to their city being the epicenter or Disneyfication.
I think it's fitting that the red states have the highest rates of alcoholism, drug addiction, teenage pregnancy, divorce and spousal abuse, and that many of the most dangerous cities are in red states. The majority of people who are from red states and who are vocal seem to be pretty uptight and angry about a lot of things. I wonder... from these statistics, does it mean that many people who live in red states must be in a constant need to self-medicate or to let off steam?
Or maybe it's from listening to too much crap on AM radio and from watching too much stuff on FOX that makes their blood pressure go up.
They're Christian, They're Forgiven
Erik
I SEE BLACK PANTHER SLEEPER CELLS ARE AWAKE.
I was somewhat surprised at the cities on the list, or maybe the ones who top specific lists. Minneapolis no 1 in rape?
The fact that the higher crime rates are in red states has been established for a long time. Maybe the local problems they have helped to create for themselves through the "frastructure gutting" and the fact they seem to assume their problems are not as bad as they might think they are in the leftie loser states is more of a denial issue than they will admit.
Being righteous lends itself to believing one is on the correct path, even when evidence points in the opposite direction. Facts will not sway them I am afraid.
Interesting to see Minneapolis on that list. The stereotype is that everybody in Minnesota is so nice.
It's been well known for a long time that if you want to get yourself killed, a DP state is the best place to go.
No surprises here at all.
I was not surprised by this at all. I think Snave nailed it. I would add to that assessment, a lower educational level is at play as well.
Snave: I'd probably get irritable too if I was surrounded by Disney billboards and icons everywhere I went. I agree, red staters probably drown themselves in denial and self-medication, and the results can't be good.
Erik: Amen.
Randal: That's ACORN Black Panther sleeper cells.
MRM: I think it's the combination of denial and self-righteousness. "I'm right!!!" should be their motto; and they don't want to get thrown off message by facts or disagreements.
J: I was surprised too. I thought they'd be like those lovable characters in "Fargo," which is right over the state line from Minnesota.
JR: Nope, not a bit surprising.
jadedj: Yup, poorer schools and more dropouts -- a goldmine for conservatives.
A rather narrow-minded and bigoted point of view, quite frankly. While not defending the numbers posted, perhaps you should reconsider your rhetoric. After all, if you change the word "South" to "black", would you still be so cavalier with your commentary? Or would that be politically incorrect? And if that would be politically incorrect, then perhaps you should consider how your views might be perceived negatively by others.
Stereotypes are rarely a good thing and almost always derived negatively. It is hard to claim the moral high ground when your arguments are subjectively stereotyped.
What's this "moral high ground" you speak of?
What's this "moral high ground" you speak of?
I think you missed the larger point. Your argument is one of how you view a certain segment of society negatively and how ignorant/stupid/asinine they are while failing to see how those criticisms are as blatantly ignorant and prejudicial as those you argue against. My point was to suggest that your argument was deceptively subjective at best and to demonstrate how it was prejudiced (by changing the subject of your tirade).
Though, if it helps, the very subject matter of your argument, by inference, suggests you are therefore (morally) superior which is why I made the comment I did.
Of course, if your response was sarcasm, then this post is moot. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home