US mid-term elections and the political divide

Message

#1 Post by **K. Eng** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:55 pm

Since the US midterm elections are next week, I was thinking about the current political divide in the US.

Is there common ground anymore?

I support same-sex marraige (or at least civil unions). Many of my friends do not, based on religious grounds. I've debated the issue based on legal principles and logic, with no success.

I support the war in Afghanistan, but I want the Iraq campaign to end soon. I know people who insist that Iraq was a terrorist haven before the war. My congressman, Curt Weldon, insists that WMD were in Iraq despite all evidence to the contrary.

I welcome new immigrants, so long as they arrive legally and want to participate in a free society. Some of my friends don't care if illegals stream accross the border. Some of my friends hate the new Hispanic immigrants simply b/c they are not white and speak Spanish, even though these immigrants work hard and contribute to society.

I can't ever remember a time when I felt so divided from people of different opinions. Many of these people I've known for a long time, and they are good people generally, but I can't help but feel contempt for what I perceive as their ignorance.

These are troubled times.

#2 Post by **AlphaKilo470** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:10 pm

I believe that illegal immigrants who refuse to get green card and try to get same benefits as tax paying citizens al without learning proper English or paying taxes should receive no rights and should be deported the instant they are caught.

Same sex marriage is a moot concern when we have bigger issues including preserving our economy's up arrow trend, the war, etcetera. I also beleive that due to the differing opinions across the board, same sex marriage would be best left at the local level where each individual local government can decide whether or not their ruling area has same sex marriage or not; that's the only way I can think of that will make the majority of the citizens happy.

I support both wars but I also thing that they should be re-evaluated and possibly re-structured for more efficiency. I want both to end as soon as possible but I also acknowledge that our troops being there is what's keeping the terrorists from coming back here hence my given opinion on the issue.

RUSH2112 · #3 Post by **RUSH2112** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:33 pm

I'm a Libertarian, with a conservative lean (Social Moderate, Fiscally Conservative, Conservative on Military). I am also atheist.

As for abortion and gay marriage, I do not *like* them, but I also do not see it as the government's responsibility to restrict them.

I support embryonic stem cell research.

I support low taxes (Mass isnt the best place for that).

Illegal aliens: Shut down the boarder and deport them
MODERATOR EDIT: Changed terminology. Do not use derogatory phrases here in the forum, per forum rules, it can be considered an attack.

"God" refrences (In God We Trust, etc): I rally don't care. I'd rather they were not there, but they don't affect me in any way.

War: We either need a radical change in strategy, or we need to find a viable way to get out. "Cut and run" won't work, but neither will "stay the course."

I support the 2nd ammendment and death penalty

#4 Post by **Kyocera** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:31 pm

I support Rush Limbaugh.

Website · #5 Post by **tfflivemb2** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:16 pm

Kyocera wrote:I support Rush Limbaugh.

Him or his addiction?

RUSH2112 · #6 Post by **RUSH2112** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:20 pm

Kyocera wrote:I support Rush Limbaugh.

Too bad its the band Rush, the greatest rock band of all time.

#7 Post by **tomh009** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:34 pm

RUSH2112 wrote:
Kyocera wrote:I support Rush Limbaugh.
Too bad its the band Rush, the greatest rock band of all time.

Canadians everywhere, eh?

RUSH2112 · #8 Post by **RUSH2112** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:48 pm

tomh009 wrote:Canadians everywhere, eh?

Hey (or should I say "Eh"), the two greatest (only?) things to come out of Canadia (mispelling intentional) are Rush and Maple Syrup.

http://www.wikiality.com/Canadia

f1reverb · #9 Post by **f1reverb** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:59 pm

The two best things to come out of Canada were Gilles and Jacques Villeneuve.

JHEM · #10 Post by **JHEM** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:14 pm

AlphaKilo470 wrote:I also beleive that due to the differing opinions across the board, same sex marriage would be best left at the local level where each individual local government can decide whether or not their ruling area has same sex marriage or not; that's the only way I can think of that will make the majority of the citizens happy.

That was tried with slavery, didn't work there either.

F*ck the majority when they screw with the rights of a minority! If the majority was always deferred to, women wouldn't have the vote.

ALL citizens have equal rights under the law without regard to anyone's religious beliefs, including marriage/civil union. Says so in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

James

JHEM · #11 Post by **JHEM** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:18 pm

Kyocera wrote:I support Rush Limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh is a buffoon who will say and do whatever it takes to maintain his radio ratings and personal income.

If anyone were to stop and actually think about what Rush is usually saying, they'd soon realize he's about as relevant as Howard Stern.

James

RUSH2112 · #12 Post by **RUSH2112** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:47 pm

JHEM wrote:F*ck the majority when they screw with the rights of a minority! If the majority was always deferred to, women wouldn't have the vote.

ALL citizens have equal rights under the law without regard to anyone's religious beliefs, including marriage/civil union. Says so in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

James

While I do agree with you, I hate it when people think that it is therefore okay to raise the minority *above* the majority. Best example: Affirmative Action.

I'm for -equal- right for everyone, not -special- rights for minorities.

Also, I can't stand it when people take offense to stupid things, speech especially. Alright, we'll all agree that "nigger" is an offensive word and should not be used in common speech. But if someone says it, so what. Are you going to be permenantly emotionally disturbed when someone uses a derogatory word?
Sadly, in our culture, "offenses" much much much less severe than that are blown out of proportion every day. To quote a talk show host here in Boston, Michael Graham, "Stop being offended because your offense offends me."

DIGITALgimpus · #13 Post by **DIGITALgimpus** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:16 am

AlphaKilo470 wrote:I believe that illegal immigrants who refuse to get green card and try to get same benefits as tax paying citizens al without learning proper English or paying taxes should receive no rights and should be deported the instant they are caught.

What about those who have been here for decades without learning english (in the millions)? This has been a controversy of it's own, but the media has been ignoring it. Should they be allowed to stay? Should citizenship be given (or even withdrawn)?

Same sex marriage is a moot concern when we have bigger issues including preserving our economy's up arrow trend, the war, etcetera. I also beleive that due to the differing opinions across the board, same sex marriage would be best left at the local level where each individual local government can decide whether or not their ruling area has same sex marriage or not; that's the only way I can think of that will make the majority of the citizens happy.

100% agree, but there's 1 concern: what about if your traveling between states and something happens (car accident). What laws do you go by? The laws of the state of origin? Or current location?

This was a problem through the 60's in some parts of the US where interracial marriage was illegal. Married in the north, but not recognized in the south. All rights and privileges of marriage weren't recognized.

Other than that... yea your right. My solution would be for states to be required to recognize other states unions, but can have restrictions on their own unions. But that's me.

IMHO nobody should be "married" by the state. It's a religious term. Should be just "unions" and let the institution of your choice perform the actual marriage. Legal recognition goes only to the "union". IMHO no reason for confusing the two into 1 except to polarize political opinion. Are you an adult at the age of 18 (the legal age)? Or after your confirmation or Bar Mitzvah? Why can't a Jewish 13 year old boy vote? He's an adult right? Under the same principle as marriage a 13 year old jewish male should be entitled to vote.

Thinkpaddict · #14 Post by **Thinkpaddict** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:27 am

I personally would like John McCain in the White House, but it isn't going to happen. While I agree in rough terms with Lewis Black's assessment that "Republicans suck and Democrats blow" (or is it the other way around), If I trust a politician personally based on demonstrated character, I would be more willing in principle to go to the voting booth. The White House has unfortunately been a Circus (and not a very funny one at that) for at least 16 years.

#15 Post by **Kyocera** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:19 am

extremely relevent James:

Rush Limbaugh is a buffoon who will say and do whatever it takes to maintain his radio ratings and personal income.

If anyone were to stop and actually think about what Rush is usually saying, they'd soon realize he's about as relevant as Howard Stern.

James

Typical, won't waste my time.

Do I support him or his addiction?

Didn't know he was, but he is not alone in this world.

Here's a list of people with addictions:

Politicians
Athletes
College Students
Mothers
Grandmothers
Fathers
Brothers
Cab Drivers
Airline Pilots
Soldiers
Teachers
Preachers
Doctors
Nurses
Captains of Big Ships
Factory Workers
Government Workers
Postal Workers
Sisters
Cousins
Neighbors
Drug Dealers
Wal Mart Shoppers
Liberals
Conservatives
Perverts
Weirdos
Geeks
Mechanics
Swimmers
Card Sharks
Rich
Poor
Middle Class

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

#16 Post by **K. Eng** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:38 am

Kyocera wrote:extremely relevent James:

Typical, won't waste my time.

I don't see that anything James said is factually incorrect. Limbaugh has a history of making outrageous statements. See for example the Controversy section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh, particularly the ESPN and Michael J. Fox incidents.

Limbaugh belongs in the tinfoil hat category, along with Michael Moore and Anne Coulter.

#17 Post by **K. Eng** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:47 am

JHEM wrote:
Kyocera wrote:I support Rush Limbaugh.
Rush Limbaugh is a buffoon who will say and do whatever it takes to maintain his radio ratings and personal income.

If anyone were to stop and actually think about what Rush is usually saying, they'd soon realize he's about as relevant as Howard Stern.

James

Howard Stern is a really crude person, but I've heard him interviewed on public radio (I think it was either Fresh Air or Radio Times on 91FM), and he's a surprisingly thoughtful guy.

Thinkpaddict · #18 Post by **Thinkpaddict** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:03 am

Yeah, sometimes it is hard to imagine that there is a nice guy under the shock jock persona. But it is true. Also, Jerry Springer seems to be quite a nice guy in person.

#19 Post by **Kyocera** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 1:00 pm

K.Eng

I don't see that anything James said is factually incorrect.

Look, you have your opinions I have mine, you knew this was an opinion thread when you started it. The best you all can do here is compare Rush Limbaugh with Howard Stern

Please.

I listen to fresh air/all things considered/ every day. So I know what comes from the left and right. I don't remember the interview she did with Howard Stern, but I did see the 60 minutes peice on him and his 19 yr old wife.

I agree with some things from both sides, I just happen to agree with more things on the right.

RUSH2112 · #20 Post by **RUSH2112** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 1:12 pm

Politics and religion, politics and religion....

#21 Post by **K. Eng** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:56 pm

Kyocera wrote:K.Eng
I don't see that anything James said is factually incorrect.

Look, you have your opinions I have mine, you knew this was an opinion thread when you started it. The best you all can do here is compare Rush Limbaugh with Howard Stern Please.

I just call them as I see them. Limbaugh is a shock jock, same as Stern. Limbaugh's statements are political rather than juvenille humor, but the basic concept is the same. Both of them enjoy making outrageous statements, and both of them are well paid to do so.

Outrageousness sells in America. Hence the success of Michael Moore and Anne Coulter. This is economics, nothing more.

#22 Post by **Kyocera** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:52 pm

I call them as I see them too K. Eng.

If you or James have an outlet for news, esp. political, that is completely without bias, please post it. Thanks.

Yeah, didn't think so.

#23 Post by **K. Eng** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:30 pm

It's not a matter of whether or not there is bias. It is a matter of whether or not the bias is conscious and intentional. Purposeful bias motivated by $ generally means low credibility.

Mainstream news agencies (Reuters, Associated Press) have a vested interest in reporting the facts and being as neutral as possible, or their credibilty and market value falls. Mainstream news derives its value from presentation of the facts.

In contrast, political commentators and biased news sources (like Huffington Post and Drudge Report) derive their value from spinning facts that reinforce what their markets want to believe.

So for example, consider Michael Moore, who caters to conspiracy theorists and very left wing people. His target market wants to hear all the bad things about George W. Bush and conservatives in general. Therefore Michael Moore will give the customers what they want, and his credibility as an information source is consequently worse than, say, an ABC News correspondant, because he has an $ interest in expressing bias.

Rush Limbaugh is the same way. He's a conservative marketing his products to conservatives. His job isn't to present information, his job is to spin, because that's what draws listeners.

I'll just leave it at that. It's probably very apparent that I like Rush Limbaugh as much as I like Michael Moore, which is not very much.

#24 Post by **Kyocera** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:35 pm

Neutral as possible is the key, unfortunately neutral as possible is not neutral. Journalist are all a cross section of society just like politicians, soldiers, etc. etc. I watch BBC some late nights and still can't figure out where they are coming from, they seem to try and be neutral in reference to all countries but their own.

Anyway we do agree on two things I hope, Michael Moore (and I really have not heard that much about him purposely, it's so easy to push the off button on the radio in my car) is seemingly just the cheech and chong of political docu(somethings, comedy, drama) and Howard Stern is a really sexually perverted weirdo, who's father mistreated him as a child so seemingly that anger is manifest in his strange self indulgent pseudo therapy radio show.

Rush supports the troops in our War on Terror or whatever you want to refer to it as, I was a soldier for twenty years, so I have a special place for those who are serving now. Anyone who praises and supports our troops and gives them any love, is alright with me. I hate to hear of soldiers getting killed, it hurts bad

, but if you have ever been a member of the green machine or another branch you know where I am coming from.

K. Eng:

but I can't help but feel contempt for what I perceive as their ignorance.

This would be something to search inward about, not outward. My strong military bond is not my ignorance, it's where I spent most of my life. I know people without that connection can't comprehend why I feel that way, maybe people you know are connected to things in their own way. Like I said we are all a cross section of everything in society, past , present, future.

RUSH2112 · #25 Post by **RUSH2112** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:19 pm

Kyocera wrote:I was a soldier for twenty years...

Thank you. Regardless of what any given person thinks of any given military effort, those who sign up to fight (and, unfortunately in some cases, die) for our nation deserve the utmost and fullest respect from us, and we all owe them nothing but. Allow me to say once again, thank you.

#26 Post by **Kyocera** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:23 pm

Thanks man, really, really appreciate that.

It was a complete and total honor.

JHEM · #27 Post by **JHEM** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:10 pm

Kyocera wrote:Rush supports the troops in our War on Terror or whatever you want to refer to it as, I was a soldier for twenty years, so I have a special place for those who are serving now. Anyone who praises and supports our troops and gives them any love, is alright with me.

That's called jingoism Mike, a self-serving chauvinism masked as patriotism.

Odd that when he was in college he was classified 1A, but as soon as he dropped out he was suddenly classified as 1Y.

It's very easy to support the troops with lip service.

James

#28 Post by **Kyocera** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:18 pm

No, James jingoism is a song by Santana, I think it was on the Abraxis album. I know your're trying though.

#29 Post by **tomh009** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:53 pm

Kyocera wrote:Rush supports the troops in our War on Terror (...)

Disclaimer first: I have never been a soldier, and likely never will be. Further, I'm Canadian, and we have no troops in Iraq, though we have had a lot of our soldiers killed in Afghanistan (which is a little bit different situation, but dangerous nevertheless).

Anyway, the point I would like to make is that I believe that almost everyone will support the individual soldiers. The question is whether or not one supports the government decision to send those troops to fight a war in a foreign country.

It's pretty clear as to where Limbaugh stands on that one, but based on recent opinion polls, most Americans don't seem to agree. But I suspect that they would still be supportive of the individual soldiers whose lives are at risk over there ...

#30 Post by **K. Eng** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:08 pm

tomh009 wrote:Anyway, the point I would like to make is that I believe that almost everyone will support the individual soldiers. The question is whether or not one supports the government decision to send those troops to fight a war in a foreign country.

Exactly. The members of the armed forces deserve respect, even despite the misgivings one might have about the current conflicts. They're doing their jobs and making signficant sacrifices.

My discontent is directed solely at the elected officials in Washington D.C.

US mid-term elections and the political divide

US mid-term elections and the political divide

Who is online