Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Never been more proud to be a Minnesotan!

The blue states will continue to get bluer anyway. It's time for the conservatives to unite in the red states I think.

Gallup rated Oregon the second most liberal state in the nation (behind Massachusetts), Minnesota didn't make the top 10. A higher percentage of Oregon voters went for Obama.

I think a Minnesotan once took Seafire's lunch money and he never got over it.

Yeah and it was atate-funded lunch token too...

a big percentage didn't vote for SamboBama in Southern Oregon, I'll guarantee ya that...

you can point that out about all the friggin lefties up in Salem and Potland...

some of you Sven and Oles yoost gets all sappy ven sumbody sez sumptink abouts Minnesodas, yasure...

und my lunch's mooney vaz yoost fines... und it's vasn't no's lunch mooney gibben to me by das state eeder...

I feel your pain Dave.. I feel your pain...

Northern Dave,

You are out of line.

A constitution is a contract between a nation or state forming a contract with it's people and guaranteeing them specific rights which shall not be abridged. Attempting to codify political/religious views into a consttution is flat wrong and I don't care if it's Sharia law, Jewish law or Christian.

What nsaqam had to say was about not corrupting our constitution and nothing else. Were I you, I'd sit me down and think about that and when you get it sorted I'd man up and apologize.

It had nothing to do with codifying religious law. It was an attempt to define the union of a man and a woman. Period.
I'm surprised the gays wanted to limit that definition. I thought they were so tolerant? I thought the gays would have liked to come up with their own word or phrase to signify their lifestyle? After all, they adapted the rainbow?

The reality is that the gays want to breakdown traditional family values inorder to elevate their own lifestyle.

The genesis of the amendment was a when a cross section of religious groups came together to see what could be done to preserve a definition. There was no attempt to limit gays freedom whatsoever! In fact today, the gays have the same safeguards in place as they would have if the amendment passed.

A lot of prevarication has gone on here.

I look for the Democrat lead Senate, House and Gov. Spooky to legalize gay marriage during the next two years that they control everything. Now there is the type of common ground the Democrats like!

You failed Constitution 101. Constitutions do no guarantee or provide rights - constitutions limit governments.

I'm sorry you feel that way Miles.

I feel that the defeat of these 2 amendments does 2 things.

1, It draws a line in the sand on voter ID efforts which I think is needed everywhere. The defeat makes a second run at that effort unlikely, which I feel is very unfortunate.

2, A national view on the gay marriage thing makes us look like we just opened the door for someone to push gay marriage into play.

The general celebratory tone and timing of this thread from a guy that baits the crowd with liberal tidbits...

This was a gloating troll effort, no attempt to appease the crushing depression most of us are swimming in.

That's how I see it, and I'm not sorry.

ND. Rational thinking like that will not get you anywhere with those who don't already agree with your thoughts/beliefs.

It is a lost cause but it's good to see people still fighting for what they believe is right.

It's just too bad that the people that are too lazy to make a better life for themselves can now just vote someone else's hard work and effort into their own pocket.

As far as the ones who are having a "bad run" or whatever in their lives, that's where the family values & social culture should lend a hand. Not the government.

Late to the party here, but I have something I want clarified.

Nsaqam stated that a utility or rent bill in one's name would suffice as proof of ID and allow voting. Is that because it is so hard to get a utility or rent bill if you are a felon, underage, or illegal? He goes on to state there is no voter fraud in his precinct. How are you gonna prove that? How many of those folks that voted were felons or illegals? Well, by golly, he has a water bill, he must not be a felon, eh?
Absuridity at its finest.

I love the state of Minnesota. The rural part of the state is ONE of the best areas of the country to raise a family (as are most of the western/mountain states). However, I am extremely embarrassed by our politics. By the way, my county was 56% for Romney and overwhelmingly supported both amendments.

Wrong Beretta.

The bill just proves that the voter lives in the precinct

A State issued photo ID or a passport proves identity.

Would you risk a felony conviction to cast one ballot?

Well, the prisons are full of the 69,000 new yorkers that voted in Fl. in 2008 and the 200,000 illegal voters who voted in Va. in 08 aren't they?

Thanks Miles! You get it.

ND, damn right I was celebratory about the defeat of these two amendments. Unlike most of my critics here the vast majority of my posts actually pertain to shooting.

so if I walk in with a rent bill, I can get registered to vote, right? Then, I do not need an ID to vote.

Might an illegal do the same? THey dont know the ramifications. How much voter fraud goes on? Nobody knows for sure, that is the whole point.

And as far as the marriage amendment, it is in other states' constitution is it not? It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Yes it is in 30 other states. The 31st, MN rejected it even though it wasn't going to take away anything for the alternative lifestylers.

Look to the new state government make-up to attempt legalizing marriage between anything you want to pair up with.

So Brent, based on your last post on Chickenbuck (...because boys have dads...), it appears you would have voted for the marriage amendment up here, huh?

I do not know anything about our marriage amendment, so I have no comment. It is a Minnesota issue, not a national one, it should stay that way.

FWIW, Iowa as had a gay marriage law. It was tested before the Iowa State Supreme Court and found to be constitutional. It too should be a state issue but millions of outside Iowa dollars from Koch et al and the Republican party were sent into Iowa with non-Iowan celebrities (Santorum and others), dollars and people that have no business in Iowa, to unseat those Supreme Court Justices that affirmed the law's constitutionality. That's all they did.

Now, how does that jive with a Representative Republic with states' rights, a cornerstone of the GOP? Obviously, it doesn't. So the Republicans took a hit for that. I think the reaction to this intrusion could even have been enough to tip Iowa Blue in the presidential election. There is no trust here for republicans at that national level. At the local level, they are very red however and the state elections, by and large reflect this - WHEN LEFT TO STRICTLY IOWANS. We don't like folks from outside telling us what to do.

nasqam, as many times as you may have had a can of whoop-ass unloaded on you on this forum, your over the top approach could hardly fail to elicit any other sort or response - which serves you no purpose at all.

Just to be sure- Your are talking about a different Steve other than myself just wanted to clarify!