[JViello]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Funny, you basically swear up and down that liberals are the devil in a previous post, then say after being confronted that you meant no insult to our dear liberals on this board. Come on JV - don't mistake us for fools with your technicality of the day.

YOU are now putting words in my mouth. I never said they are the devil. Not once. Sorry.

I don't mean any insult. I don't. I think they are horribly wrong, I think they for the most part live on emotion vs facts and reality, but that's my opinion and how I see it.

BTW who is "us"...I thought you were a conservative?

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Gee, that's not biased or anything.

See my comment to Rich. Facts are facts, regardless of source. Period.

[Stratford, Ct. Resident]

I think we're moving just a little off the thread topic here.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JViello

YOU are now putting words in my mouth. I never said they are the devil. Not once. Sorry.

I don't mean any insult. I don't. I think they are horribly wrong, I think they for the most part live on emotion vs facts and reality, but that's my opinion and how I see it.

BTW who is "us"...I thought you were a conservative?



See my comment to Rich. Facts are facts, regardless of source. Period.

No you didn't say "devil" - apologies. Apology offered, in so many words, that's *basically* what you implied. Again with the technicalities.

"Us" is the regular posters on the CT forum. Not "Liberals" as you would probably hope!

And after seeing how McCain campaigned this election (scare tactics, smear and personal insults), I no longer support the 'off the track' group that I'm embarrassed to call the Republican party. I switched to Independent last month. I feel oh so enlightened.

"Facts are facts, regardless of source." Not true when you use a source that is incredibly controversial. "Facts" are questionable and biased.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

No you didn't say "devil" - apologies. Apology offered, in so many words, that's *basically* what you implied. Again with the technicalities.

"Us" is the regular posters on the CT forum. Not "Liberals" as you would probably hope!

And after seeing how McCain campaigned this election (scare tactics, smear and personal insults), I no longer support the 'off the track' group that I'm embarrassed to call the Republican party. I switched to Independent last month. I feel oh so enlightened.

"Facts are facts, regardless of source." Not true when you use a source that is incredibly controversial. "Facts" are questionable.

No worries...

But along the same lines as the "liberal" thing...since when does Republican automatically mean "conservative'?

I'm a conservative first...probably libertarian more than anything on social issues and more Republican on moral issues.

"independant" is akin to being "agnostic" in the faith world so yea, I think that fits you politically based on what I know. (And no that's not an insult. lol )

Regarding abortion...OMG, it's really basic. The baby gets torn apart. Limb from limb. This is basic knowledge. I can't believe I'm having to explain it to be honest.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JViello

No worries...

But along the same lines as the "liberal" thing...since when does Republican automatically mean "conservative'?

I'm a conservative first...probably libertarian more than anything on social issues and more Republican on moral issues.

"independant" is akin to being "agnostic" in the faith world so yea, I think that fits you politically based on what I know. (And no that's not an insult. lol )

Regarding abortion...OMG, it's really basic. The baby gets torn apart. Limb from limb. This is basic knowledge. I can't believe I'm having to explain it to be honest.

I am Agnostic, yes. You pinned it. (Actually I think we had a religious discussion via DM awhile ago!)

[Rich Lee]

Originally Posted by JViello

Regarding abortion...OMG, it's really basic. This is basic knowledge. I can't believe I'm having to explain it to be honest.

Me, too. It's a fetus or an embryo - not a baby.

[nico7]

I guess what I was hoping to get at in this thread was that there are some towns that consistently vote one way or another, and in this particular election, it was shown that for whatever reasons many towns (32) switched to a Democratic majority from their 2004 Republican vote. It's probably fair to say that any town with a majority Republican vote in this election can be generally considered a Republican town. On the other hand, there are some towns that have gone back and forth between parties in the presidential election.

People who are considering moving to Connecticut may want to find a town that meets their preference for a party or a mix of party views. On the other hand, that may not be important to them at all. Some quotable person once said that "All politics is local" and it's probably true that presidential elections do not directly reflect preferences for local governance.

[doc1]

Originally Posted by JunieBJones

Wow, I live in quite the Republican pocket of CT there! That explains all the McCain signs. It probably also explains why our schools have no paper, textbooks that are almost 30 years old, and bricks falling on kids' heads...nobody wants their taxes raised even if it means improving education.

We in true blue NJ are the most taxed and have some of the highest urban school expenditures in the nation yet nobody seems to be clamoring to send their kids to those schools. Including teachers.

We also rank 35 or so on SAT scores. That would be out of 50.

[goldenband]

Originally Posted by JViello

all conservatives are rich with legacy scholarships
that the majority of pro-life folks have abortions "secretly"
all conservatives "weave through traffic in their BMW's and Hummers"

I cordially invite you to show me where precisely I used the words "all", "majority", and "all"; oddly enough, I don't think you'll find them.

Originally Posted by JViello

I have never ever heard Rush say "lock up all the drug users". I really haven't.

Here's one example among many: "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up." From here.

Originally Posted by JViello

But even if he did, are you going to tell me that you can't make the distinction between a crackhead who commits robbery to support his habit to someone that got hooked off of a prescription to take care of a medical condition?

What on earth does robbery have to do with anything? Did Rush Limbaugh commit a burglary of which I'm unaware? I can certainly make a distinction between a drug user who commits robbery, and one who doesn't. For robbery, you see, is a crime for which people are (and should be) sent to prison, whether or not they use drugs.

(Or perhaps you meant to single out people who commit crimes in the course of their drug use -- crimes such as fraud, say. You know, the one they let Rush off the hook for.)

[JayCT]

I think that this thread has gone off track too far. I am closing it. thanks for everyone's responses, but it has to end. Jay