Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is so true. The liberals think that everyone thinks like they do; that they are in the majority of American thought. Actually, the opposite is true.
No it's not true. You want it to be. You want a random survey of 350,000 people to hold no statistical validity so that you can make these "liberal" accusations.
As for your unrelated tangent, I think most Americans, if you were to strip out politics, would desire equal opportunity for all, peace, sustainability, ensuring the least amongst us are supported.
They may disagree with the tactics (like many people would never choose an abortion, but disagree with the idea that the federal government should dictate it), but the overall progressive values that move our society to a more perfect union are proven again and again to win. Just look at our greatest social achievements as a society - end of slavery, liberation of women, equal opportunity for all, a stable middle class capable of purchasing the products they produce, freedom from bigotry for all to experience the love that is in their hearts, freedom to explore one's spirituality in whatever way suits that individual...
anyway - I guess that's irrelevant to this topic. Please just stop dividing us by red and blue. Let's bring it all together.
This is so true. The liberals think that everyone thinks like they do; that they are in the majority of American thought. Actually, the opposite is true.
I live in rural Ohio. Almost everyone goes to church, and there are churches all over the place. Not only that, but their kids go with them, and are involved in the youth groups.
Poll taken yesterday shows Voters preferring Democrats 2:1 over Republicans. RNC says they won't change a thing. In otherwards, no centrist Republican party as it once was. What does that add up to? Palin in 2012 probably. It's interesting when a splinter group gets control of a Party. Sometimes they split out into a separate party and replace the original, sometimes they get reabsorbed, sometimes they jump to the other Party (not this time!). Teddy Roosevelt's "Bullmoose" party is a good example.
MAYBE, MAYBE, MAYBE! But aren't the urban areas the population centers? I mean, I understand there are people scattered around in the wilderness there, but that doesn't add up to a lot of people.
The state is about evenly divided between urban and others.
^
...well, if she'd go away and get educated then maybe people wouldn't have to keep pointing out her profound lack of intellectual curiosity and resulting incapacity for executive office.
And those problems created by the last adminstration are all of ours, and require all of us to fix them.
give it a rest---you palin haters are still looking for ways to discredit her---WHY? YOUR GUY WON---NOW HE CAN FIX ALL YOUR PROBLEMS!
palin haters??? hi you doing obama hater, dumb @55 AMERICANS do nothing but whine whine whine......
ironically she wasnt even running to be PotuS but yet she somehow is the best thing smoking in the party now? , before that she was a nobody. u know what else i heard this is from a conservative is that she slept with ayers and couldnt stop saying his name in her campaign haha
ron paul>>palin
ron paul>>mccain
ron paul>>> the rest of the GOP hopefuls for 2008
palin haters??? hi you doing obama hater, dumb @55 AMERICANS do nothing but whine whine whine......
ironically she wasnt even running to be PotuS but yet she somehow is the best thing smoking in the party now? , before that she was a nobody. u know what else i heard this is from a conservative is that she slept with ayers and couldnt stop saying his name in her campaign haha
ron paul>>palin
ron paul>>mccain
ron paul>>> the rest of the GOP hopefuls for 2008
I heard it wasn't Ayers, it was the Republican elephant. The part about smoking was afterwards, but it got hushed up.
You vastly overestimate the impact of small towns on the overall population. Just because you happen to be surrounded by a higher percentage of people adherent to a religion doesn't mean it transcends to very much in the overall population count - especially in rural areas. And I have lived in rural and urban areas.
Anyway - is "church going" really the definiton of religious? I am deeply spiritual, but wouldn't step foot in a church to save my life (no pun intended!)
Well, there are but three large cities in Alaska: Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. The rest of the State's population are spread-out all around Alaska. For example there are perhaps 400 city residents in North Pole, but this town is surrounded by neighborhoods and smaller towns all the way to Fairbanks to one side, and to Delta Junction to the other side. It's the same with Anchorage, in that there is a concentration of residents in the city, but there are more residents outside of the city. Juneau is completely different in that it's isolate (no roads to it), just a cluster of buildings by the ocean. There are more residents in the towns and neighborhoods outside of Fairbanks than in Fairbanks itself.
I'm gratified, though not surprised, to see my state of Washington as one of the least religious..rather than be bound by some ridiculous superstition, we have a proud tradition of independent thought based on reality.
On a different note, I noticed that of the 10 most religious, 9 voted red this last Nov.....not too surprising considering the GOP has become the party of fundies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.