New Hampshire

[MissCatholic]

New Hampshire is in the wrong place. It should be in the south. Say between Arkansas and Louisiana.

It`s slow. It`s rural. It`s old fashioned. It`s very, very conservative. While the rest of New England pretty solidly votes Democrat, it is strongly Republican considerring the way it votes in presidential elections. It should be called Old Hampshire, instead of New Hampsihre, becasue as far as i can see, there`s nothing new about it.

Take Manchester. To me Manchester is the name of one of the most famous sports teams in the world. This Manchester is nothing but an airport and a big hotel. This is where practically every presidential candidate since George Washington starts his/her campaign, presumably on the basis that the sooner they got it out of the way the better.

They call New Hampshire the Granite State, but i reckon this is more of a comment on its people than on its geography. They not only look like your mother-in-law. Upbeat, cheerful, optimistic, they are not. They`re miserable, dour, down-at-heel, and when they are not, they give a good impression of it. They all seem to be hard-working, a touch puritanical, churchgoing; they believe in the family, worry about their children`s schooling. Yet at the same time they carry guns. Many`s the time i`ve climbed into a truck to see a couple of rifles strapped to the back of the cab. They hunt, they fish - in fact they do everything southers do.

The problem is that, precisely because they are all so hard-working, puritanical, churchgoing and believe in the family, all the people who aren`t - the take-it-easy, Brie-eating, wine drinking, secular, quasi-Bohemian New Englanders who are pro-choice, pro-alcohol, pro-drugs (well, soft drugs, anyway) and pro more or less everything else- want to go and live there becasue they think it is a better environment in which to bring up their kids than a place where they will be surrounded by people like themselves.

Will they get on? The answer , of course, is no. The old and the new never get on. The old always loses. Hence the democrats are now finding ways to win in Old Hampshire.

Its the way the world works. So what happens now to New Hampshire? Will it join its fellow New Englanders in the way it votes for years to come. Or will Old Hampshire fight back?

[phk]

Its trended significantly Democratic since 1988.

[Bono]

they're about to repeal state property tax. this is being pushed by a democratic governor.
Take that as you wish.

[A18]

they're about to repeal state property tax.
Take that as you wish.

Good for them.

I think New Hampshire just likes deadlock.

[MaC]

If it weren't for the winters, I'd consider moving there, based on the state's politics.

I don't believe the state is as conservative as MissCatholic likes to think it is.  It's pretty libertarian in many ways. 

Check this out  http://www.lpnh.org/101-Reasons-to-Move-to-NH.pdf

[jokerman]

That really dosen't have anything to do with what New Hamsphire is like.

New Hampshire is a lot like the rest of New England.  The only reason it's been Republican historically is it's libertarian nature.  In the last several years as the political dynamics have changed it's swayed closer to the Democrats.

[SMOT]

I don't agree that New Hampshire is strongly conservative. It is very pro-environment, but it is the most conservative of any state in New England. It is a battleground state, not really conservative.

[Bono]

I don't agree that New Hampshire is strongly conservative. It is very pro-environment, but it is the most conservative of any state in New England. It is a battleground state, not really conservative.

John Sununu and Judd Gregg are true RINOs.

[Erc]

The makeup of the race this year (the war, a New England Democrat) made the state swing hard Democrat this year.  Given the right matchup, New Hampshire could be pretty solidly Republican.

[muon2]

New Hampshire is in the wrong place. It should be in the south. Say between Arkansas and Louisiana.

You confuse libertarian conservatism, like in NH, with populist conservatism in AR and LA. They are very different.

The conservatism of NH is very traditional and is still respected by many New Englanders including in MA. The tax revolt in MA in 1980 called proposition 2 1/2 adopted by statewide referendum was an example of this kind of thinking. Even in 1980 no one would have calssified MA as a conservative state.

In national races, social justice issues tend to win out over fiscal conservatism. This drives New England towards strong support for Democrats. In NH the balance is just slightly different and they elect more Republicans.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Its trended significantly Democratic since 1988.

Amazing how in 16 years it changed from the Republicans 2nd best state to voting for a Democrat who lost.

[briancw]

It's becoming a lot more Democratic. The only really conservative part is Rockingham and Hillsborough counties, which happen to account for most of the population. Where I live (Rockingham county) is definitely very conservative, but the western part is pretty liberal. The people aren't socially conservative. But they really hate taxes. Which doesn't make sense when you're paying 3500 in property taxes just to save an income tax. But anyways, it's not as conservative as she described.

[Jake]

The state isn't trending anywhere, it has changed because of the political climate, namely, more focus on social issues by the parties instead of economic issues.

[WilliamSeward]

New Hampshire's not in the wrong place. It's in the perfectly right place for Mass residents who are sick of liberalism.

[briancw]

Who could be sick of liberalism!

[Cowboy]

Who could be sick of liberalism!

The US has had so much of it lately!!!

[CARLHAYDEN]

Who could be sick of liberalism!

A person who prefers freedom!

[Cowboy]

Who could be sick of liberalism!

A person who prefers freedom!

Some of us don't totally agree with the bush administration's ideal of "freedom"

Not that im a liberal...god forbid.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Who could be sick of liberalism!

Some of us don't totally agree with the bush administration's ideal of "freedom"

Not that im a liberal...god forbid.

I do not agree with many of the policies of the Bush administration.

However, liberals (in the current context of that term) believe in the nanny state where freedom is curtailed, a policy with which I am in total disagreement.

I have of late been very critical of Bush's failure to deal with illegal immigration.

I believe the Bush administration has not adequately compensated armed forces personnel, retirees and the families of both.

To give a few concrete examples of my differences with contemporary American liberalism:

I support freedom of speech, and oppose efforts to impose speech codes.

I support the right of free exercise of religion, and oppose the attacks on that right by many liberals.

I support the right to keep and bear arms, while most liberals attack that fundamental right.

I believe that individuals should be judged on their merit, not their race.

[briancw]

I think the conservatives, i.e the Bush administration are the ones doing most of the curtailing of freedom here. Restricting marriage, The Patriot Act, new stem cell research blocks...I think the conservative leadership has done much more to cut back on freedom than Democrats have done, or tried to do. Just my opinion.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I think the conservatives, i.e the Bush administration are the ones doing most of the curtailing of freedom here. Restricting marriage, The Patriot Act, new stem cell research blocks...I think the conservative leadership has done much more to cut back on freedom than Democrats have done, or tried to do. Just my opinion.

Let me take your contentions (such as they are) in order.

First, I don't know if you understand the difference between toleration and sanctioning.  If two people of the same sex wish to live together and engage in sexual acts together in private, then short of some real (mala in se) crime arising from the relationship (murder, blackmail, etc.) its no one elses business (this is toleration).  However, when two such people demand that they have their relationship sanctioned (by marriage) as being equal with marriage between a man and a woman, this is forcing others (under color of law) to accept a relationship with which they disagree as being equal to real marriage (between to persons of different sexs).

Second, the so-called Patriot Act is a rather lengthy and complex law whose provisions are in many cases defective.  Please note that most Democrats in Congress supported this act.  I personally have grave doubts about some of the provisions of the act.

Third, with respect to so called "stem cell research," you don't seem (again) to understand the real point.  There is NO federal prohibition of stem cell research, and there is presently (signed by Bush) some stem call research being funded with taxpayer dollars.  Conservatives do not want to use tax dollars to serve as an incentive for abortion.

[briancw]

Of course there is no prohibition of research, on the EXISTING stem cell lines that is. There is definitely blocks in place to prevent the creation of new stem cell lines.

As for the marriage issue, it isn't clear to me how the two can be said to be unequal. They're both the exact same thing and should be regarded as equal.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Of course there is no prohibition of research, on the EXISTING stem cell lines that is. There is definitely blocks in place to prevent the creation of new stem cell lines.

As for the marriage issue, it isn't clear to me how the two can be said to be unequal. They're both the exact same thing and should be regarded as equal.

Well, we're making some progress.  You admit NOW that there is no prohibition of research on existing stem cell lines.

As to the marriage issue, it is clear you are VERY confused.  You make an assertion which is contrary to fact.  A relationship between two people of the same sex is not likey to result in an pregnancy and children, unlike the possibility of the same relationship between persons of the opposite sex.  In short, they are NOT the same exact thing, and are NOT equal. 

 

[briancw]

Biology doesn't have anything to do with the relationship. Marriages between sterile people are still marriages.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Biology doesn't have anything to do with the relationship. Marriages between sterile people are still marriages.

The wingnuts on this forum are debating whether to bring out their "sterile people shouldn't be allowed to marry" views.