It baffles me that so many posters here are so flamingly liberal

[arabie]

Well-thought, educated post buddy. I agree with the above poster that i am more for not bush than for kerry. It involves weighing out the pros vs. the cons. The basis of your arguement is based on bipartism and is simply trying to generalize something that is really more specific. There are a group of people that fit in to just a far left, however, i don't think those are near the majority of democractic or more left than right posters. A guess to why you find so many so called "liberal" poker players is that if I were to characterize G.W.Bush as a poker player i would consider him to have the following qualities:
-Emotional rather than educated/mathematical in his decisions (ex. imposes his religious views on state decisions)
-Calling station (Ex. Won't "flip-flop" on any decision, even if he finds out that he is playing a losing hand. Isn't being stubborn on the wrong idea just so much better than admitting a wrongdoing?)
-Bad table image (Ex. Pisses off the rest of the world and, similarily, loses his table respect)
-Poor money management (ex. forget about the jobs loss, umm.. deficit?)
-Lack of Disciplin (Ex. Went to Yale after graduating from top middle and high schools, and couldn't go to enough class or do enough work to learn how to speak, read, or logically think. The war in iraq, while i do agree with its purpose, could've waited a bit a longer=No disciplin. Including, also, the lack of personal effort he puts into his job and policies; we can thank god for the republican adminstartion for taking care of that problem or we'd all be screwed)

There is more, but i am tired. I'd, lastly, like to just say that you shouldn't try to discourage the liberals from speaking out because that is what an educating discussion is comprised of. I think people often even challenge the right and present the left opinion just for the sake of debate and knowledge rather than political belief.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the above poster that i am more for not bush than for kerry.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might enjoy this website: http://www.kerryhatersforkerry.com

It's pretty funny.

natedogg

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the above poster that i am more for not bush than for kerry.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might enjoy this website: http://www.kerryhatersforkerry.com

It's pretty funny.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]


you forgot this one: http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbuti...himanyway.com/

[MaxPower]

That's funny. From my perspective it seems like almost everyone who posts on here is conservative.

Especially people like GWB and adios who seem to spend all thier time reading conservative blogs.

I actually think most of the "liberals" on this forum are much older than college age. That includes me.

Then there are the libertarians whom I admire but can't quite suscribe to their ideology.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
That's funny. From my perspective it seems like almost everyone who posts on here is conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]Ditto.

And I live in Indiana- so that's saying something.

[adios]

Actually I spend about 10 minutes a day looking at 2 blogs and not that closely. I challenge much of the anti Bush rhetoric because I think most of it is illogical and not well thought out. I believe there's quite a bit of group think and that most people are easily manipulated by the media and the political parties. Take the most recent thread about job losses in the economy and the Democrats pinning it on Bush as an example. My question was actually quite logical, if Bush is responsible, what policies of Bush led to that? If a political party makes those allegations and people support that party they ought to at least have an idea of whether or not that party's claim is valid and why.

I remember a few discussion about Kerry's military service. The Democratic party spin doctoring on his service is what I objected to and I've pointed out why before.

As far as the Iraq war, most of what I read from the ABB faction here is that Bush lied and we shouldn't be there. That may be true (I think it's more complicated than that actually) but we are there and I have asked Kerry supporters in many different ways about Kerry policies and what the subsequent processes in implenting those policies will be if he inherits the war. I can't think of another poster on this forum who's discussed Kerry's proposals on Iraq more than myself.

In general, I'll admit that I have an axe to grind when it comes to how people view their government. I think people put way too much faith in government's ability to solve economic and social problems. When you guys start telling me how great the welfare state is, to me it's an easy matter to show why it isn't so great.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the flaming libs just have bigger mouths and the Conservatives are the silent, sentient, majority eh?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's doubtful. Most of the opinionated loudmouth political know-it-alls I encounter are conservatives.

[SinCityGuy]

It seems that there is an increasing trend to label a Bush supporter as a right-wing fanatic or a Kerry supporter as a flaming liberal. These labels have been tossed around over the years, but not anywhere near the frequency that I've seen in this election. The country is indeed polarized at this time.

I'm a registered democrat, but I've voted for many republicans over the years. The first vote that I ever cast for president was for Ronald Reagan in 1984. In the last election, I voted republican for governor and congressman.

I don't think that the labels fit most voters. The majority of them aren't flaming liberals or right-wing fanatics.

[anatta]

Maybe your sample size of friends/gamblers isn't enough to make the generalization: Liberals don't gamble, conservatives do.

In fact, many conservatives oppose gambling. Most of the South, no casinos. See, there are some advantages to moral relativism! Gamble gamble gamble!!!!

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the South, no casinos.

[/ QUOTE ]

More per capita than in the North I would think.