Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-12-2010, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
1,031 posts, read 2,447,780 times
Reputation: 745

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
Kristen - The tribe could not prove that they were a continuous tribe through the years. If thye has any evidence of this, the Supreme Court would have heard the case. You may not like this but that is the law and it was Blumenthal's responsibility to pursue it. Jay
I understand that Blumenthal does not support the evidence he has seen, so he could have said something like "the Supreme Court does not believe the tribe has the necessary documentation at this time to proceed with an appeal." However, to call the appeal "meritless" is short-sighted and bigoted. The claim was not meritless in the past or the B.I.A. never would have given approval, and the tribe could possibly provide a few documents that would stitch up the holes in their history. I think Blumenthal needs an attitude check.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-12-2010, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Florida
11,669 posts, read 17,949,724 times
Reputation: 8239
Quote:
Originally Posted by brattpowered View Post
This is what republicans are all about. You'd imagine their desire to force women to bring unwanted fetuses to term and reluctance to afford civil rights to gays "for the children" would translate to wanting a sustainable future for those precious kiddies. But everything they do just passes our problems along to the next generations.
This is complete nonsense. Not all republicans are pro-life and anti-gay. I happen to be a gay republican, because I am also a working taxpayer. 30% of the gay community voted Republican in the 2008 general election. And, Linda is PRO-CHOICE.

Politics is not only about social issues, but fiscal issues as well. *Newsflash* Fiscal issues also affect minorites!

There are also pro-life, homophobic democrats out there. Plenty of them. A New England republican is generally tolerant of homosexuality and does not attempt to align public policy with the Bible. In the south and midwest, different story. I would never vote for Sharon Angle or Christine O'Donnell, for example. And the latest buffoon is Paladino (NY gubernatorial candidate). Luckily, all three of these candidates are trailing in the polls.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2010, 11:49 AM
 
Location: New London County, CT
8,949 posts, read 12,137,017 times
Reputation: 5145
Quote:
Originally Posted by nep321 View Post
A New England republican is generally tolerant of homosexuality and does not attempt to align public policy with the Bible
Not all Republicans are homophobic, but chances are good if you are homophobic you're a republican.

So when Martha Dean talke about "Faith" she's not talking about the bible?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2010, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Florida
11,669 posts, read 17,949,724 times
Reputation: 8239
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff View Post
Not all Republicans are homophobic, but chances are good if you are homophobic you're a republican.

So when Martha Dean talke about "Faith" she's not talking about the bible?
True, but elections are not determined by Homophobes versus Non-homophobes. They are determined by Republicans vs. Democrats. I would say that most republicans in New England are not homophobic, unless they are over the age of 50 (such as my father ). I'd be shocked if research proves otherwise.

Faith doesn't necessarily mean "faith" in the Bible. Faith is the alternative to logic and reason. Personally, I believe that faith - while not a bad thing - is not a proper way to make decisions in public policy. This is why I am not a fan of Martha Dean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2010, 01:34 PM
 
Location: Cheshire, Conn.
2,102 posts, read 7,758,297 times
Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by nep321 View Post
True, but elections are not determined by Homophobes versus Non-homophobes. They are determined by Republicans vs. Democrats.
Lately, elections seem to be decided by the "Unaffiliated" voters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2010, 01:41 PM
 
Location: New London County, CT
8,949 posts, read 12,137,017 times
Reputation: 5145
Unaffiliated voters and the Chinese funding candidates through the US Chamber of Commerce.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2010, 01:49 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,232 posts, read 8,415,423 times
Reputation: 2583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophiasmommy View Post
They guy is a lying moron who's answer to everything is government, government, government. He gets owned in every debate and thinks that suing businesses creates jobs. Are you really gonna elect him simply because he has a (D) after his name? Hey Connecticut, it's your state and your free to do what you want, but remember you get what you ask for. Blumenthal, really? lol Good luck with that.

The guys a useless slug, Linda is what she is but she'll get my vote, if for nothing else because she has actually created jobs in this state, regardless of how people feel about her that in itself is more than Bloomie ever did.

Politics today is a theatrical farce anyway.
People talk about credentials,,, I guess milking the system as a career is more desireable than making millions in an unfriendly business climate like we have in CT.

We really need to rid ourselves of liberalism, cut govt down to size & start being productive again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2010, 04:48 PM
 
Location: New London County, CT
8,949 posts, read 12,137,017 times
Reputation: 5145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
We really need to rid ourselves of liberalism, cut govt down to size & start being productive again.
Just wondering... Were you concerned about the expansions in government and spending under Bush? Were you vocal about it then?

As far as getting rid of liberalism, let's try getting rid of conservatism first and see how that works... Conservatives are for smaller government, so they can spend that money worrying about who I have in my bedroom

I'll make you a deal... I'll support your plan if we cut the military by the same percentage that we cut social programs and infrastructure spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2010, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Quiet Corner Connecticut
1,335 posts, read 3,304,911 times
Reputation: 454
I'm watching the debate, and I'm getting a headache listening to these two. These two are offering nothing, this is all just one big dance. Just telling stories going nowhere and not addressing actual policy issues they would support or propose. More time gloating about themselves and/or attacking each other than saying what they would do in office. I'm also watching John Mertens' live webfeed, and he's offered more in a couple minutes than these two have offered in a half hour.

Either way, we don't win.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2010, 05:48 PM
 
Location: Fairfield, CT
6,981 posts, read 10,950,129 times
Reputation: 8822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowerdeck View Post
I'm watching the debate, and I'm getting a headache listening to these two. These two are offering nothing, this is all just one big dance. Just telling stories going nowhere and not addressing actual policy issues they would support or propose. More time gloating about themselves and/or attacking each other than saying what they would do in office. I'm also watching John Mertens' live webfeed, and he's offered more in a couple minutes than these two have offered in a half hour.

Either way, we don't win.
That's a metaphor for this whole election, across the whole country. It's as if the candidates are totally divorced from reality. Scary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:23 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top