Who do you support for U.S. Senate in North Carolina in 2010?

[The Enemy Within]

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>Pressure from constituents is how the system is supposed to work.
Obama ended don't ask don't tell, made sexual orientation included in hate crimes criteria,andAmong the changes: Gay partners of federal workers will now receive long-term health insurance, access to day care and other benefits. Federal Housing Authority loans can no longer consider the sexual orientation of applicants. The Census Bureau plans to report the number of people who report being in a same-sex relationship. Hospitals must allow gays to visit their ill partners. And federal child-care subsidies can be used by the children of same-sex domestic partners.

What did the Bush's do for gay rights? Nothing. What did Reagan do for gay rights? Nothing. What did Nixon do for gay rights? Nothing.

Republicans do not work for all the people.

Support is a lot different than pressure (demand/force) in my world.

With the exception of " Hospitals must allow gays to visit their ill partners" everything else you listed is government funded.

I would have expected nothing less from government programs.

[The Enemy Within]

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>Of course, because you are anti anything that Obama may do. It does not even have to be something you are against, you guys just knee jerk to any idea a liberal may have.
Thanks for confessing that to us.

I am not anti Obama. I just refuse to put him on some false pedestal you and Arnold seem to think he belongs on. He is worse than Bush an we both know Bush wasn't good either.

[Makin bacon]

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

Robert and all consevatives, Please explain the meaning of these words from your perspective of voting 'yes' and supporting Amendment One.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal, and that they are endowed by creator with certain inalienable rights; That among these are LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"
Please explain to me how a 'Yes' vote on Amendment One accomplished this noble purpose.

Arnold, before you start vilifying "conservatives" for voting "yes", you need to speak to the people of your party. Where were they on the day this issue was voted on? Maybe this issue didn't matter as much to them as you expected. Repubs are outnumbered by Dems in N.C. and a "no" vote shouldn't have been a problem.

These are statistics I found for Tuesday's vote:

"Some basic math.

Democrats registered in NC: 2,735,467
Republicans registered in NC: 1,975,943
Votes cast for Amendment 1: 1,303,876
Votes cast against Amendment 1: 832,219

All that's needed for the triumph of evil is that good men stand by and do nothing. Look at the numbers, people, and call upon your basic math skills, not your partisan hatred. Even if EVERYONE who voted for Amendment 1 was a republican, your fellow democrats were complicit in its passage because they didn't vote against it. Maybe before you say, "God, I HATE republicans," you should ask your democrat friends where they were on election day.

That scenario's unlikely. It's a lot more likely that a *lot* of your democrat friends voted FOR Amendment 1. Math is not subject to party affiliation. I am also unaffiliated. Think. That IS legal, at least for the time being.

Numbers come from NC Board of Elections. Sorry for the inconvenient truth."

[The Enemy Within]

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, old people tend to not be progressive. Just as old people are still more likely to be racist.Just as old people tend to be republican.
Just watched a clip of Reagan giving his view on homosexuals. He was asked about homosexuals teaching in schools. He said if they keep it private he is OK with it. But if they ever tell a child they are gay, it sends the wrong message that the lifestyle is ok.

If Mitt Romney said this today, he would lose the race.

Mute point

Many people viewed gays differently in the 80's! A lot has changed in 20 years, many of the things said by leaders and politicians are frowned upon or unacceptable today.

[TSF]

I don't know if you are dishonest or just stupid. Derivatives are packages of shakey to worthless loans sold as commodities and designed to lose money so insurance (hedge) against losses can be collected. So all the banks accept bailouts so that the ones which were dragging down the others like Morgan could pay their debt with OUR TAX MONEY. So then Morgan pays us back with our own money? Wake up ! Its a scam. We are being shock tested to see if we are stupid enough to fall for the trick again.

Robert Stowe wrote:

<quoted text>You simpleton! Morgan Chase repaid every cent of their TARP money plus interest as did most every other financial institution. The only TARP recipient that still owes money is GM which was the payoff to Obama's union thug supporters.

[The Enemy Within]

TSF wrote:

<quoted text>I don't know if you are dishonest or just stupid. Derivatives are packages of shakey to worthless loans sold as commodities and designed to lose money so insurance (hedge) against losses can be collected. So all the banks accept bailouts so that the ones which were dragging down the others like Morgan could pay their debt with OUR TAX MONEY. So then Morgan pays us back with our own money? Wake up ! Its a scam. We are being shock tested to see if we are stupid enough to fall for the trick again.

You say "accepted" money. I remember certain banks causing a stink because they wanted no part of the bail out but was forced to accept it.

[Arnold-Ziffel]

Robert Stowe wrote:

<quoted text>A society has the right to set standards for itself. Most of those who voted for Amendment 1 believe that gay marriage damages the traditonal family structure and in turn threatens the whole of society. Does that answer your question, Arnold?

I contest and question any rights of people being placed on a ballot when hatred and prejudice are abound for many groups people, mainly the prejudice against homosexuals. Do you think that the 'yes' vote on the Amendment violated Jefferson's statement of the God given right of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'? Jefferson would puke over these actions. Was this basic right of gays to marry violated by this vote? And you support 'liberty and justice for ALL' and then proceed to deny gays this right? What a blatent hypocrite. You conveniently avoided the question about a human rights vote in 1960 for minorities. You run and hide from direct questions asked of you. Maybe with your social status, I am sure that many have been afraid to challenge you. I am not one of those.

[Arnold-Ziffel]

Makin bacon wrote:

<quoted text>
Arnold, before you start vilifying "conservatives" for voting "yes", you need to speak to the people of your party. Where were they on the day this issue was voted on? Maybe this issue didn't matter as much to them as you expected. Repubs are outnumbered by Dems in N.C. and a "no" vote shouldn't have been a problem.
These are statistics I found for Tuesday's vote:
"Some basic math.
Democrats registered in NC: 2,735,467
Republicans registered in NC: 1,975,943
Votes cast for Amendment 1: 1,303,876
Votes cast against Amendment 1: 832,219
All that's needed for the triumph of evil is that good men stand by and do nothing. Look at the numbers, people, and call upon your basic math skills, not your partisan hatred. Even if EVERYONE who voted for Amendment 1 was a republican, your fellow democrats were complicit in its passage because they didn't vote against it. Maybe before you say, "God, I HATE republicans," you should ask your democrat friends where they were on election day.
That scenario's unlikely. It's a lot more likely that a *lot* of your democrat friends voted FOR Amendment 1. Math is not subject to party affiliation. I am also unaffiliated. Think. That IS legal, at least for the time being.
Numbers come from NC Board of Elections. Sorry for the inconvenient truth."

Many Democrats are unfortunately in the category where they believe the Bible governs the US instead of the Constitution. As an American, do you really believe that human rights of individuals is an issue that should be voted on by the people? What do you think would have happened had a vote for equal rights for minorities been placed on a ballot in 1960? Honestly, what would have been the result? Would this have been fair? Is denying homosexuals the God given right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' as stated by Jefferson what you and other 'yes' voters want to do? A 'true' patriot of this nation wants equality for EVERY citizen, not just the ones that have your preference. I am in the former group, you are a supporter of the latter. I believe in fairness and equality for ALL. You only give it lip service.

[Arnold-Ziffel]

The Enemy Within wrote:

<quoted text>
You say "accepted" money. I remember certain banks causing a stink because they wanted no part of the bail out but was forced to accept it.

Give us a list of those banks. Thanks.

[Robert Stowe]

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
I contest and question any rights of people being placed on a ballot when hatred and prejudice are abound for many groups people, mainly the prejudice against homosexuals. Do you think that the 'yes' vote on the Amendment violated Jefferson's statement of the God given right of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'? Jefferson would puke over these actions. Was this basic right of gays to marry violated by this vote? And you support 'liberty and justice for ALL' and then proceed to deny gays this right? What a blatent hypocrite. You conveniently avoided the question about a human rights vote in 1960 for minorities. You run and hide from direct questions asked of you. Maybe with your social status, I am sure that many have been afraid to challenge you. I am not one of those.

Really? Then let's have a face to face public debate. I use my real name but you hide behind that stupid user name. You name the date, time and place and I'll be there. You can bring all your other lefty friends on this thread too.

[Arnold-Ziffel]

Great. Email me on the private line of this forum. I would love to do that. I will not need to bring others. I am capable of holding my ground on the issue without the help of others. With your influence, can you arrange a place and time? You have made my day. I see that you still cannot adequately answer my question on this forum, but you still want public embarrassment? Interesting. By the way, would you also call Makin Bacon, Pro American , Truth, and The Enemy within gutless creatures for using their self created monikers? Write me, Robert.

[waco1954]

I dont think he's backing down Stowe.Did you think he would?

[waco1954]

The Enemy Within wrote:

<quoted text>
Mute point
Many people viewed gays differently in the 80's! A lot has changed in 20 years, many of the things said by leaders and politicians are frowned upon or unacceptable today.

Moot point?

[TSF]

Kind of like Burr Rabbit causing a stink about being thrown into the briar patch.

The Enemy Within wrote:

<quoted text>
You say "accepted" money. I remember certain banks causing a stink because they wanted no part of the bail out but was forced to accept it.

[TSF]

Derivatives Parallel: Buy a cheap old termite infested house, paint it inside and out , make it look good, take pictures, insure it for many times its value, it gets hit with Jewish lightning, collect the insurance, make a pile of money.
Bad loans are the old house, derivatives are the paint and pictures, Taxpayers are the insurance company, banks make a pile of money and give their execs bonuses. Banks get the gold mine, taxpayers get the shaft. Republican cockroaches in congress insist that we do not need regulations.

[Makin bacon]

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
Many Democrats are unfortunately in the category where they believe the Bible governs the US instead of the Constitution. As an American, do you really believe that human rights of individuals is an issue that should be voted on by the people? What do you think would have happened had a vote for equal rights for minorities been placed on a ballot in 1960? Honestly, what would have been the result? Would this have been fair? Is denying homosexuals the God given right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' as stated by Jefferson what you and other 'yes' voters want to do? A 'true' patriot of this nation wants equality for EVERY citizen, not just the ones that have your preference. I am in the former group, you are a supporter of the latter. I believe in fairness and equality for ALL. You only give it lip service.

Arnold, I'm leaving the 60's out of this conversation because minorities were given equal rights' status based off race and should have been. Try living in the here and now. I didn't make the laws governing how gay marriage should be implemented in our state and therein lies your problem. Registered Democrat voters outnumber registered Republicans not only in N.C. but the U.S. In 30 other states it was put to a public vote and rejected. So you're telling me in 30 other states, when it came to the vote on gay marriage, all Democrats turned into God fearing, Bible thumpers and voted down the right for gays to marry? My math skills aren't great, but common sense tells me if you have more people that identify/registered with a party known to be more supportive of gay marriage, then the outcome should have been in favor of gay marriage. Face it, Obama even hoodwinked the gays. He didn't come out with his support of gay marriage until the vote was over in N.C. and remember, he carried N.C. in the last election. No need to be angry at those who have no control how laws are enacted and then when it's put to a vote, don't be angry when the party of the progressives forgot to progress to vote.

[Arnold-Ziffel]

Makin bacon wrote:

<quoted text>
Arnold, I'm leaving the 60's out of this conversation because minorities were given equal rights' status based off race and should have been. Try living in the here and now. I didn't make the laws governing how gay marriage should be implemented in our state and therein lies your problem. Registered Democrat voters outnumber registered Republicans not only in N.C. but the U.S. In 30 other states it was put to a public vote and rejected. So you're telling me in 30 other states, when it came to the vote on gay marriage, all Democrats turned into God fearing, Bible thumpers and voted down the right for gays to marry? My math skills aren't great, but common sense tells me if you have more people that identify/registered with a party known to be more supportive of gay marriage, then the outcome should have been in favor of gay marriage. Face it, Obama even hoodwinked the gays. He didn't come out with his support of gay marriage until the vote was over in N.C. and remember, he carried N.C. in the last election. No need to be angry at those who have no control how laws are enacted and then when it's put to a vote, don't be angry when the party of the progressives forgot to progress to vote.

The point is that Amendment One was a human rights vote. The right for gays to have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. Neither you or Robert will admit this and you will not answer my question directly about the 60's vote because NO HUMAN RIGHT SHOULD BE VOTED ON BY THE PEOPLE.My point is that human rights for minorities would never have passsed from an Amendment voted on by the people during the Civil Rights days just as the same the right to marry for gays was denied in a vote in this day and age.. That is simple. Do you not understand that? I am not the defender of the Democrat party, but I am the defender of the rights of ALL people. Some Democrats are just as ignorant of the Constitution as you and all the other 'yes' voters. The dye has been cast. This is not the first injustice of human rights that I have witnessed and will probably not be the last, but you can bet that evertime the issue comes to the surface, I will be there fighting for the rights of ALL people regardless of their race, religion or sexual orrientation.I am a true believer of freedom and justice. You and other "yes" voters only give lip service to it. That is an absolute you and all others can count on. I will fight for freedom, justice and equality for ALL as long as I have breath on this earth.

[ArnoId-ZiffeI]

And your next question will be about my sexual preference. Yes, I prefer men. Large membered men.

[Makin bacon]

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
The point is that Amendment One was a human rights vote. The right for gays to have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. Neither you or Robert will admit this and you will not answer my question directly about the 60's vote because NO HUMAN RIGHT SHOULD BE VOTED ON BY THE PEOPLE.My point is that human rights for minorities would never have passsed from an Amendment voted on by the people during the Civil Rights days just as the same the right to marry for gays was denied in a vote in this day and age.. That is simple. Do you not understand that? I am not the defender of the Democrat party, but I am the defender of the rights of ALL people. Some Democrats are just as ignorant of the Constitution as you and all the other 'yes' voters. The dye has been cast. This is not the first injustice of human rights that I have witnessed and will probably not be the last, but you can bet that evertime the issue comes to the surface, I will be there fighting for the rights of ALL people regardless of their race, religion or sexual orrientation.I am a true believer of freedom and justice. You and other "yes" voters only give lip service to it. That is an absolute you and all others can count on. I will fight for freedom, justice and equality for ALL as long as I have breath on this earth.

Arnold, what don't you get? Robert nor I made the call for the vote to be a HUMAN RIGHTS (your wording) issue voted on by the public!! It doesn't matter what we think about how or why this human rights (your wording) vote was presented as it was. I'm not a member of the N.C. Legislature and neither is Robert, so why do you think we owe you an eplanation about how laws are enacted in our state?? I told you I thought equal rights depending on race should have been passed in the 60's. I suggest you go to Raleigh and have a sit down with the people that decided how and why this Amendment would be voted on in the manner it was. It's a done deal Arnold and grilling me about what I think about how a law should be enacted isn't going to change squat.

[waco1954]

No matter who decided it voting on someone elses righs doesnt cut it.