Between a Rock and A Hard Place

And your thesis is made all the stronger from noting that both authors were conservatives.

On the test EBeth and Phoenix took, I was right in the middle at the lower edge of the blue square (upper right).

Foxfyre wrote:

On the test EBeth and Phoenix took, I was right in the middle at the lower edge of the blue square (upper right).

Sorta between Clinton and Paul on the left/right axis, but slightly more toward libertarian than authoritarian?




(that would make sense to me)

At least as these things are defined in the USA.

Foxfyre wrote:

At least as these things are defined in the USA.

ahh, your perception. As Phoenix so wisely noted.

~~~

It has been interesting to see people seeming to be uneasy finding that they're not as far off in one direction or another as they'd expected.

~~~

People outside of the U.S. often comment how tightly packed the candidates - and electorate - is, in the U.S.

From outside of the U.S., there seem to be fairly minor differences between the parties and the individual candidates - til you get into Kucinich territory.

~~~

Vote Kucinich.

Vote often.





(though the popular sentiment in my office (mostly Green and NDP voters) is that this is John McCain's primary and election to lose)

From outside of the U.S., there seem to be fairly minor differences between the parties and the individual candidates - til you get into Kucinich territory.

~~~

Vote Kucinich.

Vote often.

I found the test too wordy and some of them I had no answer for; I guess its over my head; I quit in the middle of it.

George Bailey valued everything that Conservatives value: home/family/tradition/charity/responsibility/obligation and the ability of humankind to overcome diversity.

Quote:

George Bailey valued everything that Conservatives value: home/family/tradition/charity/responsibility/obligation and the ability of humankind to overcome diversity.

I can see that conservatives feel they have to overcome "diversity" but
I wonder what "diversity" George Bailey had to overcome.

parados wrote:

Quote:

George Bailey valued everything that Conservatives value: home/family/tradition/charity/responsibility/obligation and the ability of humankind to overcome diversity.

I can see that conservatives feel they have to overcome "diversity" but
I wonder what "diversity" George Bailey had to overcome.

You've never seen the movie have you.

Well, here I go again. Hillary is much too left wing for me, Obama even more so. It really frightens me to think what would happen if either of them became commander in chief. With either of those two, I think that the economy, which is rather moribund, will really go into the crapper.

I think that McCain needs to start thinking about playing golf at this point in his life, rather than running the country. To his credit, I think that he understands how important it is that terrorism is contained, but when it comes to the economy, fuggedaboudit! The fact that he even has to consider pandering to the nutjob biblebangers is a travesty.

I could have lived with Rudy, but he screwed up his campaign, big time.

What to do, what to do???

There seem to be a lot of members who are committed to one candidate or another. Is anyone around like me, who (again) is attempting to figure out who is "least worst"?

But Obama's unbridled hatred of our Constitutional gun rights is chilling.

In great empires the people who live in the capital, and in the provinces remote from the scene of action, feel, many of them, scarce any inconveniency from the war; but enjoy, at their ease, the amusement of reading in the newspapers the exploits of their own fleets and armies . . . .

They are commonly dissatisfied with the return of peace, which puts an end to their amusement, and to a thousand visionary hopes of conquest and national glory from a longer continuance of the war.

But Obama's unbridled hatred of our Constitutional gun rights is chilling.

On gun control, Obama answered the same 1996 Illinois questionnaire by endorsing a statewide ban on handguns. He soon disavowed that position, claiming that a staffer had filled out the survey in error, but he was still calling for a national ban on carrying handguns as a U.S. Senate candidate in 2004, according to a Chicago Tribune report.

In the Senate, however, Obama has taken a measured position similar to Clinton's, advocating what he calls common-sense restrictions on guns, including a restoration of the federal ban on assault weapons, while promising to protect hunters and crack down on illegal dealers.

Both candidates acknowledged the clout of the gun lobby at a debate in Nevada last month, when Clinton backed away from a 2000 campaign pledge to support a national registry of all handgun sales, and Obama agreed that the proposal would be politically impossible.