youze are all a bunch of lazy bums.  just click on that big  ?help button above and a new window will open.  Then click on POSTING and it'll show you how to make all those emoticons.  

Like this one, from Wal-Mart:  

very tricky issue, beef.  I apologize if my earlier post seemed dismissive with regards to your beliefs.  In history class they taught us that there was only one issue in the 1800s with regards to states-rights vs. strong central government which could not be solved by the usual give and take of political debate.  Not sure whether I believe that, but, by analogy, late-term abortions may be today's issue which states' won't be allowed to decide for themselves.  Federalism is/was a fine balancing act, and once again it may be the overreaching arm of the GOP to the rescue.  I do not claim that this is a bad thing or a good thing.  Just thinking...

I think I may be opposed to slavery and forced prostitution, though, so I'm not a total liberal on social issues.  

Angus,

I'm not sure whether libertarians support slavery or forced prostitution, since it infringes other's rights. I think the old rule of liberalism is that you can do whatever you do as long as it doesn't hurt anybody or infringes on other people's rights.

I disagree with you on vouchers, I support them.

Otherwise, we're not that far apart.

we sometimes say, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

I suspect none of us are that far apart politically.  We simply choose to magnify the differences.  If we all chose to focus on the similarities (of which there are undoubtedly more), then the discussion would be no fun.

Yes I am.  Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight.  I have a great big flag and I'm a huge nationalist.  I believe this is the greatest country in the history of nations and seriously hope I'd have the courage to die to defend it if the need arises.  This party held its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856 and was formed as the Nationalistic alternative to the Democrats.  You'll hear lots of nonsense about liberal vs. conservative, or states-rights vs. strong central government, in defining the two parties.  That is a mistake:  the one identifying characteristic that has defined the GOP since its inception is nationalism.  It took me 36 years to figure that out:  I've been a Republican since December 29, 2003.  I am also quite certain that I will vote to re-elect George Bush in November.  I do not consider him a personal hero, but he is clearly the best choice for economic and national security at this time.  A vote against GWB amounts to sanctification of the intolerance of the Democrats.  I am absolutely certain of that, and I will not be goaded into personal attacks on John Kerry, as I have no problem with him personally, but he is not the better man.  And all those who cast their votes for third-party and independent candidates are welcome to do so, I have done so often, but eventually every poster on this forum who votes for an 'other' will outgrow such idealism, and choose either nationalism or its alternative.  

The trial lawyer thing is a bit questionable, but on the whole I think Edwards is a good man, even if I disagree with his policies.  He is definatly a better man then Kerry.

yeah, youze guys are a little hard on John Edwards.  Opebo calling him venal is particularly ironic.  

Pro-free trade, no ethical qualms with cocaine use, marijuana, gambling, aborting third-trimester foeti, prostitution, carrying around guns, whatever.  I think I may be opposed to slavery and forced prostitution, though, so I'm not a total liberal on social issues.  I also strongly oppose all capital punishment on moral grounds.

On economic matters, I'm a wee bit more moderate:  I like low taxes and abhore the thought of socialized medicine and redistribution of wealth and racial hiring quotas, but I do seriously believe in maintaining the best university and public schools system.  I'm rabidly opposed to vouchers, which take money away from schools that need it most and give money to schools who need it least.  And I strongly support maintaining a Navy and Army second to none.  And I emphatically (even vehemently) defend intellectual property rights.  

So it's the economic issues that keep me from being a Libertarian, but on the social issues I'm pretty much completely in line with the Libertarians.

Far from it.  You really should visit Egypt before you say that.

Forget everything you ever heard a US national say they think they know about what liberal and conservative means.  Go back to what you and I know that these words mean.  And yes, I am a liberal extremist.  But on any other thread I'll thank you not to use that term with respect to my political philosophy.

should I assume that's for me gustaf?

Yes, but then I realized Vorlon was here too.  Al, you have an encyclopedic knowledge of that area and its social milieu and its voting proclivities.  How did you come by all that information, anyway?

I grew up in a bleeding-heart liberal family, and remained a solid liberal until I was about 21 or 22.  I voted for Clinton in '96, and Feingold in '98.  Several years of life on a liberal college campus, where leftist ideology gets shoved down your throat at every turn, turned me off to the radical left - although I had been pro-life ever since high school.  I voted for Bush in '00, probably will vote for him again in '04, although I plan on voting for Feingold for Senate.

I tend to take liberal views on social issues other than abortion and marriage.  My position on abortion is that it should only be legal in the case of rape, insest, or the life of the mother, and these abortions should be performed as early in term as possible.  We should discourage abortion by making the adoption process easier, and creating a better support system for unintentional mothers.  My position on marriage is that I think people have a right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their homes, but we should not mess around with something so foundational to society as marriage.

We need to end the War on Drugs.  It's not working, and it's criminalizing millions of Americans.  Our taxes should not go towards keeping non-violent offenders behind bars, where they can learn how to be violent offenders.

I believe in a middle economic road.  During times of economic recession, it is ok to run up a budget deficit, and it is ok to use tax breaks to stimulate economic growth.  But this is not a silver bullet, and during times of economic prosperity, we need make sure our budget is balanced so that we can afford the next period of recession.  I do not believe in creating budget surpluses or "rainy day funds," because this takes money out of economy, where it could be put to much better use.  The working poor should not have to pay taxes.  We need to be a nation in which anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and where workers aren't punished for their efforts by oppressive taxation.

I believe that private enterprise is a good thing, and profit motive is a good thing.  Private businesses have an incentive to deliver better goods and services, and to do it in the most efficient way.  Government has no such motive - its only motive is to perpetuate its own existance.  However, government regulation is necessary to insure that corporations don't get too large or too powerful.

I am ambivilent towards socialized health care.  On principle, since medical care is something everyone needs on a basic level, we should all share the cost.  In practice, the lessons of other countries tell us that this can create costly beurocracies, and encourage a lowest-common-denominator level of care.  The rising cost of private health insurance may force this issue in the next several years, however.

I believe that free and open trade may have negative short-term consequences, but over the long haul, will benefit everyone.  Eventually, economic development abroad will raise the Thrid World standard of living up to our own, eliminating the problem of cheap foreign labor undercutting American jobs.  The new markets that global trade open up will create *more* jobs here in the US.  Eventually, everyone wins.

While I sympathize with the cause of correcting past racial injustice, I belive affirmative action is discrimination, plain and simple.  Two wrongs don't make a right, and we should be striving for a colorblind society, not one in which we reward people for the color of their skin.

We should invest in research into alternative fuels, continue the progress we've made in reducing pollution, and strive to make this a cleaner, healthier planet to live in.  This planet's all we've got.

I believe that American might is, overall, a good thing, as we value freedom, democracy, and equality, and these are very positive values.  I believe that some degree of military interventionism will serve the aim of making the world a more free and democratic place - and thus a safer place.  Due to the fact that many around the world resent American might, and will oppose any use of American force on principle alone, sometimes unilateral action is necessary in order to protect American national security.  This should only occur after exhausting all diplomatic attempts at gaining world consensus, and we should attempt to build coaltions to legitimize our actions.

Wow, you are far more conservative than I am.  Gustaf is too, I think.  Oh, well.

I have been a self-described independent since 1996, when I was 22, because of the Clinton regime's charge to the right which mimicked the militant Republican Congress of the time.

In college I was a member of the Northern Kentucky Young Democrats, before quitting the Democratic Party.

I became an independent (or whatever it's called in MA, I forget) about that time too.  You may find that you'll have very little input as an independent (Declined-to-State in CA).  I suspect at some point you'll either go back to the Democrats or become a Republican.  You can be a Republican without ever having to give them money or vote for any of their candidates in general elections, you know.  Same with the Democrats.  But at least that way, you can have some say in the matter.

And all this pre-supposes that our political histories are somehow interesting and that we're gonna post them here.

my thoughts exactly.  Actually, psychology is far more interesting than sociology, to some.  But most of this will have been posted, in bits and pieces, elsewhere though.  the nice part about such subjective postings is that no one has to be consistent.

well, two.  

I only know of one credible student of coal belt voting habits on this thread.  

you've decided west virgina will come back to the Dems?

Bush has made inroads into Hispanics... and NM is too remote for Kerry to bother with anyways.

yes, and this is why NM will be the most likely switch.  Everyone keeps asking, "what happened in the states?" or "are the voters more liberal or more conservative now than...?"  Did it occur to anyone that there are actually candidates campaigning?  And that the identity of these candidates matter?  That what they say matters?  Not to lifelong anti-Bush Democrats, or lifelong anti-Kerry Republicans.  But to that small fraction who actually decide elections, these things matter.  I stand by my original map of 4 months ago, polls be dammed, Bush will win everything he did last time plus NM, and not a single state more.

Md went dem with southern candidate (Gore, Clinton, Carter) but went rep with guys like Dukakis or Mondale (so Kerry can loose)

The Northeast Corridor has become much more liberal in the last 12 years.  PG, Monty, Baltimore City/County, up through the Wilmington 'burbs, are the bulk of the population, and have become solid Dem territory.  Bush only takes this state in a landslide.

Hardly.  before Clinton you could find people openly willing to discuss things like socialized medicine and the like in the NE corridor.  Not that I'm complaining.  It's not that they have become more liberal, it's that the DLC was fairly successful in the early and mid 90s in converting the Dems to a more conservative party.  Now they appear set to be dragged the other way.  Meanwhile the GOP has become more liberal, big deficit spenders and big government intrusion.  The populace isn't shifting, the parties are.

Your hypothesis (which is a very good one, btw) will be tested this November.  If you are correct, Bush will win New Jersey.

Regardless of he's right or not, Bush could never win New Jersey because of social issues. No Republican to the right of Christie Todd Whitman stands a chance there.

I didn't get into this stuff until about when McGreevy was elected, what exactly did she stand for?

she was known as the most pro-choice and anti-gun Republican elected to a statewide position.

This is exasperating!  We have 200 billion dollars invested in the Iraq project which must be seen through, we've pissed off most of the islamic world to the extent that we have freaking color codes telling us whether to expect to have to remove our belts in airports, we have a fledgling economic recovery that expects a business-friendly victor in November, and my stocks are on the line.  And you people are worried about abortion rights, gun control, and gay marriage!  Grow up.  I find it incredible any sane adult would give a damn either way about what a candidate says about these trivial issues, when our economic security lies in the balance.  Kerry is a good and decent man.  I've never claimed otherwise, but he's not the one.  I guess I was wrong about there being other logical voters out there.

Our Armies, Navies, Universities, and public schools should be second to none.  Take as much as you need from my paycheck to make it so.  But we need to get past these wedge issues, as a nation, or we're doomed to be a second-rate empire till China knocks us off our perch.  

why do people automatically assume Bush will win these states just because they were close last time? There's really nothing that's happened to them that has made them more friendly to Bush. Iowa was actually one of the most anti-war states according to polls so I say Bush will have an even tougher time than he did in 2000, and New Mexico has been turning more Dem, more and more Hispanics are coming in and Richardson won in a landslide. Sure they're far from guaranteed for Kerry, but definately not guaranteed for Bush either.

I can only speak for myself, but my answer is NO.  As I have stated repeatedly, a different Democrat may very well have won my vote, or this Democrat, running for a different office may have won my vote.  (I have voted for JFKerry in the past, and may again, if the opportunity presents itself.)  You'll not find anyone who is more anti-Iraq war than I.  And that has a great deal to do with the fact that I will, after nearly 20 years of voting, vote for a Republican for President for the first time.  I suspect that I'm not the only logical thinker out there, but that may be optimistic.

Why wouldn't Bush win Maryland?

Maryland is rich, suburban, and not particularly liberal on economic issues. That's one state you'd think would be more Republican than it is.

The Democrats ought to have no trouble in states like Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri, or Iowa, but for some reason they all ranked far behind Maryland in 2000. In other words, states that should be Democratic trended Republican in 2000 - and vice versa.

The area of Maryland that I live in, which is the rich suburban part, is rather economically liberal.  There are a lot of federal government employees who live here, and they usually want to keep federal spending up.

The town of 75000 where I live is the same way.  Mostly federal employees who know what butters their bread.  But ask 'em about politics, and they'll begin to diatribe about the most trivial matters, and not about economics.

45 percent is hardly amazing approval, and I don't think it matters if people approve of him or not. A good amount won't vote for him under any circumstances, they will vote for the Democrat no matter what. Anyone who thinks Bush has a snowball's chance in hell of winning Maryland needs to lay off the weed.

In the end, you're right.  But it's certainly not a matter of liberal vs. conservative.  It's a combination of the fact that Baltimore is the 'hood, and a plethora of wedge issues, and a general disdain of GWB in urbanity.

I never outran, but outsmarted, them once.  managed to get my car tucked away into an unlit driveway and killed the engines and lights.  That's what you have to do in OECD countries.  In the third world, police are much more willing to negotiate.  

In Ohio, you're screwed no matter what.

Md went dem with southern candidate (Gore, Clinton, Carter) but went rep with guys like Dukakis or Mondale (so Kerry can loose)

The Northeast Corridor has become much more liberal in the last 12 years.  PG, Monty, Baltimore City/County, up through the Wilmington 'burbs, are the bulk of the population, and have become solid Dem territory.  Bush only takes this state in a landslide.

Hardly.  before Clinton you could find people openly willing to discuss things like socialized medicine and the like in the NE corridor.  Not that I'm complaining.  It's not that they have become more liberal, it's that the DLC was fairly successful in the early and mid 90s in converting the Dems to a more conservative party.  Now they appear set to be dragged the other way.  Meanwhile the GOP has become more liberal, big deficit spenders and big government intrusion.  The populace isn't shifting, the parties are.

In most countries in this hemisphere, you can say something like "Como puedo areglar este asunto?" and hand him your passport with a 20 tucked into it.  DO NOT TRY THIS IN OHIO.

The first 500 pages of atlas shrugged take several weeks, as I recall, but the last 500 hundred are so intriguing that they can be read in one sitting.  I still love that stamp, even though it's smaller now.

Actually, my undergrad statistics professor gave us that same exact quote, thus engendering my interest in Ayn Rand.  You never did respond to repeated requests for elaboration about your feelings on uni polls.