On Average Who Faces More Intolerance, Liberals Who Live In Red States Or Conservatives Who Live In Blue States ? (suspect, borders)

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Well, I hope y'all stick with it!

I was mainly wondering though as to what historical circumstances made it so...? I mean, why NH...rather than MA, RI, VT, etc, in terms of a bastion of general conservative (relative, of course) in a part of the country which is usually the first that comes to mind as being the most liberal in the country?

I am relatively new to NH, so I really don't have a great grasp on the historical details. NH is more of an "Independent" state politically in the past as well as the present. Many people here seem to respect the US Constitution and Ron Paul events always seem well attended! Our motto is "live free or die" and rugged individualism is a way of life around here. That has been my experience as I live in a rural area out in the woods

[ogre]

In addition to G-Stater's observations on the complexities of New England politics, I would also say that New Hampshire in particular, along with Maine to a significant degree as well, is more toward the center than the southern New England states largely becuase the northern sates are characterized more by rural areas and small towns than by cities and metropolitan areas. This does not explains why Vermont leans well to the left, but then, you're back into the complexities of the region's politics. Despite being a high-tax, green, hippie, civil unions state, Vermont also is one of only two states that require no permit to carry a concealed firearm. So . . . it can get complicated.

[ABQConvict]

In some sense, all of the NE states are conservative, just not politically. I think New Hampshire gets pegged as the politically conservative one due to their resistance to government interventions in the form of taxes and regulation.

A lot of people in the west where I live now think that NE is like one big gay parade / non-stop Dead concert and that just ain't so. I would say that NE is largely social libertarian (a live-and-let-live, takes all kinds, sort of attitude) with pockets of liberalism in the cities and multitudinous college towns.

To generalize, a common attitude is to be personally conservative but quite tolerant of different lifestyles. This is, in my opinion, an extension of the Puritan ethic. You can do whatever you like as long as you are not a Puritan ;-)

ABQConvict

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by ogre

In addition to G-Stater's observations on the complexities of New England politics, I would also say that New Hampshire in particular, along with Maine to a significant degree as well, is more toward the center than the southern New England states largely becuase the northern sates are characterized more by rural areas and small towns than by cities and metropolitan areas. This does not explains why Vermont leans well to the left, but then, you're back into the complexities of the region's politics. Despite being a high-tax, green, hippie, civil unions state, Vermont also is one of only two states that require no permit to carry a concealed firearm. So . . . it can get complicated.

Vermont has so many transplants from NYC and Boston now that it's politically and social makeup has changed dramatically over the last three decades.

But what Granite Stater said is absolutely true. Having lived in rural northern Maine for a while, I found it to be a refreshing change over most of the places I've lived especially the Midwest. It's not too conformist in northern New England and many people still have an old independent Yankee spirit about them.

[GraniteStater]

One of the huge differences in NH compared to the other New England states is taxes. We do not have an income tax or a sales tax. We also have a much more stable economy that tends to attract new residents from other New England states. We also have some of the highest ranked micropolitan cities in the country. Those include: Lebanon/Hanover, Concord, and Keene.

[Sandy Springs Rep.]

This is a good question. I haven't traveled enough or lived in enough places to make an informed opinion.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Naw, I would give it at least a dollar!

Seriously, in so many words, you and Colt both pegged it. Many liberals who love to tout the virtures of being "tolerant" are only tolerant so long as one accepts their own belief system. Woe be unto you if you don't, since this constitutes INTOLERANCE. And intolerance is NOT to be tolerated.

Nope. This is a bunch of bull**** that conservatives like to repeat over and over again to see if it will stick. But it never does. Liberals are tolerant of any belief system that does not attempt to impose its beliefs on other people. The fact that a lot of belief systems DO attempt to do this is not our damn problem.

[bobsmith]

I would say it's about the same. Even the reddest red state or the bluest blue state is not more imbalanced than 65-35 either way.

[ogre]

Originally Posted by Sandy Springs Rep.

This is a good question. I haven't traveled enough or lived in enough places to make an informed opinion.

Nope. This is a bunch of bull**** that conservatives like to repeat over and over again to see if it will stick. But it never does. Liberals are tolerant of any belief system that does not attempt to impose its beliefs on other people. The fact that a lot of belief systems DO attempt to do this is not our damn problem.

Hmmm, actually I'd have to say that this "intolerant only of those who try to impose their beliefs on others" line is just some smooth spin the left has come up with as a way to deny their own intolerance toward anyone they disagree with. The reality is that we all try to impose our belief systems on others with any laws we support. I mean any laws. I impose my beliefs on others with my support of laws prohibiting murder, theft, arson, rape, armed robbery, child molestation, vandalism . . . The right tries to impose their belief system on others when they say abortion should be illegal, limited to only a certain few situations, etc. Conversely, the left tries to impose their belief system on others when they say that an unborn baby has less right to live than the pregnant teenager who wasn't careful to avoid getting herself knocked up has to avoid having her life changed by carrying a pregnancy to term.

For that matter, even laws that many or most of us support, accept, have long been accustomed to having as a regular part of American life, etc., still involve the left of previous generations imposing their values on others who strongly disagreed with those laws when they went into effect. An obvious example would be laws against racial discrimination, in which the left of the '50's and '60's imposed on others their idea that the right of minorities to shop, dine, use public services, rent apartments, buy houses, etc., where they chose to without being denied these things on the basis of their race took precedence over the right of the owners of private businesses to do business or not with whomever they chose. I hope I have not stirred up something here that will move the thread off topic. Anyone who wants to debate these issues I've used as examples might want to start a new thread at Great Debates or P & OC. I'm just giving some examples of how every law involves the imposing of one person's, or group's values on those who disagree with their views. The left does this with every law they advocate, just as much as the right does.

True tolerance does not necessarily mean 100-percent agreement on all issues. It means accepting the other person's right to his views. Many issues are complicated, as they involve a clash of various rights for different individuals (the pregnant teenager's right to finish high school, go on to college, continue with her plans for her life vs. the unborn baby's right to its life that exists because of the teenager's actions). What the left has recently begun to spin as "intolerance only of those who are intolerant" really involves defining those who disagree with them, on issues related to those many complicated areas of life where the rights of various individuals clash, as "intolerant," and so, in their minds, justifying their own intolerance of the right of those who disagree with them to their own views of the many difficult and complicated questions life presents.

Living here in Massachusetts, I know many conservatives and libertarians who have talked of feeling forced to keep their views to themselves in many settings, for fear of being socially ostracized, verbally harassed, physically threatened, even possibly having their careers derailed, if they openly expressed their views. That is not tolerance, no matter how much the left wants to view their intolerance as merely "intolerance only of those who are intolerant."

[creeksitter]

I feel that tolerance is pretty well ingrained in the Appalachian culture - in the sense of keeping out of other people's business.

I've run across racial prejudice among long-time locals but wonder if that is considered intolerance in the sense of this discussion. It seems most of the intolerance I encounter comes from transplanted liberals. A recent example is a law prohibiting people from parking in their yard. Even the city admits enforcement will be "complaint driven" which reinforces the notion that you just need to get along with your neighbors.

[4NewAmerica]

Liberals don't have opinions. They have proposed legislation. They would gladly jail, torture or kill to force everyone on earth to abide by their stupid ideas.