Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 17, 2014, 10:35:12 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 484 485 486 487 488 [489] 490 491 492 493 494 ... 569
12201  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Bill Owens 2008? He and his wife have reconciled. on: May 09, 2005, 10:04:59 pm
Here's what I would do:

Rational Governor: "You hate me and I hate you. But how would you like to be first lady?"

Rational former wife: "If you don't win the election then we're split again."

Rational Governor: "Deal."
12202  General Discussion / History / Re: Presidential Survivor (ROUND 16) on: May 08, 2005, 11:45:35 pm
Garfield (Harrison next round)
12203  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / ATLASIA CHOOSES- Alternate time beginning 1984 (1984 primaries) on: May 08, 2005, 09:36:40 pm
It is the early 1980s, a time of crisis. Confidence has collapsed, and society seems to be spinning out of control. Although depression has been averted, unemployment has climbed to a record 10%. Four years earlier, the people elected reactionary Republican Ronald Reagan to the presidency due to popular dissatisfaction with former president Carter's bungling of the Iran hostage crisis and stagflation.


Ronald Reagan

Reagan's election meant the end of the social movements of the '70s and a new wave of social conservatism in the country, including the rise of the Christian right. Reagan promptly passed the largest tax cut in the nation's history, but it failed to stave off a severe economic recession, the worst since the great depression. Despite conservative protestors urging the nation to "give Reaganomics time!" Reagan's prospects seemed doomed after the GOP suffered severe mid-term losses in the House of Representatives.

On foreign policy, things did not seem to be going well either. Over the past 35 years, the superpowers had gradually built up their nuclear arsenals into more and more terrifying weapons, capable of destroying the world several times over. The weapons have progressively become more and more powerful, more and more deadly. And in the spring of 1982 as detente was threatened the world hangs by a thread, Ronald Reagan wanted to deploy a new warhead, the newly developed Pershing II missile, in West Germany. This was seen as a fatal blow to detente.

Yet the hawkish consensus quickly unraveled. In the United States, the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign, the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, and Physicians for Social Responsibility mushroomed into mass movements. In June 1982, nearly a million Americans turned out for a rally in New York City against the nuclear arms race, the largest political demonstration up to that point in U.S. history. Reagan's daughter, Patti Davis, and Australian anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott warned that the danger of nuclear war was under-estimated and misunderstood. The Nuclear Freeze campaign drew the backing of major religious bodies, professional organizations, and labor unions. Supported by 70 percent or more of the population, the Freeze was endorsed by 275 city governments, 12 state legislatures, and the voters of nine out of ten states where it was placed on the ballot in the fall of 1982.


Nuclear Freeze

Yet Reagan is unwavering. To revitalize his flagging presidency, on March 23, 1983 Reagan seeks to re-capture the initiative as he unveils his proposal for a Space Defense Initiative (SDI) in a national speech: "I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete." Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrinyn says SDI would "open a new phase in the arms race."

On November 23, 1983, just three days after 100 million Americans, the largest audience for a made-for-TV-movie at that time, tuned in to watch the truly horrifying "The Day After", a grim tale of how nuclear war with the Soviets destroy a hapless family living 30 miles outside Kansas City, U.S. Pershing II missiles are deployed in Germany.

Will the public's opposition to Reagan's aggressive missile deployment and a sluggard economy sink his chances in 1984? Or will his sunny demeanor, a recovering economy, falling crime and his conservativism be enough to pull him through?

The stage is set for the 1984 presidential campaign!

*****

Ronald Reagan is virtually unchallenged for the GOP nomination.

In the summer of 1983, second-term Colorado Senator Gary Hart announced his candidacy for president in the 1984 presidential election. At the time of his announcement, Hart was a little-known Senator and barely received above 1% in the polls against better-known candidates such as Walter Mondale and John Glenn. To counter this situation, Hart started campaigning early in New Hampshire, making a then-unprecedented canvassing tour in late September, months before the primary. This strategy attracted national media attention to his campaign, and by late 1983, he had risen moderately in the polls to the middle of the field, mostly at the expense of the sinking candidacies of John Glenn and Alan Cranston.


Gary Hart

When Jimmy Carter won the Democratic nomination for president in 1976, he chose Walter Mondale of Minnesota as his running mate. Mondale was inaugurated as vice president on 20 January 1977. He was the first vice president to reside at the official vice presidential residence, Number One Observatory Circle. Carter and Mondale were renominated at the 1980 Democratic National Convention, but lost to Ronald W. Reagan and George H. W. Bush. (See U.S. presidential election, 1976, U.S. presidential election, 1980.) Now Mondale is running for president again.


Walter Mondale

Jesse Jackson became the second African-American (after Shirley Chisholm) to mount a nationwide campaign for President. After studying divinity, he began to organize in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference under the influence of Martin Luther King, Jr. He formed two non-profit organizations, PUSH (People United To Serve Humanity) in 1971 and the Rainbow Coalition in 1984. A major controversy erupted during the early stages of the race, when Jackson was reported making off-the-record remarks in which he referred to Jews as "hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown," remarks for which he later apologized.



John Glenn, known as the first American in space, entered politics and represented Ohio for the Democratic Party in the Senate from 1974. Glenn also made a bid to run as Vice President with Jimmy Carter in 1976, but Carter instead at the 1976 Democratic National Convention selected Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale. Glenn also mounted a bid to be the 1984 Democratic Presidential candidate. Early on, Glenn polled well, coming in a strong second to Mondale. It was also surmised that he would be aided by the almost-simultaneous release of The Right Stuff , a movie about the original seven Mercury astronauts in which it was generally agreed that Glenn's character was portrayed in a pleasing and appealing manner.



Alan MacGregor Cranston was a U.S. journalist and politician. A Democrat, Cranston was elected California State Controller in 1958 and reelected in 1962. In 1968, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Cranston became Democratic whip in 1977, and his potential to make Reagan spend time in California would be highly appealing. In February 1983, he announces his bid for president.


Alan Cranston

Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Ernest "Fritz" Hollings of South Carolina had been considered dark horses, but are not on the ballot.

*****

Ok, it is time for the 1984 primaries! Here is how it works. This is just like any alternate timeline, but at certain points, such as primaries or elections, YOU, the people of Atlasia, will get to decide history. By voting on this thread for who you want to win, you will decide the storyline of the next alternate history thread from this series. Then, you will get to vote again if you think things are not going well. During primaries, blue avatar posters will be able to vote in the GOP primary while red avatar posters will be able to vote in the Dem primary. Those without either a red or blue avatar can vote in either primary, but not both. Why did I start this timeline in 1984? Well, just because I wanted to.

I apologize if your primary is not competitive. In the 1984 presidential primaries and caucuses the voters will have complete power. While only the Democratic primary was historically competitive this year, the Republican voters can theoretically choose to throw out Reagan through a write-in campaign.

The GOP ballot:
Ronald Reagan
Abstain

The Democratic ballot:
Gary Hart
Walter Mondale
Jesse Jackson
John Glenn
Alan Cranston
Abstain

Voting for this thread closes in 48 hours.

12204  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: who's most likely to run in 2008? on: May 08, 2005, 08:37:08 pm
If Santorum wins re-election he'll be in the running. Pawlenty should definitely be up there. McCain will definitely be up there. Sanford and Allen will. The GOP bench is very wide open.
12205  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: who will president bush support in 08? on: May 08, 2005, 08:35:31 pm
I think he will support Frist in secret with his influence, and there may be some fleeting rumors that he is supporting Frist, which he will promptly deny. Then if Frist does well in the primaries without his public backing, he will eventually make it be known that he supports Frist. However, if Frist goes down I think he will have to regroup and pick someone else, most likely whoever is ahead.
12206  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: FDR dies in April of 1944 on: May 08, 2005, 08:30:46 pm
Are you sure Wallace'd have lost? I'm pretty sure FDR was being weighed down by the fact that he was running for a 4th term when no other president had ever run for more than 2, yet he still won in a landslide, and for good reason. We were in a shooting war, and we were winning!

Churchill's defeat in 1945 is surprising enough, but at least that was after the war was over.
12207  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Mississippi/Alabama on: May 08, 2005, 08:28:35 pm
Well Howard Dean told me that Mississippi would be a Democratic state soon.

Thanks to the "guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks" vote Tongue
I'm glad we have a... er, optimistic chairman for our party.  But I'm not sure how the hell Dean knows anything about "guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," aside from pro gun-rights, maybe.

Being pro-gun rights might have a large overall impactin preventing the Dems from being the "sissy party".

I find this whole notoin of "sissiness" to be stupid. Its only for guys who are insecure in their masculinity.
12208  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: 25 Years From Now. . . on: May 08, 2005, 08:26:33 pm

NC has moved righter over the years...

Well not really.  It has fluctuated a bit but is really very stable. 
Democrat vote percentages in NC over the last 25 years:
2004 - 43.58%
2000 - 43.20%
1996 - 44.04%
1992 - 42.65%
1988 - 41.71%
1984 - 37.89%
1980 - 47.18%
That's almost grotesquely stable! I note the Dem increase between 92 and 96 had no effect whatsoever in NC.
Probably a sign of the lack of a political realignment during the last 25 years. A realignment doesn't necessarily affect every state, but it affects enough of the states to change the overall dynamics. One reason I wouldn't want to speculate on 2030, is that a realignment is more likely than not before then, IMO.

There was a realignment, only it occured in 1968, so you won't see it show up on a timeline beginning in 1980.
12209  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: poll: The 'Kerry' states in 2012 on: May 08, 2005, 07:49:47 pm
I voted 1-6, though I think that will be made up for by one or two states moving from lean Republican to lean Democrat.  New Hampshire already has, but I think Nevada and Colorado will do so by 2012.

I hope you're right. As the South moves to the right it will be important for the Democrats to do better in the West. Arizona could be critical. I think the fact that Goldwater was from that state held it in the Republican column for so long. Now McCain also, but who knows.

Arizona should eventually lean liberal, but later than Colorado and much later than Nevada.  However these fast-growing, state can change so quickly!

Its one thing to hope, its another thing to put someone up to challenge Kyl.
12210  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Are Christians oppressed in the US? on: May 08, 2005, 07:28:27 pm
Back in "the day" they used to say Catholics were oppressed because a lot of people wouldn't vote for one to be president. Even so though, Al Smith got on the ticket somehow.

But today, I'm sure that being a declared atheist or any other religion besides Christianity is a virtual kill in terms of getting a major party nomination.
12211  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Galloway vs BBC man Paxman interview after result on: May 08, 2005, 07:12:01 pm
Saw it on live feed too. The question was absolutely ridiculous, it would have been slightly more relevant if it had been about her Judaism since anti-Semitism was an issue in the campaign (whereas her race and gender weren't as much). Galloway is a true a**hole, but Paxman- it'll be a while before I criticize O'Reilly and Carville again.

Heh, it's interesting you pointed that out.
12212  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should states be abolished? on: May 08, 2005, 07:06:07 pm
No. You cannot imagine how many problems this would occur - imagine the arguments between who would get to keep certain city names.

"MY PORTLAND!" "NO, MY PORTLAND!"

That was exactly what I was thinking. Wink

God knows how many Springfields America has.

Indeed. According to various sources, there are 92 locations officially named Springfield

Yeah but there are less than 92 states. Which kind of blows up the whole chain of reasoning that had been developing up till now.
12213  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: Repeal of Family Planning Amendments of 2004 on: May 08, 2005, 07:04:40 pm
Ah how far we have fallen. All the supposed great legislation of the first few sessions have now been wiped out. I suppose it was inevitable however, given the makeup of the forum.
12214  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Last year with no elections? on: May 08, 2005, 06:59:33 pm
Do by election do you mean popular elections? 

Yes of course. I don't think we'll ever know how many times a ship's officers took a vote on whether or not to wait out the storm.
12215  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What is the LEAST racist part of the country? on: May 08, 2005, 12:13:43 pm
Very interesting points Dazzleman. I find that I enjoy reading your posts, even though I don't always agree with the points you make. You often bring up something I hadn't considered.

I agree that observed racism in an area is often tied up with SES status and the proportion of blacks living in the area. As you mentioned, this means observed racism isn't necessarily a good measure of true racism because areas which have low observed racism/black populations like Vermont or an upper middle class neighborhood haven't been/won't be tested in the same way, as, say, the deep south has.

The criteria I set out in my original post were for ceteris paribus. They only apply given that all other factors are equal. That is why you might easily think of counter-examples. Here's a more in-depth explanation of them, based on my admittedly limited experience:

All other things equal, is racism stronger in the east or west?
The east has a more traditional culture, and one's background and roots are generally somewhat more important, so race plays a larger role. The west by contrast has a general inferiority complex and a more open culture.

All other things equal, is racism stronger in small towns or large cities?
Self-segregation is more comprehensive in large cities than small towns of similiar racial makeups, because there is more opportunity to do so, and this leads to stronger racism. Actually, this is the point that I'm the least sure about, as I only know east coast cities such as D.C., Baltimore, Philly, etc.

All other things equal, is racism stronger in racially homogenous or diverse areas?
In racially diverse areas, where the diversity is proximate, people at least have had the chance to get to know and to work with people of other races, being a member of a minority is more accepted; and racists are less likely to live in these areas to begin with.

All other things equal, is racism stronger in economically egalitarian or stratified areas?
Where SES is unequal, blacks' generally lower SES may become tied up in negative stereotypes of blacks as a race, and there would be less interaction between higher and lower SES groupings for many of the factors you mentioned. In SES-equal areas, the sense of division would not be quite as reinforced.

All other things equal, is racism stronger in conservative or liberal areas?
In liberal areas, there is either a conscious effort made to identify and address racism as a problem, or a positive political environment for doing so, whereas this is not the case in conservative areas.

Overall, here is how I would rank the regions, from Least racist to Most
1- pacific northwest
2- southwest
3- the centrist/metropolitan south
4- the northeast/upper midwest
5- the exurban and rural south
6- appalachia, the plains, and the rockies
12216  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: NK may be preparing for nuke test on: May 08, 2005, 11:56:23 am
Why should we care? Bush doesn't
12217  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Democrats "could profit from Blair's Labour" on: May 08, 2005, 11:39:00 am
Dazzleman,

You should go and check out the link Vorlon posted analyzing the 2004 election. A few of things, followed by conclusions for the Dems in bold:

1. There is no fixed "mainstream" because there is no such thing as fixed public opinion. Other than responding to objective events, public opinion responds to signals by political elites such as presidents, government officials, senators, and media pundits and editorials. This is why public opinion shifts so much during the nominating conventions, because for 3-4 days, all of the elite messages coming to the public are one-sided.

Think about how to manage public opinion rather than only reacting to it.

2. Bush also won the 2004 election by consolidating his demographic base. While white evangelical Christians are a much higher proportion of the population than blacks, the pollster compares white evangelicals to all racial minorities as roughly equivalent proportions of the population, and finds that the former gave Bush a much higher margin than the latter gave Kerry. Bush and Kerry basically split the rest of the white vote 50-50.

Consolidate your demographic base, while diffusing your opponent's.

3. Bush won the 2004 election by consolidating his partisan base. Although  both parties were tied at 37% for party identification, only 6% of Republicans voted for Kerry whereas 11% of Democrats voted for Bush.

Consolidate your partisan base, while diffusing your opponent's.

4. The 2004 election was decided on foreign policy. Adding up terrorism and Iraq composed the largest proportion of the "most important issue" for respondents, and adding up the economy and health care composed the second largest proportion. Moral issues was far less important in 2004 than they were in 2000, and only the third most important issue. Bush's advantage among key marginal groups was built on his percieved advantage on the terrorism issue.

Be John Kennedy (or Harry Truman, or FDR) on foreign policy: place yourself to the right of your opponent

That's a pretty good analysis, but your last statement in a way corroborates my view regarding how far a party's base is away from mainstream public opinion.  While mainstream opinion is not fixed, it usually takes time to move public opinion on major issues.  The fact is that a Democratic today could not take a Kennedyesque or Trumanesque approach to foreign policy without losing a good chunk of the Democratic base.  This is the Democrats' central problem.  The Democrats' best hope is to move their base closer to majority public opinion, particularly on foreign policy and defense, rather than the other way around.

That is true, though when Clinton campaigned as a third way Democrat in 1992 he lost almost none of his base despite the strong Perot candidacy. I think the key is to be able to balance a move towards centrism in certain areas with strong prospective proposals in other areas that your base cares about the most.
12218  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: N.C. Church Kicks Out Members Who Do Not Support Bush on: May 08, 2005, 10:25:45 am
I don't agree with this church expelling members based on their politics.

It sounds like one of those extreme churches that probably repels more people from Christianity than it attracts.

Still, I think this is less consequential than the fact that a conservative has great difficulty getting tenure at a university.  In the academic and entertainment worlds, conservatives are effectively blacklisted in many cases because of their views.  While both are wrong, it's relatively easy to join another church, but it's difficult to get another career.

Um, this is completely untrue. Tenure cases are made based on amount of publications, with personal ability to get along with the other faculty as an additional factor to consider. The person's views are generally not considered.

Did the mythical liberal police give a test to Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson before allowing them to have a singing careers? Are they blacklisted now? Did they somehow escape the ACLU celebrity accreditors and the Democratic goon squad?

The reason there are more leftish professors are the same reason there are more leftish entertainers and movie stars. Because people who are attracted to those kinds of professions tend to have leftish views. Is the fact that liberals far outnumber conservatives in the science & engineering departments in the country's universities due to some liberal plot to indoctrinate students on the left-wing implications of Boyle's law? No.

I do think that more liberals are attracted to universities and the entertainment industries.  I also believe that there is discrimination in both these professions against conservatives.  Sure there are exceptions, but those who are trying to get a start in either of these professions had better keep their political views quiet; once they make it, they can then "come out." 

If they come out as a conservative too soon, they will most likely not get tenure in a university, and Hollywood will crush their careers.  You can deny it, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I think these two professions are another shining example of liberal "tolerance" and the hollowness of the liberal view when put into practice

The problem here is that you're the one making an accusation of bias, and thus the burden is on you to prove your accusation. Yet you have no evidence to back up what you say. There are gazillions of conservative celebrities out there, and most new celebrities aren't tested or usually don't even talk about their political views.

I know of several successful conservatives in academia, some of which have risen to the very top universities and had many articles published in the very top journals. In fact, I had even talked to one once and he told me that tenure decisions are made mainly based on publication productivity.

And further, not only have you not proven your point, you have not even presented any compelling motivation for discrimination. In the entertainment industry, the determinants of success are clearly based around talent shows, connections with promoters and good looks. The aim is to be a successful industry, just like business, rather than to promote an ideological view. Nor is there any rationale you've pointed out why university faculty in areas ranging from science to math to architecture to public relations all might be subject to political discrimination, as their fields have nothing to do with politics and they need never talk about politics during their entire career. Yet when you look at political donations by faculty they are just as liberal as those in the political science department.
12219  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Bush adminstration busted in new lie about Al Qaeda on: May 08, 2005, 10:11:13 am
The latest TIME article on the subject repeats the #3 assertion and says:
Quote
Everyone does agree that in al-Libbi, the Pakistanis have reeled in a big fish. U.S. and Pakistani sources think that al-Libbi has been in direct contact with bin Laden and al-Zawahiri and that al-Libbi was the mastermind behind two attempts to assassinate Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in December 2003.
And we all know how rabidly pro-Bush CNN/Time-Warner is Tongue

Time's bias is towards profits, so they do have an incentive to blow up this story as it makes their reporting seem more interesting.

Pay close attention to what Condolezza Rice was actually saying in her May 4 meeting with the Australian foreign minister:

"I think that over the next couple of days we will be able to describe that this is a truly significant arrest. This is, we believe, a kind of -- one of those important field generals in the al-Qaida organization."

No mention of 3rd in command. If she'd known he was 3rd in command, don't you think she would have mentioned it? At that point the former national security advisor was not even able to describe the arrest as "truly significant". She also describes him as "one of those important field generals." Clearly more in line with the description of him as a middle-level official. Yet the U.S. press, including Time, seems not to care.
12220  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: 3 simple Q's (Who are buying homes? Why are suburbs Rep? Why are cities Dem? on: May 08, 2005, 09:56:00 am
Dude, we've finally found a guy who can spout out more stuff than I can! Smiley

You make a lot of interesting observations.  The ones about the differences between the haves and have-nots today, versus the 1940s, is particularly good.

One thing I would add, as a side effect to all this, is the different way poverty is perceived today versus then.  When the poor or relatively poor are part of the majority, poor people are ultimately viewed more as victims of circumstance or hard luck. 

Today, poverty is viewed, correctly in many cases, as a moral weakness.  I say correctly because there are cases in which moral weakness leads to poverty, through a complex interplay between illegitimacy, crime, drug abuse, and the degredation of available educational opportunities.  Despite the fact that the poor today are better off materially than in the 1940s, to be truly poor today is probably a lot worse today than it was then.

Thanks for your reply Dazzleman.

When you say that to be truly poor today is worse than in the 1940s, do you mean the truly poor today are worse off than in the 40s, or do you only mean that it requires greater moral weakness to be truly poor today than then?

This view of how poverty is looked at is interesting because it is all tied up with race. There's a substantial body of research out there that suggests that since poverty became tied up with images of welfare and blacks in the 1970s and 80s, tolerance of welfare programs and poverty has gone down a lot because it's viewed as "giving money to blacks." In fact, I think that there might soon be some evidence suggesting that the notion that blacks are lazy has declined since the end of welfare, but I'm not sure about that.

Also, I've heard it suggested that the Great Society changed people's perceptions of poverty in the opposite direction which you suggested... that prior to the 1960s, it was seen that if you were poor, this was a character fault, and that since then, it has come to be seen more as a facet of environment, although these people would probably categorize "illegitimacy, crime, drug abuse, and the degredation of available educational opportunities" as facets of environment rather than inherent personal factors.
12221  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Democrats "could profit from Blair's Labour" on: May 08, 2005, 09:20:31 am
Dazzleman,

You should go and check out the link Vorlon posted analyzing the 2004 election. A few of things, followed by conclusions for the Dems in bold:

1. There is no fixed "mainstream" because there is no such thing as fixed public opinion. Other than responding to objective events, public opinion responds to signals by political elites such as presidents, government officials, senators, and media pundits and editorials. This is why public opinion shifts so much during the nominating conventions, because for 3-4 days, all of the elite messages coming to the public are one-sided.

Think about how to manage public opinion rather than only reacting to it.

2. Bush also won the 2004 election by consolidating his demographic base. While white evangelical Christians are a much higher proportion of the population than blacks, the pollster compares white evangelicals to all racial minorities as roughly equivalent proportions of the population, and finds that the former gave Bush a much higher margin than the latter gave Kerry. Bush and Kerry basically split the rest of the white vote 50-50.

Consolidate your demographic base, while diffusing your opponent's.

3. Bush won the 2004 election by consolidating his partisan base. Although  both parties were tied at 37% for party identification, only 6% of Republicans voted for Kerry whereas 11% of Democrats voted for Bush.

Consolidate your partisan base, while diffusing your opponent's.

4. The 2004 election was decided on foreign policy. Adding up terrorism and Iraq composed the largest proportion of the "most important issue" for respondents, and adding up the economy and health care composed the second largest proportion. Moral issues was far less important in 2004 than they were in 2000, and only the third most important issue. Bush's advantage among key marginal groups was built on his percieved advantage on the terrorism issue.

Be John Kennedy (or Harry Truman, or FDR) on foreign policy: place yourself to the right of your opponent
12222  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Was Lincoln a RINO? on: May 08, 2005, 09:08:49 am
Abraham "The Bastard" Lincoln? Of course! Everybody knows that Strom Thurmund is the paragon of the quintessential Republican, and Lincoln's oppression of South Carolina clearly disqualifies him from Republican status.
12223  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: N.C. Church Kicks Out Members Who Do Not Support Bush on: May 08, 2005, 09:02:26 am
I don't agree with this church expelling members based on their politics.

It sounds like one of those extreme churches that probably repels more people from Christianity than it attracts.

Still, I think this is less consequential than the fact that a conservative has great difficulty getting tenure at a university.  In the academic and entertainment worlds, conservatives are effectively blacklisted in many cases because of their views.  While both are wrong, it's relatively easy to join another church, but it's difficult to get another career.

Um, this is completely untrue. Tenure cases are made based on amount of publications, with personal ability to get along with the other faculty as an additional factor to consider. The person's views are generally not considered.

Did the mythical liberal police give a test to Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson before allowing them to have a singing careers? Are they blacklisted now? Did they somehow escape the ACLU celebrity accreditors and the Democratic goon squad?

The reason there are more leftish professors are the same reason there are more leftish entertainers and movie stars. Because people who are attracted to those kinds of professions tend to have leftish views. Is the fact that liberals far outnumber conservatives in the science & engineering departments in the country's universities due to some liberal plot to indoctrinate students on the left-wing implications of Boyle's law? No.
12224  General Discussion / History / Re: Presidential Survivor (ROUND 15) on: May 08, 2005, 05:02:42 am
Chester A. Arthur
12225  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Are Democrats Causing Delays in Court? on: May 08, 2005, 04:57:30 am
That's good, but I wonder how many people who see those ads are going to be like "hey, let's go check this at factcheck.org". Nope, they will go along like they did with the Willy Horton ads.
Pages: 1 ... 484 485 486 487 488 [489] 490 491 492 493 494 ... 569


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines