BF2S Forums Well, looks like the Democrats have lost the midterms

War Man wrote:

Would of lost anyway, no matter wtf the dems brought up and ignoring the economy when it is the #1 concern in USA really would make matters worse. Now I need to see how Wisconsin's local Senate and Assembly went towards to, hope Republicans have majority in both.


Edit: http://www.thewheelerreport.com/
        Yep

11 Bravo wrote:

and 2 years ago the dems with the "change" slogans and all that other stuff?  your post makes no sense

mr.hrundi wrote:

What I can't understand is that some of you say that politics should have focused on gay rights instead of health care. Gay rights is populistic, and it can decide or influence elections, but it isn't even near to the roots of any problems the US have. Health care isn't the root either, but at least it's on the same tree. When will people finally understand that politics isn't about winning elections but about improving the life of the citizens?

JohnG@lt wrote:

Can't say that I'm especially sorry to see the fiscal fiasco that was one party rule come to an end. However, I do feel that the outgoing members of Congress missed their chance on an issue that frankly outweighed all the other crap they attempted to shovel into the past two years. That would be the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (at least the third clause, I respect the second clause on state's rights grounds) and of Don't Ask Don't Tell. The great social issue over the past twenty years has been the rights of gay people. While I myself am not gay, I do have quite a few friends that are, and I feel it is a travesty that they are treated as second class citizens in their country simply because of the way they were born. It's not a handicap, these are fully functional, taxpaying citizens of the United States and deserve the same rights and protections as anyone else living in this country. To be socially and politically ostracized simply because of a vocal minority of religious bigots does not sit well with me.

Obama and Congress really dropped the ball on this one. He let his own bigotry get the best of him (black people are notoriously anti-gay). It's too bad too, because this would've been something he could've been proud of when his time as President came to an end. C'est la vie.

Poseidon wrote:

Are people really reading into War Man's DST posts? The kid treats political parties like sports teams. Don't feed the troll.

Concerning the OP - I'm not his biggest fan anymore, but people claim Obama's done nothing to help the gays... is pushing forward the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. act and having the most amount of openly gay members in his cabinet not helping? There's only so much you can do with a party where one state's official platform is to outright ban homosexuality (Montana) and one Senator says gays should not be teachers (Jim DeMint of SC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sh … ention_Act

This thing was fought for for 9 fucking years before it was finally passed. How pathetic is that?

Poseidon wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Are people really reading into War Man's DST posts? The kid treats political parties like sports teams. Don't feed the troll.

Concerning the OP - I'm not his biggest fan anymore, but people claim Obama's done nothing to help the gays... is pushing forward the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. act and having the most amount of openly gay members in his cabinet not helping? There's only so much you can do with a party where one state's official platform is to outright ban homosexuality (Montana) and one Senator says gays should not be teachers (Jim DeMint of SC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sh … ention_Act

This thing was fought for for 9 fucking years before it was finally passed. How pathetic is that?

Yeah, but hate crime laws are retarded. A murder is a murder and the motivation for it shouldn't increase the sentence, the sentence should be maxed out in the first place.

That is a different story entirely. And while I disagree, hate crime laws exist and probably will until the end of times. So why NOT add hate crimes that are based off of sexual preference?

JohnG@lt wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Yeah, but hate crime laws are retarded. A murder is a murder and the motivation for it shouldn't increase the sentence, the sentence should be maxed out in the first place.

That is a different story entirely. And while I disagree, hate crime laws exist and probably will until the end of times. So why NOT add hate crimes that are based off of sexual preference?

Because the lot of them need to be repealed. Of course you disagree that hate crime laws should vanish, you're a neurotic New York Jew.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Because the lot of them need to be repealed. Of course you disagree that hate crime laws should vanish, you're a neurotic New York Jew.

One who hasn't been practicing in 5 years, Galt. Grasp at straws a little more, I think it might help your argument look a little bit clearer.

If a "murder is a murder", we should just remove the whole idea of first and second degree murder. I mean, who cares if they planned it out or they did it in the heat of passion? Murder is murder!

And what differentiates first degree murder from hate murder? Nothing.

Poseidon wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

One who hasn't been practicing in 5 years, Galt. Grasp at straws a little more, I think it might help your argument look a little bit clearer.

If a "murder is a murder", we should just remove the whole idea of first and second degree murder. I mean, who cares if they planned it out or they did it in the heat of passion? Murder is murder!

And what differentiates first degree murder from hate murder? Nothing.

If someone's motive for killing is based on their victim's race, religion or any other trait, it's absolutely different. Certainly a lot more hatred, and toward an entire people is employed in the killing. Thus the harsher sentencing.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

If someone's motive for killing is based on their victim's race, religion or any other trait, it's absolutely different. Certainly a lot more hatred, and toward an entire people is employed in the killing. Thus the harsher sentencing.

Well, I actually agree with Galt on this one.  This is part of why I disagree with hate crime laws in general.

Granted, I agree that we should include all minorities in hate crime laws if we're going to have them to begin with.

So... everyone but heterosexual white males gets special protection. And that's not racist in itself?

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-11-03 07:10:12)

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

If someone's motive for killing is based on their victim's race, religion or any other trait, it's absolutely different. Certainly a lot more hatred, and toward an entire people is employed in the killing. Thus the harsher sentencing.

Well, I actually agree with Galt on this one.  This is part of why I disagree with hate crime laws in general.

Granted, I agree that we should include all minorities in hate crime laws if we're going to have them to begin with.

And I thought you were making progress there....

Poseidon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm just saying the law should be consistent if it is implemented.

Which is precisely what I'm saying. Galt's reading comprehension isn't too swell early in the morning.

I do think the laws need to be reworked, but if they're going to be there (and they will be for a long time barring any massive changes), they need to be consistent to include gays.

Gee Galt, for someone who makes an OP about how gays are treated like second class citizens, you're sure treating them that way yourself!

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-11-03 07:20:35)

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Which is precisely what I'm saying. Galt's reading comprehension isn't too swell early in the morning.

I do think the laws need to be reworked, but if they're going to be there (and they will be for a long time barring any massive changes), they need to be consistent to include gays.

Gee Galt, for someone who makes an OP about how gays are treated like second class citizens, you're sure treating them that way yourself!

No, I'm not. You're just a brick wall incapable of rational thought. What you're advocating is special treatment for select citizens of this nation. That is no different than special treatment designed to keep them from attaining equal rights. It's about equality for all Poseidon, not equality for most, but special exceptions for others. We as a nation need to stop treating people different based on their race, religion or sexual preference and that includes granting them special protections and favors as well as stripping restrictions away from their advancement.

It's not special treatment if we also include non-minorities.

Again, as you pointed out, equal protection could be given to whites, males, and heterosexuals, if the law is properly written to accommodate all forms of prejudice.