>>>>So, you've not only discounted his service, but also his courage, and also his time in Congress which includes several key committees.
>>>>
>>>>Meanwhile, Mr. Hope and Change, with practically ZERO experience in any area needed for a leader captures your imagination.
>>>>
>>>>And you don't see a problem with that?
>>>
>>>That's easy John, she sees another Carter in him. I see Satan.
>>
>>You suggest that I liked Carter; I didn't. Too long ago to remember who I supported that year, and I couldn't vote until the general election, since I turned 18 in September, 1976.
>>
>>Tamar
>
>I suggest you would like any candidate the Dems put out there - regardless.

Then you don't know me very well. Yes, I usually vote for Democrats, but not always. (For president, I'm reasonably sure that I have always voted for the Democrat, though, but frankly, neither side has offered up much in my voting lifetime.) I'd say my ballot is split more often than not, since I try to evaluate the individual candidates, while talking their party affiliation into consideration as one factor. (Who do they choose to affiliate with?)

And how often have you voted for a Democrat?

>Your positions have been far left on almost every discussion I've seen.

That's funny. My family (parents and sibs) despair of how conservative I've become.

>I know mine seem far right, but when confronted by facts, not emotion, I can change my positions. You and my other liberal friends take whatever dogfood the dems serve up.

That's incredibly insulting, while very amusing at the same time. I'll happily grant that our view are influenced by our life experiences and no doubt, your years in the police have given you a much darker view of society than I have. My sense is that, on the whole, people who see humanity more darkly tend to be more conservative while those who have a more positive view of people tend to be more liberal. Certainly matches much of the discussion here.

>I think you should take a look at the facts, and weight that against the emotion. Case in point, and I think I've cited this before: Dems/liberals want to feel good about themselves, so they come up with systems they think will help. They don't care about the outcomes, so long as they "tried". HOV lanes would be a great example. They waste gas, they restrict highway access, during the times it is most needed. The end result is, they don't force anyone to join the carpool, they actually have an outcome that is 180 degrees off what was "intended."

Got a cite for that? One that actually includes data? It's the first I've heard of it. IAC, my take on HOV lanes is that if they save fuel and encourage people to ride-share, they're a good thing. If not, who needs 'em?

In general, I'm for data. Can't remember whether I mentioned it here, but over the weekend, I read "Super Crunchers." Definitely worth a read.


>Repubs/conservatives want to know what the outcome of a program is, regardless as to the touchy-feely aspect. If it doesn't work, scrap it, and try something else. All systems should be measured for their outcomes vs intentions.

Well, duh.


>In a nutshell, from my perspective, that is the difference. with the exception of the libs who will cling to a lie, even when they know it isn't true.

I'm not even sure how to parse that sentence. I also think it's interesting that you and others here feel a need to demonize liberals as a group. My view on conservatives is that they vary widely, and many of them want the same ends I do, but differ in the means.

Do I think there are some really nasty people who are conservatives? Sure. Do I think all conservatives should be tarred with the same brush? No.

Tamar