The 2010 Midterm Election Thread

[Spider-Fan]

Social liberalism does matter and rightfully so. I personally feel the federal government shouldn't get involved in an issue like gay marriage, though I am for it. So, I don't want a yahoo who wil make some amendment to ban it, but I also don't want that to be an issue the federal gov't get involved in. Issues like that are for state law, and the Constitution lists that. The federal gov't doesn't need to dictate social rules, unless you get extreme circumstances like we had in the South.

When we need the federal government to dictate social law like that, we start becoming Big Brother more and more.

 

[chaseter]

that's a bit of an extreme comparison but I get your point.

To be fair, babies may be tasty...I dunno.

In 30 years we will be scoffing at the people who opposed gay marriage today just like we do when we reflect back on the 60s and civil rights.

 

[Arc-Light]

You won't find any argument with me regarding the obvious nature of gay marriage, but you also can't ignore the fact that half the country disagrees with us. Which is what makes your metaphor so totally inadequate.

To me in politics insane economic and governing policy is significantly more dangerous than bad social policy.

While I disagree vehemently with many of the positions of both Angle and O'Donnell both were more qualified for governing in America than the far-left men they lost too.

I agree we should let the crazies run office BECAUSE THEY WILL SAVE US THE MONIES WOOHOOOOO.......

 

[Carcharodon]

I don't agree with Norm, but I don't think what he's saying should be dismissed so readily. It's possible that the situation may become dire enough that we would need to consider making sacrifices of some political ideologies in favor of other, more immediate (economic) needs.

It certainly warrants honest thought.

 

[Marx]

I don't agree with Norm, but I don't think what he's saying should be dismissed so readily. It's possible that the situation may become dire enough that we would need to consider making sacrifices of some political ideologies in favor of other, more immediate (economic) needs.

It certainly warrants honest thought.

Not to derail the thread but equal rights are not a political ideology. They are basic human rights that should be afforded to everyone regardless or sex, sexual orientation, religions, etc.

 

[DACrowe]

Social liberalism does matter and rightfully so. I personally feel the federal government shouldn't get involved in an issue like gay marriage, though I am for it. So, I don't want a yahoo who wil make some amendment to ban it, but I also don't want that to be an issue the federal gov't get involved in. Issues like that are for state law, and the Constitution lists that. The federal gov't doesn't need to dictate social rules, unless you get extreme circumstances like we had in the South.

When we need the federal government to dictate social law like that, we start becoming Big Brother more and more.

But if federal government doesn't step in on some social issues, then change will never happen. I personally find persecution of minorities unconstitutional, immoral, and unjust. Saying that some citizens can legally marry as consenting adults and others cannot is a breaching of the Fourteenth Amendment.

If state law continues to do so, then Federal pressure will eventually be necessary (likely after the Boomer generation has shuffled off this mortal coil).

The South would have never ended segregation if not for the Supreme Court's ruling of Brown v. Board of Education, President Eisenhower making an example out of Little Rock, and Lyndon Johnson's joint laws of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

Yes, the federal government entered the realm of traditional state providence. But those state laws were unconstitutional and were never going to change otherwise.

 

[Carcharodon]

Not to derail the thread but equal rights are not a political ideology. They are basic human rights that should be afforded to everyone regardless or sex, sexual orientation, religions, etc.

That's fine. I agree. You can still elect somebody who disagrees with gay marriage. That doesn't take away your power to vote on the issue itself.

 

[Spider-Fan]

But if federal government doesn't step in on some social issues, then change will never happen. I personally find persecution of minorities unconstitutional, immoral, and unjust. Saying that some citizens can legally marry as consenting adults and others cannot is a breaching of the Fourteenth Amendment.

If state law continues to do so, then Federal pressure will eventually be necessary (likely after the Boomer generation has shuffled off this mortal coil).

The South would have never ended segregation if not for the Supreme Court's ruling of Brown v. Board of Education, President Eisenhower making an example out of Little Rock, and Lyndon Johnson's joint laws of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

Yes, the federal government entered the realm of traditional state providence. But those state laws were unconstitutional and were never going to change otherwise.

I don't disagree on the issue. Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. But, I don't think it is a federal issue yet. Someday, it might be. It was one for the South, and it was right to get involved. But, that was a bit more extreme a situation. We're not seeing quite as much blood on this yet. When it starts happening, THEN the federal gov't needs involved.

 

[BlackLantern]

I don't agree with Norm, but I don't think what he's saying should be dismissed so readily. It's possible that the situation may become dire enough that we would need to consider making sacrifices of some political ideologies in favor of other, more immediate (economic) needs.

It certainly warrants honest thought.

I kind of agree

 

[DACrowe]

Well I personally don't like Angle's economic ideas. But running on an increasingly racist campaign and having such crazy ideas on gay marriage, rape victims, Social Security, etc. was just damaging.

I think it became clear she would not win when she said that if she is not elected Senator, her supporters would take "Second Amendment remedies." Someone so out of touch was never going to become a U.S. senator. I know there have been some major Tea Party victories like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Nikki Haley.

But the ones who seemed literally..."off," like Angle, O'Donnell and Paladino, were just not going to win. It is why the GOP primary voters would be making a very bad decision if they pick Palin as the 2012 candidate in a few years.

 

[Kelly]

I would have been hard pressed to have voted for angle....BUT, I certainly might have to simply keep Reid out.......

I'm not normally a 1 issue voter, whether it be gay marriage, education, etc.... BUT, my insurance went UP....and looks to be going up again next year...NOW, by 2014 will it go down? I DON'T KNOW.....but what I see is that my taxes ARE (because nothing has changed so far, we shall see in this lame duck session, but as of the early voting) my taxes ARE GOING UP....so if I see someone that at least UNDERSTANDS THAT....they very well might would get my vote.

 

[Raiden]

I don't disagree on the issue. Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. But, I don't think it is a federal issue yet. Someday, it might be. It was one for the South, and it was right to get involved. But, that was a bit more extreme a situation. We're not seeing quite as much blood on this yet. When it starts happening, THEN the federal gov't needs involved.

Well, if you want to wait until there's blood on it before the Feds get involved, it might be too late. The Union once delayed the debate on the right to own the slave until the issue became unavoidable, and by the time they decided on act on the issue, it resulted in the Civil War.

(Yes, I know ending slavery was just an issue Lincoln brought up to justify the war, but it is still one of the issues that caused the friction between North and South).

 

[BlackLantern]

Well, if you want to wait until there's blood on it before the Feds get involved, it might be too late. The Union once delayed the debate on the right to own the slave until the issue became unavoidable, and by the time they decided on act on the issue, it resulted in the Civil War.

(Yes, I know ending slavery was just an issue Lincoln brought up to justify the war, but it is still one of the issues that caused the friction between North and South).

which I think is plausible in this climate...maybe along ideological lines as opposed to geographic ones

 

[Tron5000]

It took over 40 years for America to realize Democrats needed to be booted from the House leadership. 12 years before the Republicans were replaced. And now, only 4 short years after Pelosi came in talking about bipartisanship and open government, America saw these clowns for the hucksters they truly are.

 

[Tron5000]

The Tea Party is trying to prove that they are not a racist group by supporting Nikki Haley (An Indian) and Marco Rubio (Cuban American). It's their way of saying to the American people "See? We are not a bunch of racists!"

And as for California voting against the legalization of Pot? That will disappoint Snoop Dogg.

Really? The TEA Party (which is very loosely organized) didn't support these people based on their platform, their merits, or their leadership qualities? I suppose the disorganized TEA Party leadership (of which there really is none) got together and said, "You know what we racists need to do? We need to prove to people that we aren't racist. Say, isn't there a little Cuban boy or Indian girl or something we can use to fool people? What's that you say? There are? Bring 'em in, boys! Let's get these people, who are obviously beneath us based on their ethnicity, on the ballot! Who cares what they do if they actually get in office; let's just get those mean media people to stop calling us out for our belief that we are superior to others because of our skin tone and where our ancestors came from!"

That about how it went down?

 

[BlackLantern]

sounds about right

 

[Arc-Light]

Really? The TEA Party (which is very loosely organized) didn't support these people based on their platform, their merits, or their leadership qualities? I suppose the disorganized TEA Party leadership (of which there really is none) got together and said, "You know what we racists need to do? We need to prove to people that we aren't racist. Say, isn't there a little Cuban boy or Indian girl or something we can use to fool people? What's that you say? There are? Bring 'em in, boys! Let's get these people, who are obviously beneath us based on their ethnicity, on the ballot! Who cares what they do if they actually get in office; let's just get those mean media people to stop calling us out for our belief that we are superior to others because of our skin tone and where our ancestors came from!"

That about how it went down?

Yup........

 

[The Squirrel]

sounds about right

Yup........

 

[Tron5000]

Let's put it this way: if they were using those images against a black man to prove a point that has nothing to do with racism, they're ******ed[/i].

I'll leave it there.

Make a habit of using derogatory terms for the handicapped to describe those who do things you don't understand? That's cute while you're trying to explain why others are racists.

 

[Kelly]

The Tea Party is trying to prove that they are not a racist group by supporting Nikki Haley (An Indian) and Marco Rubio (Cuban American). It's their way of saying to the American people "See? We are not a bunch of racists!"

And as for California voting against the legalization of Pot? That will disappoint Snoop Dogg.

 

[Carcharodon]

Make a habit of using derogatory terms for the handicapped to describe those who do things you don't understand? That's cute while you're trying to explain why others are racists.

I'm explaining why it's a bad idea. I'm not explaining "why others are racists." If you can't keep up with simple English, you should probably stop trying to be cute and clever.

 

[Tron5000]

You won't find any argument with me regarding the obvious nature of gay marriage, but you also can't ignore the fact that half the country disagrees with us. Which is what makes your metaphor so totally inadequate.

To me in politics insane economic and governing policy is significantly more dangerous than bad social policy.

While I disagree vehemently with many of the positions of both Angle and O'Donnell both were more qualified for governing in America than the far-left men they lost too.

Agreed. If I don't have a job, if I'm worried about where I'm going to live, if I'm struggling and have no idea where my next meal is coming from or whose couch I'm sleeping on tonight, I'm really not gonna give 2 sh**s whether the 2 dudes next door are married or not.

I mean, I really don't care about that anyway, I was just using myself as an example for the American people. I doubt there are many among us, when asked by our children if we were going to have a house to live in next month, would reply, "Not sure, Johnny and Susie. But look at Jim and Bill and how happy they are since they were able to get married. Doesn't that fill your heart with warmth? Put that in your bowl and eat it."

 

[BlackLantern]

Agreed. If I don't have a job, if I'm worried about where I'm going to live, if I'm struggling and have no idea where my next meal is coming from or whose couch I'm sleeping on tonight, I'm really not gonna give 2 sh**s whether the 2 dudes next door are married or not.

I mean, I really don't care about that anyway, I was just using myself as an example for the American people. I doubt there are many among us, when asked by our children if we were going to have a house to live in next month, would reply, "Not sure, Johnny and Susie. But look at Jim and Bill and how happy they are since they were able to get married. Doesn't that fill your heart with warmth? Put that in your bowl and eat it."

I gotta agree with all of that there

 

[Tron5000]

I'm explaining why it's a bad idea. I'm not explaining "why others are racists." If you can't keep up with simple English, you should probably stop trying to be cute and clever.

My bad. Maybe I'm just a little ******ed today. My ******edness is just acting up on me again.

 

[Carcharodon]

My bad. Maybe I'm just a little ******ed today. My ******edness is just acting up on me again.

It's because you're racist.