NON-BIASED DEFINTION: In recent years, in the U.S. only, a red state has come to mean a state that traditionally votes Republican, as opposed to a blue state which traditionally votes Democrat.
In the past, media would use maps with red for one party and blue for the other, with no set standard. The current trend was set during the 2000 Presidential election, when NBC used it. The race was very close, and because of this, Tim Russert was often heard to say things like "Bush needs x more red states in order to win, and Gore needs x more blue states in order to win." Because the coverage was being watched so intently by so many people, the color scheme stuck, and is now used by all networks.
What many people don't realize is that this color scheme is actually the opposite of traditional political colors. Red has always been associated with socialism and communism (i.e. extreme forms of liberalism) as seen on flags of countries such as the P.R.C., the U.S.S.R., and the D.P.R.K. On the other hand, blue is most often associated with conservatism, and sometimes facism (i.e. the extreme form of conservatism). Most nations still use this color scheme.
It may be that NBC assigned these colors at random, or it may be because Republican and red both start with R. Neither party has officially adopted these colors. This color scheme has often led to confusion when residents of other countries see a political map of the U.S. or hear Americans discussing red states versus blue states.
In the past, media would use maps with red for one party and blue for the other, with no set standard. The current trend was set during the 2000 Presidential election, when NBC used it. The race was very close, and because of this, Tim Russert was often heard to say things like "Bush needs x more red states in order to win, and Gore needs x more blue states in order to win." Because the coverage was being watched so intently by so many people, the color scheme stuck, and is now used by all networks.
What many people don't realize is that this color scheme is actually the opposite of traditional political colors. Red has always been associated with socialism and communism (i.e. extreme forms of liberalism) as seen on flags of countries such as the P.R.C., the U.S.S.R., and the D.P.R.K. On the other hand, blue is most often associated with conservatism, and sometimes facism (i.e. the extreme form of conservatism). Most nations still use this color scheme.
It may be that NBC assigned these colors at random, or it may be because Republican and red both start with R. Neither party has officially adopted these colors. This color scheme has often led to confusion when residents of other countries see a political map of the U.S. or hear Americans discussing red states versus blue states.
When I hear the term "red state" I automatically think of China or North Korea, not Texas or Utah. It's such a pet peeve that the U.S. got red state and blue state backwards!
by klopek007 November 11, 2009
YSJK = You Should Just Know. YSJK-itis is an infliction that can affect anyone, but it's seen most often in your girlfriend/fiancee/wife. It occurs when she's extremely pissed off at you and acting like a total bitch, but refuses to tell you why, because "you should just know."
The person afflicted is usually oblivious to the fact that the other person is completely unable to apologize or fix anything until they know what the problem is. Symptoms can persist for hours or even days.
The person afflicted is usually oblivious to the fact that the other person is completely unable to apologize or fix anything until they know what the problem is. Symptoms can persist for hours or even days.
Man 1: My girlfriend has just been insufferable lately, but no matter how I ask she refuses to tell me why.
Man 2: Sounds like she's suffering from YSJK-itis.
Man 1: Yeah, totally. I'd like to see women pull that shit with doctors or mechanics.
Man 2: Sounds like she's suffering from YSJK-itis.
Man 1: Yeah, totally. I'd like to see women pull that shit with doctors or mechanics.
by klopek007 February 22, 2010
An example of political correctness run amok. The idea is to replace the terms BC and AD (Before Christ and Anno Domini) with the secular terms BCE and CE (Before Common Era and Common Era). Common Era may also be referred to as Christian Era or Current Era.
The change is completely pointless, except to placate the politically correct crowd. The numbering of years is kept the same, but the terms are changed to avoid association with Christianity, and evidentily pretend like the numbering of years started arbitrarily. The numbering comes from the estimated birth of Jesus. For the sake of ease and convenience, the entire world has adopted the Christian calender, regardless of what religion or non-religion we all are, so why pretend otherwise?
If the politically correct crowd really wants to make a completely secular calender, then we'd also have to do away with the names of the months (Roman Paganism), having seven days a week (Judaism), and re-number the years by placing year 1 somewhere different than it is now (Christianity).
The change is completely pointless, except to placate the politically correct crowd. The numbering of years is kept the same, but the terms are changed to avoid association with Christianity, and evidentily pretend like the numbering of years started arbitrarily. The numbering comes from the estimated birth of Jesus. For the sake of ease and convenience, the entire world has adopted the Christian calender, regardless of what religion or non-religion we all are, so why pretend otherwise?
If the politically correct crowd really wants to make a completely secular calender, then we'd also have to do away with the names of the months (Roman Paganism), having seven days a week (Judaism), and re-number the years by placing year 1 somewhere different than it is now (Christianity).
Don't try to tell me to use that BCE and CE crap. It's BC and AD, regardless of what you believe or disbelieve. If you don't like it, then feel free to persuade the entire population of the world to adopt a brand new, completely overhauled calender.
by klopek007 March 03, 2010
In the opening days of February 2010, a person or persons unknown started a stupid new trend on facebook and myspace that swept through like an avalanche. Countless people posted the following status: "Go to urbandictionary.com, type in your first name, copy and paste this in your status and the first entry for your name under comments."
This resulted in a huge influx of traffic on UD, which bogged down the site and crashed it a few times, because everyone thought it was so cool to post a glowing definition of their first name, which was submitted by some asswipe years ago. Of course, none of these lame first name definitions should have been approved in the first place, as per the UD guidelines which so many people ignore.
And yet, the worst was not over. After this, countless people began submitting first name definitions, which fell into two categories: glowing definitions of oneself or a friend, or slanderous definitions of an enemy. It was up to the editors to ensure the future of UD....
This resulted in a huge influx of traffic on UD, which bogged down the site and crashed it a few times, because everyone thought it was so cool to post a glowing definition of their first name, which was submitted by some asswipe years ago. Of course, none of these lame first name definitions should have been approved in the first place, as per the UD guidelines which so many people ignore.
And yet, the worst was not over. After this, countless people began submitting first name definitions, which fell into two categories: glowing definitions of oneself or a friend, or slanderous definitions of an enemy. It was up to the editors to ensure the future of UD....
Oh man, I remember staying up all night during the Great FB/MS Laming of UD Crisis of 2010, rejecting as many lame-ass self-serving first name definitions as I could. It seemed like they would never end. I only wish we could remove all the ones from years ago, but most have too many votes and are thus "too popular" to be nominated for removal.
Dumbass: OMG!!! This is soooo awesome! UD says I'm a wonderful, sexy, intelligent person! That's great, but I think I'll submit and even better and more specific one! And then a mean one about the girl that pushed me at recess today!
UD Editor: I'll reject them all. Please stop contributing to the Great FB/MS Laming of UD Crisis of 2010.
Dumbass: Noooo!!! I'm shallow and weak and I need this self-esteem boost!
Dumbass: OMG!!! This is soooo awesome! UD says I'm a wonderful, sexy, intelligent person! That's great, but I think I'll submit and even better and more specific one! And then a mean one about the girl that pushed me at recess today!
UD Editor: I'll reject them all. Please stop contributing to the Great FB/MS Laming of UD Crisis of 2010.
Dumbass: Noooo!!! I'm shallow and weak and I need this self-esteem boost!
by klopek007 February 05, 2010
Achy Breaky Hannah is a name for the process which that hot little piece of jailbait Miley Cyrus and/or her pointless alter-ego will soon undergo. Following in the footsteps of Britney Spears, her weight will balloon up, she'll get knocked up by a trailer-trash wigger and drink heavily during the pregnancy, make numerous public appearances going commando in a short dress, enter/quit rehab at least five times, and finally be found in bed one morning with an empty bottle of pills and an empty bottle of rum.
Once Miley completes the long process of Achy Breaky Hannah, she'll just be yet another one of the garden-variety pop-stars who all sound exactly alike and yet somehow draw tons of pre-teen fans. At least it's still a bigger accomplishment than her one-hit-wonder father.
by klopek007 January 26, 2010
A term invented by angry atheists who suffer from anger management issues and superiority complex. It is a portmanteau of 'pugnacious' and 'atheism', although it is often mistakenly referred to as a contraction instead of a portmanteau, which should give some indication of the overall intelligence of those who say they practice it. The term means aggressive atheism, and is characterized by thinking oneself to be automatically superior to anyone who believes in any kind of religion, and feeling that it's necessary to verbally abuse such people. This is the opposite of using a "live and let live" attitude, and so they refuse to be tolerant of the life choices of others, even when those others are tolerant of the life choice of the atheist.
Hobbies of those who practice pugnatheism include, but are not limited to: making sweeping over-generalizations about various persons, groups, organizations, and even who geographic regions; complete and utter refusal to be tolerant of anyone whose beliefs or philosophies differ from your own; angrily arguing on internet forums with religious people in order to tell them how wrong and stupid they are instead of simply living your life enjoyably and letting them do the same; believing yourself to be such a brilliant genius that you know the exact nature of the universe and calculate with 100% accuracy that there couldn't possibly be anything besides what you can see with your own two eyes; and of course, practicing regular worship of Richard Dawkins.
by klopek007 November 17, 2009
A concept unwittingly invented by the late Tim Russert during coverage of the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election. For details, see the individual definitions red state and blue state.
Besides the fact that the colors are the opposite of the rest of the world, the absolute most irritating thing about the red state blue state concept is how it polarizes Americans. Originally, it was only referring to the electoral college, but since then the terms have become part of popular culture. They imply that all citizens within a certain state, which is defined by arbitrary lines on a map, are all generally in agreement with each other, politically speaking.
This is of course ridiculous. Most of the time, the margin of victory in individual states in a Presidential election is not profoundly large. It's quite rare that either of the two main candidates receives less than 1/3rd of the vote in any given state. It's also quite common for a state of a certain "color" to elect other politicians from the opposite party (as mayor, governor, senate, etc.). Add to that the fact that voter turnout hasn't gone over 63% in the last 100 years, and it's easy to see how asinine it is to group together all citizens of a certain state.
Besides the fact that the colors are the opposite of the rest of the world, the absolute most irritating thing about the red state blue state concept is how it polarizes Americans. Originally, it was only referring to the electoral college, but since then the terms have become part of popular culture. They imply that all citizens within a certain state, which is defined by arbitrary lines on a map, are all generally in agreement with each other, politically speaking.
This is of course ridiculous. Most of the time, the margin of victory in individual states in a Presidential election is not profoundly large. It's quite rare that either of the two main candidates receives less than 1/3rd of the vote in any given state. It's also quite common for a state of a certain "color" to elect other politicians from the opposite party (as mayor, governor, senate, etc.). Add to that the fact that voter turnout hasn't gone over 63% in the last 100 years, and it's easy to see how asinine it is to group together all citizens of a certain state.
I despise the red state blue state concept. It damages our individual identity, our state pride, and our comradery with our fellow Americans. There are plenty of conservatives in New England, plenty of liberals in the South, and tons of moderates all over the place. I'm not from a red state or a blue state, I'm from an American state! So please stop over-generalizing and assigning labels to us!
by klopek007 March 03, 2010