which are you

[Socrates]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Aug 13 2005, 06:44 PM']do i know any extreme conservatives? Yes.........one of my best friend is an extreme conservative on just about every issue. When conservativism becomes extreme.........these people tend to not have any compassion............they look down on the unfortunate. Their idea is that it is the fault of the unfortunate.......as to why they are unfortunate. They dont regard feelings at all it seems like. They say that feelings should not dictate your decisions at all............i agree with this.........but i am also a compassionate person. Also, its easy for the majority of these types of people to say this because (i am willing to bet) the majority of these people have not experienced a high level of pain or frequent set backs that let emotions hold us back. Me and my friend argue politics all the time and sometimes it gets to the point where we want to start throwing fists at each other. Frankly, i look at how he was raised, his family is rich...........his dad makes like a couple million dollars a year, i look at how how much of a snob he tends to be sometimes..........once i asked him a question about myself...........keep in mind that i talk funny (people make fun of the way i talk all the time)...........i asked him that if it was my fault that i talk funny........just to see what he would say. He said, of course, YES. He did mention however that i could change the way i talk..........i agree. On the contrary however, it is not a moral issue and the way i talk is part of who i am. It made me so mad to see him say this.

Do I have a good idea of what extreme conservativism is? Yes........look at where i currently live..........college station, texas is probably the most conservative city in the united states. I look at the people and their sense of humor and their personalities and it sickens me.........they all act the same...........they somewhat talk the same...........i dont relate to their sense of humor at all.............i could go on. I see a bunch of androids is what i see. Perhaps it was my mistake by moving to the state of texas..........even more of a mistake to move to college station.

snobs are found in every culture.........place........but i think you are more likely to find a snob, in the united states, who is conservative. Liberal actors and stuff like that...........im sure a lot of them are the same way but at least they dont go hating on specific groups like homosexuals and stuff. Hating or looking down upon homo's is contradictory to what the bible says..

I think that extreme conservativism in regards to morallity is a must..........but i dont agree with holding an extreme conservative ideal about everything.
[right][snapback]684361[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It seems that you are dealing in your emotions and personal issues with people here more than thinking logically about the real issues.

When dealing with policy issues, we should look rationally on which are right and which are wrong, rather than how they make us "feel." Most people don't. It's easier to get emotional about things than think carefully and rationally about the issues.

It seems your basing your thoughts about "conservatism" mostly on that one buddy of yours. Let me just say that most of the conservatives I know are not millionaires or sons of millionaires. I've mentioned some filthy rich liberals. What's the point? When dealing with the ideas of liberals or conservatives or any other ideology, we should be concerned with whether they are right or wrong, not whether they or rich or poor, black or white, etc.

You can never know what pain other people have gone through. Some people have gone through more pain than you can imagine, yet be conservative.
The problem is that we have lost our sense of pride and repsonsibility. People need to take more personal responsibiltiy for their actions, rather then demanding government hand-out for everything. Welfare has helped create a culture of dependency irresponsibility.
The answer is people taking repsonsibility for themselves rather than always seeing themselves as victims and more government as being the solution.

I don't live in College Station, TX, so I really can't say much about that. Ans whether or not you like the people there are their sense of humor seems pretty much irrelevent to the issues. The truth is, anywhere you go there are plenty of @$$holes, be they liberal, conservative, or whatever. Most of the people I know are conservatives and are good people. My experiences with liberals have mostly not been as good.

And I've delt with snobbish liberals or even so-called "conservatives" who thought me too far to the right. They tend to act like anybody who beleives in right-or-wrong, or are religious, or against politically correct ideas is some backwards retard not worth dealing with, or some crazy hateful Nazi.

The bible says nothing about "hating" homosexuals (whatever you mean by that), but does say plenty against the sin of homosexualtiy. (God destroyed Sodom and Gommorrah on account of this sin).

And, believe me, the trendy lefty crowd does LOTS of hating on religious conservatives and Christians and religion in general - I'd say much more than conservatives "hate" homosexuals.

People need to start thinking and facing the facts, rather then simply dwelling on emotion. That's a big part of why things are screwed up as they are now.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Aug 13 2005, 10:43 PM']It seems that you are dealing in your emotions and personal issues with people here more than thinking logically about the real issues.

When dealing with policy issues, we should look rationally on which are right and which are wrong, rather than how they make us "feel."  Most people don't.  It's easier to get emotional about things than think carefully and rationally about the issues.

It seems your basing your thoughts about "conservatism" mostly on that one buddy of yours. Let me just say that most of the conservatives I know are not millionaires or sons of millionaires.  I've mentioned some filthy rich liberals.  What's the point?  When dealing with the ideas of liberals or conservatives or any other ideology, we should be concerned with whether they are right or wrong, not whether they or rich or poor, black or white, etc.

You can never know what pain other people have gone through.  Some people have gone through more pain than you can imagine, yet be conservative.
The problem is that we have lost our sense of pride and repsonsibility.  People need to take more personal responsibiltiy for their actions, rather then demanding government hand-out for everything.  Welfare has helped create a culture of dependency irresponsibility.
The answer is people taking repsonsibility for themselves rather than always seeing themselves as victims and more government as being the solution.

I don't live in College Station, TX, so I really can't say much about that.  Ans whether or not you like the people there are their sense of humor seems pretty much irrelevent to the issues.  The truth is, anywhere you go there are plenty of @$$holes, be they liberal, conservative, or whatever.  Most of the people I know are conservatives and are good people.  My experiences with liberals have mostly not been as good.

And I've delt with snobbish liberals or even so-called "conservatives" who thought me too far to the right.  They tend to act like anybody who beleives in right-or-wrong, or are religious, or against politically correct ideas is some backwards retard not worth dealing with, or some crazy hateful Nazi.

The bible says nothing about "hating" homosexuals (whatever you mean by that), but does say plenty against the sin of homosexualtiy.  (God destroyed Sodom and Gommorrah on account of this sin).

And, believe me, the trendy lefty crowd does LOTS of hating on religious conservatives and Christians and religion in  general - I'd say much more than conservatives "hate" homosexuals.

People need to start thinking and facing the facts, rather then simply dwelling on emotion.  That's a big part of why things are screwed up as they are now.
[right][snapback]684559[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This a prime example of what i was talking about..............i agree that we are supposed to do away with feelings when it comes to doing the right thing..........all human beings should know that. Unfortanutely we live according to the flesh at times. We are sinners. This is a matter of degree here. My belief is that liberals..........or democrats...............generally act on their feelings more than what is right . You generally will find the conservatives to be the opposite. So, far i dont think we differ. When i was talking about this stuff in my previous post i was talking about the extreme of conservativism. I would like to add that nothing to the extreme is good in this world. Its all about balance. Democrats and Republicans need each other.. I dont think George Bush's motives were in the right place. i think Suddam needed to be removed from office, however we did not go about the right way thanks to mister bush. He jumped the gun because he wanted his revenge. He must have been ready to lose a couple thousand lives to do it. Knowing this, am i still suppossed to support bush? I certainly dont trust him..........just look at the fake smile he has all the time........just like all the other conservatives i have seen.........androids i tell you!!!!!!!!!Androids!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hey, lets all go out and get blue jeans and white t-shirts and part our hair on the right side!!!!!!!!!!! If anyone doesnt conform to us.........lets look down on them and give them dirty looks!!!!!!!!!

conservativism can go much further than religion. When it does i dont like it.

hollywood liberals make up such a small percentage of the population compared to conservatives..........give me some more liberals that are like this.......

i dont think conservatives really show their snobbness as much but i totally see it and i love to point it out.

Edited August 14, 2005 by infinitelord1

[infinitelord1]

Generally people in the military are democrat............good example of people who dont follow their feelings when it comes to doing what is right. They arent snobs too.

[jasJis]

infinite,
You are overgeneralizing (sterotyping) and hammering people's motives so they fit into your stereotype. Sadly, you are mistaken on some key issues too. Military tends to be heavily Republican as was reported by all media at the end of the 2000 election. Repubs don't all wear jeans and t-shirts. It's a pitiful and scandolous misrepresentation to claim that Bush went to war for revenge. etc.

When you have attitudes like that about Repubs, what sort of attitude do you really expect to receive?

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Aug 14 2005, 08:07 AM']infinite,
You are overgeneralizing (sterotyping) and hammering people's motives so they fit into your stereotype.  Sadly, you are mistaken on some key issues too.  Military tends to be heavily Republican as was reported by all media at the end of the 2000 election.  Repubs don't all wear jeans and t-shirts.  It's a pitiful and scandolous misrepresentation to claim that Bush went to war for revenge. etc.

When you have attitudes like that about Repubs, what sort of attitude do you really expect to receive?
[right][snapback]684734[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
your right im going to the extreme with a lot of what i said. republicans

Bush said right when he took office for the first time........"what do i have to do to get us into iraq"...........maybe not in those exact words. This doesnt say his motives at all.........but given what has happened in the past with his father i think it is a fair assumption........its not necissarily true...........but fair to assume. Its like geeze man why would you be talking about war right when you get into office? Have you seen fahrenheit 911? I know it is a lot of democratic propoganda but the movie shows george bush golfing and taking all these vacations and stuff when he first got into office. Call me a conspirist like micheal moore but talking about war and going golfing and on vacations all the time? Hmmmmmmmmm. i dont know but im skeptical.

you may be right about the military being majority republican i just heard somewhere that the majority of the high rankijng officers were democrat.

if there is someone who disagrees with me i expect that they state why thats all.

Edited August 14, 2005 by infinitelord1

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Aug 13 2005, 10:43 PM']It seems that you are dealing in your emotions and personal issues with people here more than thinking logically about the real issues.

When dealing with policy issues, we should look rationally on which are right and which are wrong, rather than how they make us "feel."  Most people don't.  It's easier to get emotional about things than think carefully and rationally about the issues.

It seems your basing your thoughts about "conservatism" mostly on that one buddy of yours. Let me just say that most of the conservatives I know are not millionaires or sons of millionaires.  I've mentioned some filthy rich liberals.  What's the point?  When dealing with the ideas of liberals or conservatives or any other ideology, we should be concerned with whether they are right or wrong, not whether they or rich or poor, black or white, etc.

You can never know what pain other people have gone through.  Some people have gone through more pain than you can imagine, yet be conservative.
The problem is that we have lost our sense of pride and repsonsibility.  People need to take more personal responsibiltiy for their actions, rather then demanding government hand-out for everything.  Welfare has helped create a culture of dependency irresponsibility.
The answer is people taking repsonsibility for themselves rather than always seeing themselves as victims and more government as being the solution.

I don't live in College Station, TX, so I really can't say much about that.  Ans whether or not you like the people there are their sense of humor seems pretty much irrelevent to the issues.  The truth is, anywhere you go there are plenty of @$$holes, be they liberal, conservative, or whatever.  Most of the people I know are conservatives and are good people.  My experiences with liberals have mostly not been as good.

And I've delt with snobbish liberals or even so-called "conservatives" who thought me too far to the right.  They tend to act like anybody who beleives in right-or-wrong, or are religious, or against politically correct ideas is some backwards retard not worth dealing with, or some crazy hateful Nazi.

The bible says nothing about "hating" homosexuals (whatever you mean by that), but does say plenty against the sin of homosexualtiy.  (God destroyed Sodom and Gommorrah on account of this sin).

And, believe me, the trendy lefty crowd does LOTS of hating on religious conservatives and Christians and religion in  general - I'd say much more than conservatives "hate" homosexuals.

People need to start thinking and facing the facts, rather then simply dwelling on emotion.  That's a big part of why things are screwed up as they are now.
[right][snapback]684559[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
well i base a lot of my ideas on my buddy but not solely on my buddy........i base them on observations too. And about the facts.......well statistics and such can be twisted to adhere to a certain ideal. It doesnt mean that they are wrong but i think that sometimes when the republicans give statistics on that show (whats it called on the republican news channel?) i dont think it always reveals the whole truth of things. I think its halarious though how they make the democrats look bad.......lol.

first of all i am no democrat or republican i am kind of in between. Generally when i agree with democrats its over smaller issues though or about free-enterprise and taxes and such. I dont believe in big businesses controlling the american economy and believe that the rich should be taxed more. Now the only problem would be making sure that the democrats would do the right thing with all this money.

[jasJis]

Moore was thorughly discredited as representing his film as a documentary. It's not historically correct and is an opinion peice.

Let me refresh your memory about a few things.
Iraq (Sadaam) had started a number of wars with Iran with the intent of over-throwing it before it invaded Kuwait. Iraq was supported initially by the US because Sadaam seemed to be against the Muslim Tyranny in Iran. It turned out, Sadaam was power hunger and used the US.
Sadaam agreed to UN weapons inspections after GW1 because of his history of agression against other nations.
The UN did a lousy job with weapon inspections and Sadaam did not cooperate so sanctions on oil were imposed. Sadaam didn't care and the Iraqi people suffered so it was changed to oil for food. The UN did a lousy job with the Oil for Food program and Sadaam (and the UN) further enricehd themselves. Meanwhile, weapon inspectors continued to do a lousy job and Sadaam hindered them.

Sadaam had no reason to want the sanctions removed. He was skimming money and building his Palaces. UN officials and others with the Oil/Food program were getting rich. Iraqi people suffered. Sadaam also allowd terrorist training camps. Iraqi officials continually made it appear they were developing WMD and hindering the weapons inspectors. Sadaam threw out the weapon inspectors, declared the UN as illegitamate, and threatened war if the World tried anything. After Afgahnistan invasion, terrorists went to Iraq.

Hmm. Iraq made it seem they were developing WMD and hindered or threw out weapon inspectors for 10+ years. Oil/Food program was only hurting the Iraqi people. Iraq would not adhere to the agreements it signed after GW1. Iraq was giving help to terrorists AFTER 9/11. Iraq had a history of agression. Iraq built up it's military after GW1 and threatened to use it.

Sure. That's no motive for the US. Bush needed 'revenge'. Come on. I've read your posts. Your a deeper thinker than that.

[curtins]

very (Catholic Conservative) republican

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Aug 13 2005, 05:23 PM']where i am from, the liberal state of michigan, the government was too active with the environment. They have made it against the law to use RV's in most of the state now. Its these bleeding heart liberals that worry about the trees and grass that have ruined it for offroader's. now you have to go to trails that are designated for this type of stuff and quite honestly its not nearly as fun. The trails are all nice and groomed and just flat out boring. If the government allowed offroading in most areas and planted new vegetation, if needed, then that would be ok......but banning RV's in most of the state..........rediculous.
[right][snapback]684347[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Granted banning those may seem a bit extreme and I meant more like stricter regulations and requirements, but planting vegetation isn't enough and doesn't deal with the whole problem. It does nothing for the PM10 or PM2.5 (particles under 10/2.5 microns, essentially minute particulate smog, highways because of the traffic and deserts are places you can find an increase in this kind of smog). There are at least 17 million asthmatics in the United States and a scientific study done by I think it was a major Southern CA university showed that more people had chemical sensitivities that were aware of it.

Edited August 14, 2005 by Light and Truth

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Aug 14 2005, 09:59 AM']Moore was thorughly discredited as representing his film as a documentary.  It's not historically correct and is an opinion peice.

Let me refresh your memory about a few things.
Iraq (Sadaam) had started a number of wars with Iran with the intent of over-throwing it before it invaded Kuwait.  Iraq was supported initially by the US because Sadaam seemed to be against the Muslim Tyranny in Iran.  It turned out, Sadaam was power hunger and used the US.
Sadaam agreed to UN weapons inspections after GW1 because of his history of agression against other nations.
The UN did a lousy job with weapon inspections and Sadaam did not cooperate so sanctions on oil were imposed.  Sadaam didn't care and the Iraqi people suffered so it was changed to oil for food.  The UN did a lousy job with the Oil for Food program and Sadaam (and the UN) further enricehd themselves.  Meanwhile, weapon inspectors continued to do a lousy job and Sadaam hindered them. 

Sadaam had no reason to want the sanctions removed.  He was skimming money and building his Palaces.  UN officials and others with the Oil/Food program were getting rich.  Iraqi people suffered.  Sadaam also allowd terrorist training camps.  Iraqi officials continually made it appear they were developing WMD and hindering the weapons inspectors.  Sadaam threw out the weapon inspectors, declared the UN as illegitamate, and threatened war if the World tried anything.  After Afgahnistan invasion, terrorists went to Iraq.

Hmm.  Iraq made it seem they were developing WMD and hindered or threw out weapon inspectors for 10+ years.  Oil/Food program was only hurting the Iraqi people.  Iraq would not adhere to the agreements it signed after GW1.  Iraq was giving help to terrorists AFTER 9/11.  Iraq had a history of agression.  Iraq built up it's military after GW1 and threatened to use it.

Sure.  That's no motive for the US.  Bush needed 'revenge'.  Come on.  I've read your posts.  Your a deeper thinker than that.
[right][snapback]684751[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i would just like to add a few things..........we dont know 100% that they had weapons of mass destruction. There certainly is evidence that they did. Of course the democrats would stick to "we dont know if they had weapons of mass destruction." we dont know what type of weapons of mass destruction they had (if they had any biological types of weapons then i believe that saddam should be hanged this very moment).........if they had nukes well i can see why they were making them.........their neighbor iran has a nuclear weapons program, an enemy of iraq. As far as saddam killing his own people goes.........its definitly wrong and he resorted to primitive methods of maintaining his regime. I believe that any government would kill whatever or whoever is a threat to it. I think the U.S. government would do the same but through covert methods. As far as oil goes........saddam could do whatever he wanted with oil.........its his oil...........and the iraqi's whether they realized it or not. Look at the gas prices right now.......they certainly havent improved any..........GW's first excuse was that there was an oil well explosion in iraq causing the oil supply to decrease.........a month later he appears on tv stating that the world is now competing more and more for the oil supply causing gas prices to go up..........out of the blue i might add. Such a sudden, dramatic change in oil prices cant be blamed on such things. A year ago the price was around $1.50 to $1.70 a gallon. I just drove down the street and saw it as high as $2.41..........rediculous. Personally i think GW had some business plans in mind before going to iraq. Just more motives that didnt benefit the U.S. as a whole.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='Aug 14 2005, 10:43 AM']Granted banning those may seem a bit extreme and I meant more like stricter regulations and requirements, but planting vegetation isn't enough and doesn't deal with the whole problem.  It does nothing for the PM10 or PM2.5 (particles under 10/2.5 microns, essentially minute particulate smog,  highways because of the traffic and deserts are places you can find an increase in this kind of smog).  There are at least 17 million asthmatics in the United States and a scientific study done by I think it was a major Southern CA university showed that more people had chemical sensitivities that were aware of it.
[right][snapback]684767[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
california?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
well it really hasnt been a major issue. As technology grows polution is going to decrease. I dont think we really have to worry about polution immediately. Not to say we shouldnt plan for the future. What in god's name produces pollution in california?

i would like to add that technology has already introduced cars that depend more on electric power than fossil fuels. I bet in 10 years from now half the cars on the road are gonna be based on electrical power.

interesting thing i heard a few years ago.............we should have flying cars in like 10 years. They already had a prototype then. I am not sure but i think they may have been solar powered.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Aug 14 2005, 11:09 AM']california?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
well it really hasnt been a major issue. As technology grows polution is going to decrease. I dont think we really have to worry about polution immediately. Not to say we shouldnt plan for the future. What in god's name produces pollution in california?

i would like to add that technology has already introduced cars that depend more on electric power than fossil fuels. I bet in 10 years from now half the cars on the road are gonna be based on electrical power.

interesting thing i heard a few years ago.............we should have flying cars in like 10 years. They already had a prototype then. I am not sure but i think they may have been solar powered.
[right][snapback]684837[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
So we can trash the environment all we want because later technology will be better?

And are you serious about asking what casuses pollution in California?

[avemaria40]

If we don't worry about pollution, we're in big trouble b/c thanks to pollution, more kids have asthma and are more likely to get childhood leukemia and, there is a smog problem in California so L&T has a valid point about pollution.

[jasJis]

Infinite,
The Iraq war has little to do with current gas prices.
It was an oil refinery that blew up.
It's China's development that has increased demand for oil.
It's environmentalists that prevent the West from tapping into local oil supplies.
There isn't even a credible 'story' about how Bush can benefit from the war. It's ridiculous to even consider that when there are lot's of other easier ways to benefit from his position as President without the political danger.

Light on Truth,
The increase in asthma in the US is due to better sealed dwellings and office that don't exchange air with outside. People are struck breathing the chemicals in the building products.
Air pollution and acid rain has been greatly reduced.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Aug 14 2005, 03:05 PM']Light on Truth,
The increase in asthma in the US is due to better sealed dwellings and office that don't exchange air with outside.  People are struck breathing the chemicals in the building products.
Air pollution and acid rain has been greatly reduced.
[right][snapback]684955[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm not just anti-smog, I'm anti-large amounts of excess chemical exposure. That is why I don't like air-fresheners and I don't wear perfume. I know smog has gone down. I used to live in a moble home and we could not see well across the street back when I was little and spent summers on the couch because I was so asthmatic and most days of the year were 1st stage smog alerts. And I know it was ten years after that that my dad got an inhalor for asthma. My mothers ability to go outside and do things in summer is still affected by her ability to breath when she goes outside and her ability to visit my brother at his old college without a chemically triggered migrain was dependant on having a coffee (lattee so that the acid would not bother her stomach) part of the way through the drive before the longer stretch of high ways. She was most sensitive after some health stuff when we moved to a ten year old foundation home a little higher of the mountain (thus in a place that was a little less smoggy). I had a class with a girl who sometimes had horrible migrains which in the past had cost her jobs and boyfriends and delayed her schooling. Her migrains were worse after the highway near us was extended so she spent more time near the highway smog. Even though things are getting better, people are still suffering from it. My brother's second grade class happened at the same the school was being painted and one by one the regularly paint exposed children went asthmatic including the majority of his second grade class. That won't go away just because the initial exposures are not there any more.

As much as people who are chemically intolerant are exposed to those chemicals to which they are intolerant, even in small amounts, their bodies are going to become more intolerant. Some chemicals even make people react to other chemicals. Whether it is to a degree that we are aware of or not, when we are exposed to chemicals, it can cause permanent damage. Reducing the exposures doesn't undo the damage or necessarily always prevent a physiological reaction. Even chronic exposure that is not acute can cause problems to people's health.

Astronauts have commented on how the atmosphere of the earth appears to have changed as a result of pollution. I've seen people's health impacted be smog that blew over from China. Don't think I'm only against smog, but please don't think that it is not a problem for some people.

For where I stand on chemicals (indoor and outdoor pollution) and health, please see the chemicals and health thread in the open mic section located here [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=37803&st=0#entry684970"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?a...t=0#entry684970[/url]

[Cam42]

I am a Republican....I support the platform on about 90-95% of the issues. There are a few issues I disagree with though.

[quote]When conservativism becomes extreme.........these people tend to not have any compassion............they look down on the unfortunate.[/quote]

Infinte, that is more telling of the liberals of the US, than the conservatives.

[quote]any body want to bet on which party is gonna win the next election? I have a strong feeling that the democrats are gonna win.[/quote]

Nope....they are too polarized and have no natural leadership. They are a reeling party right now and in need of serious reform. Do you know how many times the Democrats have won reelection since FDR? Once. Bill Clinton. That is it. They are way too polarized.

[quote]Have you seen fahrenheit 911?[/quote]

Yes, it is patently false. There is no truth in that drivel whatsoever. Every single thing was taken out of context and twisted to fit the extremist agenda. You talk about extreme republicans, then dare to ask that? You've gotta be kidding me. Michael Moore is the most extreme of either party....

[quote]Generally people in the military are democrat............[/quote]

Not many I know. Most military personnel that I know are Republican.

[SarahB]

I used to be very Republican...well, for the most part. I vote based on who is the best canidate, so even saying that, I've voted for some Democrats in my time. Now I'm a member of the Constitution Party and we're very conservative.

[White Knight]

Politics lesson 101. Names like Republican & Democrat are tag names they dont mean anything really.


What matters is are you.

[b]Liberal (Left-Wing)-Independant(Moderate)-Conservative(Right Wing)[/b]


For instance one can be Democrat and for Pro-Life So in that sense it would make him or her lean more to the right.

Also you can have a Republican Male or Female, be very Pro-Choice on Abortion, and that would lean them over to the Left.


[b]I however claim myself to be a Republican, (Tag); Conservative.[/b]

[Don John of Austria]

I am a Fuedal monarchist. In my View Pat Buchanan is a radical left winger. There that said I ally yself with the republicans because they are better than the alternative. The enemy of my enemy is my ally after all( I think the term friend is a bit foolhardy.

[argent_paladin]

Wow, Infinite Lord, you are making up a lot of facts:

1. The vast majority of the overeducated (masters or Ph.Ds) are not Republican but Democrat. Surveys show that about 90% of university professors, for example, are Democrats. When asked why, one responded, "Smart people are naturally Democrats." Sound's pretty snobby to me. And think, the people who live in San Francisco, Manhattan, etc and ride in limosines and live on trust funds. They're pretty snobby, right? All democrats.
And who acted superior about his education in the last two elections? Al Gore (who failed out of seminary school) and John Kerry (who got lower grades at the same school as Bush) or Bush (who graduated from Harvard Business School)? The Democrats said that he was stupid, couldn' t read, etc. If you don't like people who act intellectually superior, you should not like the Democrats.

2. The vast majority of military are Republicans.
[quote]Today’s military: Right, Republican and principled

The 2003 Military Times Poll reveals a military more conservative, more Republican, and one that considers itself to be morally superior to the nation its serves.

The figures add fuel to a debate, ongoing since at least the end of the Vietnam War, over whether there is a gap in attitudes between America and its military and whether that is a cause for concern. Especially troubling, some observers say, are indications that military members do not believe the nation’s civilian leadership has their best interests at heart.

The poll found:

•About half described their political views as conservative or very conservative; four in 10 called themselves moderate; and only 7 percent called themselves liberal.

•More than half called themselves Republicans, and just 13 percent said they are Democrats. Recent polls of the general public show the nation evenly split, with Democrats, Republicans and independents making up about a third of the population each.

[/quote]
From the Army Times [url="http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2513919.php"]http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2513919.php[/url]