Republicans Win, Despite Their Agenda…..

[Bro. Curtis]

Yet Republicans mistake the meaning of the midterms at their own peril. These elections were a particularly frank repudiation of Barack Obama and the past six years of failed stimulus, disastrous foreign policy, and rotten economic news. Even the president’s historic health-care reform remains a negative with voters. But if the GOP thinks it has a mandate to return to the equally unpopular bailout economics and social conservatism of the George W. Bush years, it too will be sent packing as early as the next election.

A few days before the midterms, just 33% of respondents in an ABC News/Washington Post poll gave the GOP a “favorable” rating, which was 6 percentage points lower than what they gave the Democrats. A whopping 60% said that President Obama had no “clear plan for governing,” but even more (66%) said the Republicans lacked one…..

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/06/midterms-real-winner-independent-voters

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree the massive spending under Bush and the capitulation to the left was a nightmare. Also if they allow any form of amnesty it will not bode well for them. Even in the liberal state of Oregon after the legislation voted to give illegals DL's the people voted against it.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I agree.

But you can't go trying to force states to comply with a federal marriage law, or go against them legalizing marijuana.

The abortion clinic standards Texas implemented will be tricky to get federal. I wouldn't go there, either.

Rather, let's have a look at some of them jobs bills. Then, let's get these people back their medical insurance. Look at dismantling the T.S.A., have a serious audit of the FED, and finally tackle entitlement reform. All winners.

 

[Revmitchell]

The problem on the marriage issue is that we run into a case where one state is forced to recognize a hxmxsxuxl marriage because it is recognized in another state. I do not feel that should be forced on a state that way.

I do not care about the pot thing all that much. States should decide that and there is no chance that a pot smoker will have to be accepted in another state that does not allow it.


Boehner and McConnel said, today, that their first priority is jobs and the economy. Obamacare comes into play with that issue because it slows down jobs and businesses so bad.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The problem on the marriage issue is that we run into a case where one state is forced to recognize a hxmxsxuxl marriage because it is recognized in another state. I do not feel that should be forced on a state that way.

I don't agree, and a federal amendment might not be the one you want, with the wording you want, and states could be forced to do all kinds of things that don't want.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't agree, and a federal amendment might not be the one you want, with the wording you want, and states could be forced to do all kinds of things that don't want.

I'm sorry I do not understand what it is that you do not agree with.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

It boils down to I do not want a federal marriage law, and I don't think that's where the GOP's priorities need to be..

 

[Revmitchell]

It boils down to I do not want a federal marriage law, and I don't think that's where the GOP's priorities need to be..

So what should we do about the homosexual agenda that is looking to force states to accept it by getting married in one state (that allows it) and then intentionally moving to another state that does not allow it and claiming that state should recognize it because they were married in a state that does.

That is the back door way of forcing states to do what they do not want to do.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

So what should we do about the homosexual agenda that is looking to force states to accept it by getting married in one state (that allows it) and then intentionally moving to another state that does not allow it and claiming that state should recognize it because they were married in a state that does.

That is the back door way of forcing states to do what they do not want to do.

I see you looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

States can handle this. They won't be forced to recognize ANYTHING without federal coercion.

 

[Revmitchell]

I see you looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

States can handle this. They won't be forced to recognize ANYTHING without federal coercion.

Maybe, and so long as that holds true I would rather leave it to the states.

 

[InTheLight]

I agree that the Reps. need to focus on the economy, jobs, immigration, energy and not marriage, abortion, voter ID laws. The last three things are states-rights issues.

Don't want to derail this thread but if I go to another state and rent a car I can drive it using my state's drivers license. Why is that? Is there a federal law covering this? Or is there a covenant between all 50 states that allow it?

I'm thinking that hxmxsxual marriage could exploit the drivers license agreement/law (if there is one) and legislate one for their own use.

 

[just-want-peace]

I see you looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

As of now, yes, but what of tomorrow?
10-15 years ago the problem of queers marrying(?) was a non-existent problem also.
And bakers, photographers etc had no problem refusing to cater to certain customers, but all that has drastically changed.
Remember the ole "slippery slope"!:BangHead:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Be careful. The law you demand may not be the one you get.

The people of Israel demanded a king…….

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I agree that the Reps. need to focus on the economy, jobs, immigration, energy and not marriage, abortion, voter ID laws. The last three things are states-rights issues.

Don't want to derail this thread but if I go to another state and rent a car I can drive it using my state's drivers license. Why is that? Is there a federal law covering this? Or is there a covenant between all 50 states that allow it?

I'm thinking that hxmxsxual marriage could exploit the drivers license agreement/law (if there is one) and legislate one for their own use.

We can safely bet, with the newly elected congress, that a force-states-to-comply law will not pass, and not for quite some time. It won't even come up for a vote. Even 10-15 years from now. You're talking another civil war. It won't happen.