Julia, no offense to you personally, but I always found it very convenient that people like to have fiscally responsible Republicans running their town, city even state, but elect Democratic presidents and senators. City of New York votes 80% to 90% democratic in presidential elections but just prolonged to 20 (!) years the era in which Republicans have been elected. Bloomber have switched to Independent before the last election but it does not cancel 4 straight elections in which a Republican was elected a mayor. Look at the bluest states' recent governors - California - Arnie, Massachusetts - Romney, New York - Pataki.

OK, where is inconsistency? if you have a lousy democrat, it doesn't make him good, and vice versa, just because of party name in front of his name. Isn't this a good thing? Elect people on merit? Where did I ever say I personally will never vote for a good Rep candidate for higher office? I hated Bush JR and his whole administration, but there were excellent Rep presidents. I think of myself as sophisticated enough not to стричь всех под одну гребенку.

Julia, as I said, nothing personal, I'm not even talking about you here, but why super blue states elect GOP governors and Dem. presidents?

Oleg, my theory for that phenomenon is that state elections are covered by state and local press to a bigger extent than by national liberal press. People get heavier assault by the biased national press during presidential elections.
Just a thought...
BTW, California Governator got elected on his fame, not on his party affiliation.

Imagine this type of scenario just for a second. Suppose you're ateacher and a Hispanic kid is there whose family is illegal. What areyou going to do? Suppose you're a doctor and you have an obese patienton welfare who wants to lose weight. What are you going to do? Ineither case are you going to despise them and tell them that they'reun-American and cause the problems for this country and if not for themthis country would have been much better off, -or help themnonetheless?
Strange question. If the patient is seeking your help, as a doctor you must help him/her. And so they do... And the illegals drain the system...
Still do not get the question...

ThoughtI see a better outcome for the illegal kid who is attending Americanschool than for an illigal alien adult patient: a conservative teacher can instill in this kid love forAmerica, love for rule of law, appreciation for personalresponsibility, hard work, accountability, desire to strive forachievement. Such a teacher can shape this child into a responsible adult, who mostlikely won't become obese slob on welfare. (v)

I think that if that kid is born in the US, he/she is American and should have all the benefits and responsibilities that any American has. If the kid is not a US citizen, he/she should either be deported (after a court order) or issued a visa, depending on individual circumstances. There is nothing wrong with education of non-US citizens, there are plenty of exchange programs run by schools and universities.
If the kid is American, but his/her parents are illigal immigrants, they should be deported.

Svetlana, despite what you may want to believe legalizing soft drugs is not a personal issue for me, but a personal liberty issue in general.
I would say legalizing poker would be a personal issue for me.

listen, you can't agree with someone 100% all the time..
are you saying poker is illegal? and why?

I have no clue WHY it's illegal, but it is.. outside of the casinos in NV and indian reservations.
It's also illegal to play it on-line ( thank to former president Bush ).
They view is as "gambling", which is super-retarded..