Voting day, Tuesday, 11/07/06

[Lilira]

US Citizens!

Have a voice and a right to bitch...

Get your butts out to vote today. Been there.. done it. :-)

Have a good day.

[Corth]

if you can't pass the test at dontvont.org you have no business voting :)

[Shevarash]

I think its more important that a voter understand each issue that he or she chooses to vote for, than that they understand every single one of the issues. Discouraging people from voting *at all* for not possessing a complete knowledge of every ballot is just snobbery.

[Sarvis]

I think its more important that a voter understand each issue that he or she chooses to vote for, than that they understand every single one of the issues. Discouraging people from voting *at all* for not possessing a complete knowledge of every ballot is just snobbery.

I'm hoping that Corth is joking. The don't vote test doesn't ask any questions about those pesky issues, and is probably a better barometer of who pays attention to the Daily Show than who knows what the issues are.

[Corth]

Opinions are like assholes... everyone has one.

Most people form their political opinions without much rhyme or reason. The greatest determinant of your political ideology is what your parents believed in. And then of course, younger people are more likely to be liberal, and older people, more conservative. While I do not believe that voting should require any qualification other then citizenship, I think that urging people to vote just for the sake of voting is counterproductive, and is simply in most cases a partisan ploy to motivate a demographic group that is favorable to a certain political party.

Now check this out Sarvis.. your going to be surprised. I'm rooting for the democrats to take the house. Why? Because the resulting gridlock will be a lot better than any one party having control. Heres hoping that the government can't get anything accomplished for a long time! The only down side is that if we are lucky enough to have another supreme court vacancy (let it be stevens, ginsburg, breyer or souter!), it will be more difficult to push through a good originalist candidate.

[Corth]

http://www.lifenews.com/nat2724.html

speak of the devil!

[Ragorn]

Partisan control of both sides of Congress as well as the Presidency is never good for the nation. When one party is given too much authority, they begin to get comfortable in their power, and their actions slip away from the center and toward the extreme. When they slip too far, they alienate too many voters, and change is instituted.

I think we're seeing that change this year. The Republicans in Virginia have gone too far to the right, and now we've got one of the most heated races in the country. A lot of the flap revolves around Proposition #1, which aims to amend the state constitution to outlaw gay marriage. If the conservatives had stopped there, they would have mobilized their majority and the amendment would have passed... but they weren't satisfied with just banning gay marriage. Instead, they want to remove the ability for any cohabitating individuals to claim any of the rights and priviledges conferred upon married couples. And that spells trouble.

Ohio passed a similar law. But if you look at their domestic violence ordinance, it protects spouses and people who "live as spouses," language intended to target live-in mates. But since unmarried people cannot gain any of the benefits conferred by marriage, by law they cannot file a domestic violence claim. Two violent offenders have already gotten off the hook in Ohio because of this overzealous legislation.

Virginia voters have sniffed this possibility in the air, and they've gotten the message out. This is the first non-Presidential election I've ever been moved to vote in. And I went to the polls and voted Democratic not because I particularly favor Webb, but because Allen and his Republican majority have strayed too far from the center for their own good, and it's time to replace them.

It's a shame that politics for the last six years has boiled down to voting "Republican" or "non-Republican." I want the Democrats to put up a solid presidential candidate in 2008. Al Gore and John Kerry were not respectable candidates, and the only reason I voted for either of them is because they are "not Bush." But you don't win elections by being an alternative, and if they Democrats continue to push their party as "a change" instead of "an improvement," we're going to see another red presidency in 2008.

[Ragorn]

Rushton urged voters to consider the potential for a Stevens retirement when they vote...

Oh, I did!

Just... not the way you meant ;)

[Corth]

Partisan control of both sides of Congress as well as the Presidency is never good for the nation. When one party is given too much authority, they begin to get comfortable in their power, and their actions slip away from the center and toward the extreme.

I see the opposite happening.

Your position is that the party in power tends to move further towards the left or the right, depending upon which party it is. If anything though, the republicans (including Bush) have moved to the left. They are bringing back big government more effectively then Ted Kennedy ever could. See this article by the conservative Cato Institution:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html

Another thing you didn't mention is that the party in power tends to get corrupt. Hence, all the scandals lately involving republicans. Its really sickening.

[Tasan]

More proof that marriage is a gov't sponsored contract more than anything these days!

[Birile]

*Snoopy dance*

[Ragorn]

Your position is that the party in power tends to move further towards the left or the right, depending upon which party it is. If anything though, the republicans (including Bush) have moved to the left. They are bringing back big government more effectively then Ted Kennedy ever could. See this article by the conservative Cato Institution:

I've never been able to reconcile the idea that Republicans stand for small government. The Republican party of the last 6 years has been the party of moral enforcement. A lot of Bush's far-right leaning agendas have aimed to place legal clamps on issues that deal primarily with personal morality, such as gay marriage, abortion, drug use, flag burning... one would think that the "party of small government" would also be in favor of personal liberty over governmental regulations, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Because of the modern Republican party's propensity toward enacting moral legislation, I have a hard time believing they've done anything but drift out of the center.

[rylan]

My state sucks :(

[Corth]

Your position is that the party in power tends to move further towards the left or the right, depending upon which party it is. If anything though, the republicans (including Bush) have moved to the left. They are bringing back big government more effectively then Ted Kennedy ever could. See this article by the conservative Cato Institution:

I've never been able to reconcile the idea that Republicans stand for small government. The Republican party of the last 6 years has been the party of moral enforcement. A lot of Bush's far-right leaning agendas have aimed to place legal clamps on issues that deal primarily with personal morality, such as gay marriage, abortion, drug use, flag burning... one would think that the "party of small government" would also be in favor of personal liberty over governmental regulations, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Because of the modern Republican party's propensity toward enacting moral legislation, I have a hard time believing they've done anything but drift out of the center.

They're stance on social issues has not changed much over time. I have never agreed with them on social issues. However, the social issues are not too important. what got my vote, was their committment to tax cuts and decreased spending and less government beaurocracy. Unfortunately, except during the Reagan years, that has never materialized. Ultimately the republicans talk a good game, but can't follow through. I hope that other disaffected libertarians such as myself start actually voting libertarian until the republicans get their act together.

In any event, since they haven't changed on social issues, but are acting like drunken liberals on fiscal issues, I can only conclude that they are moving to the left, not as you would suggest, the right.

Corth

[Corth]

My state sucks :(

Indeed. :)

[moritheil]

However, the social issues are not too important.

Corth

Wow.

[Birile]

However, the social issues are not too important.

Corth

Wow.

Wow, I'm going to defend Corth!

I take Corth's words to mean, "The reason I vote Republican has little to do with their stance on social issues." In essence, he largely disagrees with the more Conservative social views of the Republican party. I understand his post to mean that he more closely identifies with the Republicans (as opposed to the Democrats) for other reasons.

[moritheil]

Aha, and not in general. I'm not accusing him of anything, btw, so you're not exactly defending :D I was just surprised because he seemed to be asserting that social issues have no place in politics.

[Corth]

Oh social issues certainly have a place in politics.. I just think they are given way more attention than they deserve. They are still important though.. that didn't come out right exactly.

[moritheil]

Oh social issues certainly have a place in politics.. I just think they are given way more attention than they deserve. They are still important though.. that didn't come out right exactly.

Corth in '08? :D

Something like this?

[Birile]

Oh social issues certainly have a place in politics.. I just think they are given way more attention than they deserve. They are still important though.. that didn't come out right exactly.

Corth in '08? :D

Something like this?

:lol:

[Sarvis]

[...was their committment to tax cuts and decreased spending and less government beaurocracy. Unfortunately, except during the Reagan years, that has never materialized.

Err... Star Wars and the War on Drugs is what you consider decreased spending?

[Lathander]

Star Wars, oh, you mean the Strategic Defense Initiative, the beginning of the Patriot missile program and the only true hope of stopping rogue nations from launching nukes on the US? Why would we ever want to protect ourselves because the whole world is bright and shiny people.

Why worry, we have Pelosi, Rangel, Conyers and Dingell on the job now, everything is sure to go to hell. :P

[Sarvis]

The 9% success rate aside, I never said that spending was a bad thing. I was just saying it was an example of Reagan increasing government spending.

There's still the War on Drugs, anyway...

[Corth]

Heh.. Reagan's SDI ended the cold war.. Money well spent. Though at the time, the libs were going ape shit about it. I'm surprised this was brought up.. its a 1980's debate...

[Birile]

Star Wars, oh, you mean the Strategic Defense Initiative, the beginning of the Patriot missile program and the only true hope of stopping rogue nations from launching nukes on the US? Why would we ever want to protect ourselves because the whole world is bright and shiny people.

Why worry, we have Pelosi, Rangel, Conyers and Dingell on the job now, everything is sure to go to hell. :P

I'm guessing you're an Independent. :)

[Birile]

Why worry, we have Pelosi, Rangel, Conyers and Dingell on the job now

Oh, and did I mention:

*Snoopy dance*

[Lathander]

heh, I'm just glad the dem's are back so they can remind folks why elections in the last couple of decades haven't been about democrats at all. The latest elections have been about republicans vs non republicans. The election was not about the dem's agenda as much as they might wish it were. Folks are not really interested in their agenda of socialized medicine, higher taxes and greater government involvment in our lives. Hell, exit polls said that the number one issue was corruption followed after by Iraq.

If this year is the best dems can do when Iraq is a mess, the abramoff scandal, Mark Foley going after teenage boys and that preacher in CO banging a male prostitute and doing meth, then they are really in trouble long term as a party. Don't confuse a defeat for Bush as a repudiation of the conservative movement created by Goldwater and Reagan. If anything, the majority of the new democrats that won last tuesday are in most cases far more conservative than the republicans that got thrown out. You have no idea how glad I am that Chafee lost.

[Ruxur]

gah, them dem's have been in office such a short time. And look at the mess they have us in in iraq! Damned Dems

[Sarvis]

Heh.. Reagan's SDI ended the cold war.. Money well spent. Though at the time, the libs were going ape shit about it. I'm surprised this was brought up.. its a 1980's debate...

You're the one who referenced Reagan.

I'd still say he's not exactly a paragon of reduced government spending.

[Sarvis]

...greater government involvment in our lives.

Yeah, that's why so much time was spent campaigning on gay marriage and abortion by the Republicans last election!

Hey, I've got a bridge in Florida I'm looking to sell. Or if you don't want a bridge I've got a spare overpass!

[Lathander]

Greater government involvement such as socialized medicine and forced public transportation. That is what I mean.

Most of the abortion stuff makes alot of sense to me that was discussed this election cycle. Parental notification if your daughter is going to have an invasive procedure with lots of risks? Makes sense to me. Not delivering the baby out until only the head is still in the mother and sticking a vacuum into its head and sucking its brain out. Yea, there's another one that makes sense to me. (Illithids might like it though)

Defending marriage is something that about 80% of the country is for. Sounds like the people do not want the government involved in redefining what marriage is.

[Ambar]

Mmm quotes out of context mid sentence .. mmmmmm

[Sarvis]

It's still government involvment in your life, you're just choosing which involvements you want and carrying a grudge against the Democrats based on it. Reading too much Coulter lately? The Republicans have done a great job of engendering hate for the Democrats, but why do you buy into that?

Frankly, on marriage if the government shouldn't be involved in marriage then the government should not give legal incentives based on marriage. NOR should the legislate against it, thus allowing priests who don't feel a need to discriminate to make the choice. The proposed <i>Constitutional Amendment</i> would have created a legal discrimination, invaded the personal lives of everyone, and removed the choice of local governments on the matter.

Oh, and I've never heard ANYONE say anything about forced public transportation. Plus Socialized medicine is hardly involvment in my personal life, it's just a means of ensuring:

A) That everyone has access to needed medical care
B) That people don't need to <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895896/">go bankrupt</a> to get it.

EDIT: Besides which, the Republicans' Patriot Act is the biggest invasion into our private lives since the Reagans brought us the War on Drugs!

<b>Ambar</b>

Seriously, can't you <i>ever</i> let people discuss something in peace?

[Ragorn]

Most of the abortion stuff makes alot of sense to me that was discussed this election cycle. Parental notification if your daughter is going to have an invasive procedure with lots of risks? Makes sense to me. Not delivering the baby out until only the head is still in the mother and sticking a vacuum into its head and sucking its brain out. Yea, there's another one that makes sense to me. (Illithids might like it though)

It is the stated goal of many Republicans, and most evangelical christians, to make all abortion illegal regardless of procedure, consent, or stage of pregnancy. I have no problem with parental consent and banning partial-birth, but those aren't the issue. The issue is revoking the right for a consenting adult to have an abortion in the first two trimesters. I'm not even going to pretend I favor abortion as a means of protecting rape or incest victims. I favor abortion as a choice that all women should be able to make on their own, with their own bodies, without the United States Government stepping in.

Abortion is moral legislation, which our country needs a lot less of.

Defending marriage is something that about 80% of the country is for. Sounds like the people do not want the government involved in redefining what marriage is.

The anti-gay amendment passed 58/42 in Virginia, which is historically a solid Republican state. In reality, a minority of people in the country favor banning gay marriage, which is why you see this amendment passing only in certain states and often by slim margins. The amendment was overwhelmingly voted down when the federal government tried to pass it, so the issue now rests with states.

In this instance again, it's the Republicans who are pushing for more legislation. More moral legislation, where the christian right wants their holy book to tell you what you SHOULD and SHOULDN'T do.

To Corth: When Republicans push to overlegislate far-right social issues, where does that put them on the political spectrum?

[Birile]

heh, I'm just glad the dem's are back so they can remind folks why elections in the last couple of decades haven't been about democrats at all. The latest elections have been about republicans vs non republicans. The election was not about the dem's agenda as much as they might wish it were. Folks are not really interested in their agenda of socialized medicine, higher taxes and greater government involvment in our lives. Hell, exit polls said that the number one issue was corruption followed after by Iraq.

If this year is the best dems can do when Iraq is a mess, the abramoff scandal, Mark Foley going after teenage boys and that preacher in CO banging a male prostitute and doing meth, then they are really in trouble long term as a party. Don't confuse a defeat for Bush as a repudiation of the conservative movement created by Goldwater and Reagan. If anything, the majority of the new democrats that won last tuesday are in most cases far more conservative than the republicans that got thrown out. You have no idea how glad I am that Chafee lost.

From all of the commentary I've heard from Democrats after the election last week it seems to me that the majority of them agree that this election was more an anti-Bush reaction than a pro-Dem election. The only people I've heard saying the Democrats think this was a pro-Dem election were ultra-Conservative radio show hosts.

And I don't recall anyone saying that a defeat for Bush was a repudiation of ANYTHING Reagan or any other Republican from the past stood for. Where are you getting this stuff from?

As for the Dems who won in this recent election, yes, they're much more middle of the road than I am, personally (and yes, I'm glad Ford lost Tennessee--it would've helped in the short-term for a bigger majority control of the Senate, but his views would've hurt the party in the long-term. He's the most blatantly disguised Republican I've met in the Dem party). And I'm glad Chafee lost in RI, too, because he's been the most willing member of the Republican party to vote against Bush if he disagreed with Bush's agenda (if anyone says McCain is more outspoken against Bush you obviously haven't been listening to him speak in the last 6 years). His loss is the most obvious example of a Republican losing because people wanted Republicans out of power. He was nothing more than a sacrificial lamb. Hopefully Mr. Chafee will see the light and run as a Dem in the near future. I know he would win handily if he ran as a Democrat in RI--everyone loves him there and they wouldn't have to worry that a vote for Chafee would be giving Republicans the least bit of power. A politician who votes exactly how he feels is right is something sorely lacking today.

[Ambar]

<b>Ambar</b>

Seriously, can't you <i>ever</i> let people discuss something in peace?

of course I can :) I made a statement that i hate hate hate when people quote others out of context ... :) either quote the whole thing or the exact part of it :) not a fragment between dots!

feel free to conduct a well thought out debate please :)

-Mom

[Ragorn]

I quote one or two sentences because I'm well aware my posts often take a screen or more as it is. To avoid the Ragorn Wall of Text, it's easier to just quote the most relevant sentence from the paragraph I'm responding to.

So.. uh.. yeah. There you go.

[Sarvis]

Agreed, really quotting out of context is kind of harmless when the original and complete text is like 5 inches away. It's not as if I was trying to change his meaning, it was just a very direct and salient starting point for my response.

[Ambar]

...greater government involvment in our lives.

Yeah, that's why so much time was spent campaigning on gay marriage and abortion by the Republicans last election!

Hey, I've got a bridge in Florida I'm looking to sell. Or if you don't want a bridge I've got a spare overpass!

this is what i was referring to .. most folks dont read the whole thread, they page thru it .. if they see this then they may assume something different entirely than what lath said ..

quoting a few words from a sentence is bad .. Ragorn you dont do that, I wasnt talking about you :)

[Sarvis]

if they see this then they may assume something different entirely than what lath said ..

Such as?

[rylan]

The democratic controlled legislature in my state won't even vote on weather to allow a ballot question on homosexual marriage.
Thats right... the people in this state collected over 165K signatures (only 65K were required) to force a constitutional convention in our state senate to allow a ballot measure to let the people decide how we want to define marriage. Nope, the dems here wouldn't even bring it up for debate to consider putting it on the ballot. So much for allowing the people to vote on a measure... so much for our state constitution being respected by the politicians.

Not to mention that we voted to reduce the income tax back to 5% several years ago, and the democrat controled state legislature continues to ignore that also... but thats a different story....

[Tasan]

ago, and the democrat controled state legislature continues to ignore that also... but thats a different story....

Wait, politicians ignoring democratic rights? I don't believe you!

Seriously... politicians are just above lawyers on the list of people you can trust :p

Stupid lawyers...

[Corth]

I resent that. You can definately trust lawyers slightly more than politicians!

[Ragorn]

The democratic controlled legislature in my state won't even vote on weather to allow a ballot question on homosexual marriage.
Thats right... the people in this state collected over 165K signatures (only 65K were required) to force a constitutional convention in our state senate to allow a ballot measure to let the people decide how we want to define marriage. Nope, the dems here wouldn't even bring it up for debate to consider putting it on the ballot. So much for allowing the people to vote on a measure... so much for our state constitution being respected by the politicians.

Not to mention that we voted to reduce the income tax back to 5% several years ago, and the democrat controled state legislature continues to ignore that also... but thats a different story....

It doesn't sound like you have your facts right... if you "voted" to move the income tax down to 5% via referendum, then it would have gone into law. Democrats cannot simply ignore voter referendum results... that's not how politics works. Now, if what you mean is, your local newspaper took a poll and 65% of the people in your town voted "Yea" to lowering the income tax, then that's something else all together.

And when you proposed the initiative to lower the income tax, did you also propose an alternate means of funds generation to compensate for the lowered taxes? Most of the time, people bitch for lower taxes without realizing that revenue lost from a lower income tax is just going to be made up elsewhere, such as a higher state sales tax or a higher gasoline tax.

Finally, face facts. You live in Massasschusetts. Your anti-gay constitutional amendment won't pass. If you want bigoted moral legislation, come down to the south where we're willing to cut off the nose to spite the gays. Unmarried heterosexual domestic partners no longer qualify for insurance coverage in the great state of Virginia, a sweeping tidbit of legislation aimed to make ABSOLUTELY GOD DAMN SURE that gay people have as hard a time as possible.

[Birile]

The democratic controlled legislature in my state won't even vote on weather to allow a ballot question on homosexual marriage.
Thats right... the people in this state collected over 165K signatures (only 65K were required) to force a constitutional convention in our state senate to allow a ballot measure to let the people decide how we want to define marriage. Nope, the dems here wouldn't even bring it up for debate to consider putting it on the ballot. So much for allowing the people to vote on a measure... so much for our state constitution being respected by the politicians.

Not to mention that we voted to reduce the income tax back to 5% several years ago, and the democrat controled state legislature continues to ignore that also... but thats a different story....

You might want to also take note that you and the rest of the people in your state voted those politicians into office. That's how politics works. If you don't like them, vote against them. If they still win then guess what? You just may be in the minority on one or two of your views.

If you want bigoted moral legislation, come down to the south where we're willing to cut off the nose to spite the gays. Unmarried heterosexual domestic partners no longer qualify for insurance coverage in the great state of Virginia, a sweeping tidbit of legislation aimed to make ABSOLUTELY GOD DAMN SURE that gay people have as hard a time as possible.

That's why I turned down a big promotion in my company--I would have had to transfer to our corporate offices in Norfolk. I like NY just fine, we're surrounded by MA, VT, CT and (now) NJ...

[rylan]

No Ragorn, there was a ballot question several years ago to reduce the income tax to 5%. It passed by a large majority. The state legislature ignored it and never enacted the lower tax rate.
At the time (and since then) the state budget was/is running a large surplus so there is no issue with finding other sources to make up for the reduce revenue.

Regarding the whole homosexual marriage vote thing, I'm not looking to strip people of their rights. My issue is that some judges in the state court decided to make it legal, bypassing the rights of the citizens of this state to decide on on how they wanted it defined. By not even allowing a discussion on it in the legislature to put a question on the ballot, the politicians are futher flipping us the bird and saying screw you to our state constitution and ignoring once again the will of the people.

[Sarvis]

So Rylan, how many incumbents got re-elected in your state?

[Ragorn]

No Ragorn, there was a ballot question several years ago to reduce the income tax to 5%. It passed by a large majority. The state legislature ignored it and never enacted the lower tax rate.
At the time (and since then) the state budget was/is running a large surplus so there is no issue with finding other sources to make up for the reduce revenue.

Ok, I did some homework so you wouldn't have to.

In 2000, voters in Massachusetts approved a referendum that would decrease the personal income tax rate from 5.75% to 5.0% over a period of three years. The tax rate decreased to 5.6% in 2001, and then down to 5.3% in 2002. In 2002, legislation was then passed to repeal the projected reduction to 5.0% in 2003. You may view the bill which repealed the 2003 reduction by clicking this link.

The Democrats did not, as you say, "ignore" the voter referendum to lower your taxes. They lowered the income tax 0.45%, and then the state legislature voted to repeal the final reduction.

Regarding the whole homosexual marriage vote thing, I'm not looking to strip people of their rights. My issue is that some judges in the state court decided to make it legal, bypassing the rights of the citizens of this state to decide on on how they wanted it defined. By not even allowing a discussion on it in the legislature to put a question on the ballot, the politicians are futher flipping us the bird and saying screw you to our state constitution and ignoring once again the will of the people.

According to the laws of your state, submitting the required number of signatures does not guarantee that a voter referendum will appear on the ballot. In order for a referendum to be entered, you must gather the signatures, and then the referendum must be approved by 50 or more legislators in two consecutive sessions of the Constitutional Convention. This is where the Democrats are cockblocking your referendum. The referendum wasn't voted on, and the Convention was convened until January 2nd, making it virtually impossible that it would be approved in time for the 2008 election (even assuming you could find 50 legislators to sign it, which is equally unlikely).

You are witnessing representative democracy in action. In our government, the voters do not (and many say, should not) have a direct impact on the decisions that are made. If you want a gay marriage amendment to see the light of day in Massachusetts, the way you're going to go about it is by electing representatives who share your views. I would love to pass a (national) constitutional amendment forever allowing gay marriage in all 50 states, but there's nothing I can do within our government to get that question put to referendum if it is opposed by our elected representatives.

Referenda are used to gauge the will of the people when the state government wants to issue a constitutional amendment. They are a safeguard that prevents your state government from running away and passing amendments against the will of the people. Referenda are not a way for the voters of the state to make their own laws, and they cannot be used to circumvent the elected government. Your gay marriage referendum was little more than a petition, one that will not be heeded by the liberal officials elected by the majority of voters in your state.

[rylan]

Yes I know referendum must be approved during the constitutional convention... in fact the referendum has come up several times in the past year for the state legislature to vote on, and they kept pushing it off. Its fine with me if they vote not to put it on the ballot, but geez at least show some respect of everyone who signed the petition and the balls to vote yes or no.
Thats what ticks me off... the politicans don't show any respect for their constituants, and unfortunately there are enough clueless people here who keep voting for the incumbants.