The Official Election Results Victory Thread!!

• I Wear Pants

  As opposed to those laaaaaazy good for nothing liberal welfare scammers who are all gay, too pussy for wars, want to take all your money, love communism, and hate American values right?
  

  QuakerOats;550205 wrote:Me too, and if we don't downsize government it will devour us and we are finished ..... really!

  Defense is government.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I Wear Pants;550862 wrote:Defense is government.

  Back right up with entitlement programs.
  
  Those triplets are insatiable.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I Wear Pants;550862 wrote:As opposed to those laaaaaazy good for nothing liberal welfare scammers who are all gay, too pussy for wars, want to take all your money, love communism, and hate American values right?
  
  
  Defense is government.

  
  Defense is one of the very few things the Constitution actually empowers the federal government to do. Almost all the rest we now have...not so much.
• I Wear Pants

  But it's also one of the most bloated things in our governent. You can't be for "small government" and want a gigantic, bloated, expensive military.
  
  On that point I find it funny that many of the Tea Party supporters who supposedly want less government intruision in our lives are completely for the government telling us who can marry who.
• cbus4life

  I Wear Pants;552267 wrote:But it's also one of the most bloated things in our governent. You can't be for "small government" and want a gigantic, bloated, expensive military.
  
  On that point I find it funny that many of the Tea Party supporters who supposedly want less government intruision in our lives are completely for the government telling us who can marry who.

  
  Understand what you're saying, but i know many, including those on here like Writer, who are definitely not for the government telling us who can marry who.
  
  Real "tea party" folks shouldn't be for it, IMO.
• I Wear Pants

  I say a lot of things that aren't necessarily pointed at anyone here. Writer, Manhatten, and most of the other fellas that I bicker back and forth with on here are seemingly intelligent, reasonable people that I just happen to differ opinions with on some subjects.
  
  That's why I think it's funny. Because many of the leaders of the Tea Party aren't against it.
  
  There are similar situations that I find funny with Democrats as well.
• fish82

  

  If "smaller government" has any hope of becoming reality, then defense has to be on the table. It's just that simple.
• jhay78

  

  I Wear Pants;552267 wrote:But it's also one of the most bloated things in our governent. You can't be for "small government" and want a gigantic, bloated, expensive military.
  
  On that point I find it funny that many of the Tea Party supporters who supposedly want less government intruision in our lives are completely for the government telling us who can marry who.

  I agree the military is not off-limits when it comes to eliminating waste, etc.
  
  But you can't be serious with the "Tea Party supporters . . . are completely for the government telling us who can marry who". In 2008 Californians (you know, actual citizens/voters, NOT the government) voted to amend the California constiution to DEFINE marriage, not tell people who they could and couldn't marry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
  
  Other states (only 30 of them) have passed similar measures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defense_of_marriage_amendments_to_U.S._state_constitutions_by_type
  
  The point is, defining marriage in this country has been done, and should be done, by free citizens expressing themselves at the ballot box. It HAS NOT been done, nor would average Tea Partiers support it being done, by a heavy-handed intrusive government telling people who they can and can't marry. Give me a break.
• I Wear Pants

  No, telling a person that they cannot marry a male/female when they wish to is telling them who they can and cannot marry.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  For the record: my response said NOTHING about defense not being on the table where cuts are concerned.
  
  Given the mess we're in: everything is on the table, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
• jhay78

  

  I Wear Pants;552733 wrote:No, telling a person that they cannot marry a male/female when they wish to is telling them who they can and cannot marry.

  
  But it was done by a majority of citizens who voted to amend their respective states' constitutions.
  
  Ironically, it was the government (in California's case, an activist, heavy-handed, intrusive federal judge) who ruled against the will of the people and said the amendment was unconstitutional (even though an amendment by its very nature is part of the constitution). So with regards to defining marriage, the "intrusive government" you're talking about is actually telling citizens to go pound salt while they tell us from the top down what is and isn't "marriage".
  
  And BTW, we are told all the time who we can and can't marry. I don't think I'm allowed to marry my dog, the neighbor's horse, or the 11-year old girl down the street. Not defining the word "marriage" leaves things very open-ended, that's why the citizens of 30 or so states have dealt with it.
• I Wear Pants

  Now you're getting ridiculous, you just compared gay people to bestiality, and pedophilia.
  
  And a majority would have voted to keep segregation back when the civil rights laws were being passed? Would that have made it okay? If you're of the mindset of Tea Party poster boy Rand Paul it would have been.
• I Wear Pants

  Writerbuckeye;552833 wrote: Given the mess we're in: everything is on the table, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

  Yes, I'd agree. I don't think they need eliminated but definite reworkings could help. Simple things like raising the retirement age seem like no brainers but I'm sure will be disputed. There's three gigantic things that can be trimmed down a lot and those are SS, Medicare and Medicaid (counted them as one thing here), and defense. After that we obviously need to watch and not enact spending that isn't needed.
• jhay78

  

  I Wear Pants;553032 wrote:Now you're getting ridiculous, you just compared gay people to bestiality, and pedophilia.
  
  And a majority would have voted to keep segregation back when the civil rights laws were being passed? Would that have made it okay? If you're of the mindset of Tea Party poster boy Rand Paul it would have been.

  
  And you missed my point by a mile, which was: the "government" already "tells" us who we can and can't marry to some extent. You threw out a ridiculous comparison of Tea Partiers who favor smaller gov't but love it when the gov't tells people who they can and can't marry. My point was ballot initiatives by voters, not power-hungry elected officials, are what amended state constitutions.
  
  Now you're getting ridiculous. You just compared gay people to the plight and suffering of blacks and minorities before Civil Rights Legislation.
• I Wear Pants

  You're the one who missed the point sir.
  
  I don't care whether it was by ballots or by some usurping of power by Hitler himself. My point remains that many Tea Party members support measures that keep people from marrying other people they want (I cannot believe you seriously made me clarify that I meant people and not horses or rocks). These same people rail about government intrusions into their lives. It's hypocritical.
  
  Edit: And gay people were discriminated against too. So that actually was a valid comparison. Yours was not.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;553288 wrote:These same people rail about government intrusions into their lives. It's hypocritical.

  Most of these people are protesting the federal governments intrusion into our lives. Not the state or local government. These people are railing against central governmental control from Washington. So it is not hypocritical in that case.
  
  Since you bring up the issue of the definition of marriage. Why don't you provide us with your definition of marriage that you would like to see the federal government implement nationally? You have already established that such a union should only be between human beings. Now define for us which human beings and what number of them can enter into a marriage contract. Can marriage be plural between consenting adults? What about siblings? What about parents with their children? How about 1st cousins? Age requirements?
  
  You want the federal government to be involved in this issue. Lay it out for us. Some people will be fools. Unless you advocate anarchy in marriage surely you must have some boundaries. You rail against others boundaries base on their moral values lets here yours.
• I Wear Pants

  I don't want the federal government involved.
  
  I think common sense can rule. I don't see why marriage cannot be defined as between two consenting adults.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;553487 wrote:I don't want the federal government involved.
  
  I think common sense can rule. I don't see why marriage cannot be defined as between two consenting adults.

  
  
  I don't want to the State involved either. We don't need State sanctioned marriage of any kind. I say get them out of it. I shouldn't have to get the State's permission to go through a religious event with another human being.
  
  The wanted societal benefits for these relationships can be had through a simple signed document stating who the significant other of your choice is.
  
  Get the State out of marriage!!!!
• Con_Alma

  majorspark;553485 wrote:...
  
  Since you bring up the issue of the definition of marriage. Why don't you provide us with your definition of marriage that you would like to see the federal government implement nationally? ...

  I don't want the federal government implementing anything nationally regarding my relationship.
• jhay78

  

  I Wear Pants;553288 wrote:You're the one who missed the point sir.
  
  I don't care whether it was by ballots or by some usurping of power by Hitler himself. My point remains that many Tea Party members support measures that keep people from marrying other people they want (I cannot believe you seriously made me clarify that I meant people and not horses or rocks). These same people rail about government intrusions into their lives. It's hypocritical.
  
  Edit: And gay people were discriminated against too. So that actually was a valid comparison. Yours was not.

  There is nothing hypocritical about people who favor "smaller federal govt'" and society defining for itself the term "marriage" and setting limits. Gay couples who do not have legal marital status can still live together, engage in (ahem) "recreational" activities together, and do any untold number of things together that married people can do. The pain and suffering of not being able to marry falls way short of the injustices that blacks suffered during slavery and before Civil Rights.
  
  You still don't get the fact that A) the government did not limit marriage from the top down, which is what Tea Partiers oppose and B) I didn't make you clarify the difference between homosexuality/bestiality/pedophilia. My point was there are already limits on marriage imposed by the government that you seem to be OK with.
  I see later you said "Common sense can rule". That's what 30 states decided to do.
  

  majorspark;553485 wrote:Most of these people are protesting the federal governments intrusion into our lives. Not the state or local government. These people are railing against central governmental control from Washington. So it is not hypocritical in that case.
  
  Since you bring up the issue of the definition of marriage. Why don't you provide us with your definition of marriage that you would like to see the federal government implement nationally? You have already established that such a union should only be between human beings. Now define for us which human beings and what number of them can enter into a marriage contract. Can marriage be plural between consenting adults? What about siblings? What about parents with their children? How about 1st cousins? Age requirements?
  
  You want the federal government to be involved in this issue. Lay it out for us. Some people will be fools. Unless you advocate anarchy in marriage surely you must have some boundaries. You rail against others boundaries base on their moral values lets here yours.

  
  Thank you.
• I Wear Pants

  I'm not really okay with the current marriage situation in the US (I don't think the government should be in that business). I just have a hard time getting upset about it when there are other more important things going on.
  
  Also, as to the gays/civil rights comparison. Do you think that gay people weren't also treated terribly? They were beaten and killed just like minorities were. Luckily we've progressed to the point that most all areas in the country don't have a violence problem with minorities or gays (or at least not simply because they are minorities or gay).
  
  To be honest I don't know why we even got on the topic (it was probably my dumb self that brought it up).
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Ugly people get picked on, singled out, beat up and discriminated against.
  Fat people get the same.
  So do people of varying religions.
  
  I'm really sick of picking and choosing which groups should get legislated sympathy and exceptions.
• QuakerOats

  CenterBHSFan;554034 wrote:I'm really sick of picking and choosing which groups should get legislated sympathy and exceptions.

  
  You're lucky then because liberal elites, trial lawyers, and federal bureaucrats have a corner on this market.
• jhay78

  

  I Wear Pants;553815 wrote:I'm not really okay with the current marriage situation in the US (I don't think the government should be in that business). I just have a hard time getting upset about it when there are other more important things going on.
  
  Also, as to the gays/civil rights comparison. Do you think that gay people weren't also treated terribly? They were beaten and killed just like minorities were. Luckily we've progressed to the point that most all areas in the country don't have a violence problem with minorities or gays (or at least not simply because they are minorities or gay).
  
  To be honest I don't know why we even got on the topic (it was probably my dumb self that brought it up).

  
  Fair enough. I thought it was a little unfair to use that example as evidence of Tea Party hypocrisy, so I responded.
  Obviously we disagree about how some states define marriage, but I'm OK with how those decisions came about. They were not top-down, "here's how it's going to be", laws implemented by bureaucrats- they were ballot initiatives to amend state constitutions (even in liberal California). Of course, those who disagreed in California immediately ran to the courts to whine and get a top-down ruling from an activist judge against the will of the people. I would've had no problem with 65% of Californians voting to allow gay marriage (I would've disagreed), but I do have a problem with judges deciding the issue for us. That is consistent with Tea Party view of government, IMO.
• I Wear Pants

  Here's the thing, would we allow minorities to be denied marriage? If not then why do we allow it with gays?
  
  I appreciate not wanting bureaucrats deciding everything for us but I don't share the same steadfast belief that anything the people vote for is correct. There are many instances in our history where a simple majority or even a large majority vote would have/did result in great injustices.