Good job Morpheus . I must admit, I missed that too. This definitely isnt a problem then. In fact Democrats should be applauded for bringing it up.
Compared to his brothers yea. It's documented.Morpheus wrote:
GG.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Not sure how you get "GG" out of that. They want someone appointed by the democrat governor because they are afraid they will lose their democrat voice on health care. If the governor was a republican, they would not be pressing for such a change. Infact it was this very scenerio that they were trying to avoid that they dreamed up this law in the first place. I see where nothing has changed in the argument.Morpheus wrote:
READING COMPREHENSION FOR THE MOTHER-FUCKING WIN:I don't actually see anything hypocritical.. they are actually clarifying something... They are still holding elections to decide on the replacement senator...Article wrote:
On a day when members of both parties paid their respects to Mr. Kennedy, a Democratic icon who died this week of brain cancer, Republicans accused Democrats of hypocrisy. In 2004, the state's Democrat-controlled legislature changed the law to prevent the governor from appointing an interim successor after a U.S. Senate seat becomes vacant. Instead, the new law requires that a special election be held between 145 and 165 days after the position becomes vacant.
At the time, Democratic Sen. John Kerry was running for president and Massachusetts had a Republican governor, Mitt Romney. Proponents of changing the law argued that a gubernatorial appointment was undemocratic and that only voters should decide on a replacement. Democrats also feared Mr. Romney would appoint a Republican.
Now, with Mr. Kennedy dying three years before his term was up, some Massachusetts Democrats are reversing course, calling for Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint an interim replacement to hold office until the special election can be held. They now argue the state shouldn't be without full Senate representation for months, especially with pressing issues such as health care before Congress.
I mean, main party actions, of course, since we are generalizing. Specifically, yes, Kennedy was a moron.
GG.
THEIR VICTORY IS IN QUESTION??? Since when is it possible to elect a Republican to a Senate seat of a very well loved Democrat who just died. Also let me point out that Massachusetts has 10 congressional districts, and guess what ALL 5 HAVE APPOINTED DEMOCRATS. Yet you continue on your merry way claiming that what's happening is happening because "their victory" is inquestion, you Lowing are delusional.lowing wrote:
What is obvious is they want the people to vote when they are assured a victory, and they want to remove that vote when their victory is in question.Narupug wrote:
Did I not state it is the "Will of the people" if that needs to be accomplished through voting so be it. Is it not obvious what the outcome will be so let's just skip the formalities and have the governor appoint?lowing wrote:
This is not the reason given by the democrats at the time. there reason was it should be up to the voters to decide not the governor.
Well is it up to the voters to decide or not? Per the democrats, it all depends on who favors them at the time.
Funny how this Democratic state had a Republican governor. Oh well, I guess I will just remain delusional.Narupug wrote:
THEIR VICTORY IS IN QUESTION??? Since when is it possible to elect a Republican to a Senate seat of a very well loved Democrat who just died. Also let me point out that Massachusetts has 10 congressional districts, and guess what ALL 5 HAVE APPOINTED DEMOCRATS. Yet you continue on your merry way claiming that what's happening is happening because "their victory" is inquestion, you Lowing are delusional.lowing wrote:
What is obvious is they want the people to vote when they are assured a victory, and they want to remove that vote when their victory is in question.Narupug wrote:
Did I not state it is the "Will of the people" if that needs to be accomplished through voting so be it. Is it not obvious what the outcome will be so let's just skip the formalities and have the governor appoint?
and in the case of health care, if you had not noticed, govt. health care is not very popular all over the nation right now and this issue alone could decide the next election. So yes, their victory is in question.
T1g3r217 wrote:
It's a Fox News article bashing liberalism. That's unexpected? Or fair? Or trustworthy?
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
you are very smart t1gr8438953u99475joith9erPug wrote:
Yeah, fuck democracy, move along
Be my guest, remain delusional and ignore my statement of how moderate romney's platform was and how popular he was when he ran after the Salt Lake City Games.lowing wrote:
Funny how this Democratic state had a Republican governor. Oh well, I guess I will just remain delusional.Narupug wrote:
THEIR VICTORY IS IN QUESTION??? Since when is it possible to elect a Republican to a Senate seat of a very well loved Democrat who just died. Also let me point out that Massachusetts has 10 congressional districts, and guess what ALL 5 HAVE APPOINTED DEMOCRATS. Yet you continue on your merry way claiming that what's happening is happening because "their victory" is inquestion, you Lowing are delusional.lowing wrote:
What is obvious is they want the people to vote when they are assured a victory, and they want to remove that vote when their victory is in question.
and in the case of health care, if you had not noticed, govt. health care is not very popular all over the nation right now and this issue alone could decide the next election. So yes, their victory is in question.
I lol'd at the fact that you think one of the first states to legalize gay marriage has any problem with health care reform. Was Kennedy NOT at the head of Health Care reform?
Gay marriage affects no one, health care affects everyone. How you tie the 2 together as if it s part of the same issue I do not know.Narupug wrote:
Be my guest, remain delusional and ignore my statement of how moderate romney's platform was and how popular he was when he ran after the Salt Lake City Games.lowing wrote:
Funny how this Democratic state had a Republican governor. Oh well, I guess I will just remain delusional.Narupug wrote:
THEIR VICTORY IS IN QUESTION??? Since when is it possible to elect a Republican to a Senate seat of a very well loved Democrat who just died. Also let me point out that Massachusetts has 10 congressional districts, and guess what ALL 5 HAVE APPOINTED DEMOCRATS. Yet you continue on your merry way claiming that what's happening is happening because "their victory" is inquestion, you Lowing are delusional.
and in the case of health care, if you had not noticed, govt. health care is not very popular all over the nation right now and this issue alone could decide the next election. So yes, their victory is in question.
I lol'd at the fact that you think one of the first states to legalize gay marriage has any problem with health care reform. Was Kennedy NOT at the head of Health Care reform?
Well actually, you're just saying it'll affect everyone as a scare tactic. In reality Obama wants a system where only the uninsured will be affected and put on the government plan. But I don't want to derail this thread to the moon so I'll leave it theirlowing wrote:
Gay marriage affects no one, health care affects everyone. How you tie the 2 together as if it s part of the same issue I do not know.Narupug wrote:
Be my guest, remain delusional and ignore my statement of how moderate romney's platform was and how popular he was when he ran after the Salt Lake City Games.lowing wrote:
Funny how this Democratic state had a Republican governor. Oh well, I guess I will just remain delusional.
and in the case of health care, if you had not noticed, govt. health care is not very popular all over the nation right now and this issue alone could decide the next election. So yes, their victory is in question.
I lol'd at the fact that you think one of the first states to legalize gay marriage has any problem with health care reform. Was Kennedy NOT at the head of Health Care reform?
Me either, so I will just say you are wrong:Narupug wrote:
Well actually, you're just saying it'll affect everyone as a scare tactic. In reality Obama wants a system where only the uninsured will be affected and put on the government plan. But I don't want to derail this thread to the moon so I'll leave it theirlowing wrote:
Gay marriage affects no one, health care affects everyone. How you tie the 2 together as if it s part of the same issue I do not know.Narupug wrote:
Be my guest, remain delusional and ignore my statement of how moderate romney's platform was and how popular he was when he ran after the Salt Lake City Games.
I lol'd at the fact that you think one of the first states to legalize gay marriage has any problem with health care reform. Was Kennedy NOT at the head of Health Care reform?
If you think Obamas intentions are not govt. controlled health care then you really really need to do some more research
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/polit … 99182.html
I'd be glad if they were, Single payer is the way to go. Because of people like you that would never pass right now, so a simple government health care option is all that is required.lowing wrote:
Me either, so I will just say you are wrong:Narupug wrote:
Well actually, you're just saying it'll affect everyone as a scare tactic. In reality Obama wants a system where only the uninsured will be affected and put on the government plan. But I don't want to derail this thread to the moon so I'll leave it theirlowing wrote:
Gay marriage affects no one, health care affects everyone. How you tie the 2 together as if it s part of the same issue I do not know.
If you think Obamas intentions are not govt. controlled health care then you really really need to do some more research
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/polit … 99182.html
Yeah it is the way to go, which brings me to a great quote that I posted before.Narupug wrote:
I'd be glad if they were, Single payer is the way to go. Because of people like you that would never pass right now, so a simple government health care option is all that is required.lowing wrote:
Me either, so I will just say you are wrong:Narupug wrote:
Well actually, you're just saying it'll affect everyone as a scare tactic. In reality Obama wants a system where only the uninsured will be affected and put on the government plan. But I don't want to derail this thread to the moon so I'll leave it their
If you think Obamas intentions are not govt. controlled health care then you really really need to do some more research
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/polit … 99182.html
"The only thing wrong with socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples money."
I wear your accusation that govt. health plan will not pass because of "people like me" as a badge of honor. Thank you very much for the recognition.
lol. As if the 'typical' doesn't apply to the other side of the political spectrum too. Blinkers on.
No, I didn't say that. I'm saying that the changes made were nothing more than acts of self-interest. They manipulated the system for their own gain, and they want to do it again.lowing wrote:
Sorry, when the liberals big "concern" was voters rights when they removed the power from the governor, it then becomes the issue when they try to removes those same rights from the voter.
However, it's not specifically liberalism that motivates this behavior -- it's corruption and greed. Those are flaws humanity has in general -- not specifically liberals.
Um... you worded this kind of strangely. I'm assuming that you're trying to imply that the government really does want to get into our personal lives. The way you worded it though... I'll agree that it ISN'T so much that.lowing wrote:
As far as the govt. take over over private enterprise, the auto industry, the health industry etc. you sure can make it sound so pleasant and benign. Ever hear of baby steps? Do you really think this is as deep as govt. wants to get into our lives? Do you really believe that?
The government doesn't really give a shit about our personal lives. Politicians just pander to whatever oppressive tendencies some voters prefer. For example, I really don't think that the average person cares if some people want to smoke a joint. However, since some voting blocs really do care, the War on Drugs gets pushed continuously.
It's a matter of special interests that drive most government intrusion into our lives. This isn't limited to the Left or the Right.
Still, a certain amount of intervention is necessary for maintaining order and progressing society. I would argue the areas where the intrusion is needed include labor rights, consumer rights, environmental protection, social programs, civil rights, antitrust laws, border security, national defense, healthcare, and education. Beyond that, the private sector can handle things.
So again, it goes back to a balance of government vs. personal responsibility.
The liberals aren't evil overall anymore than conservatives are, but there are evil people among both sides. Unfortunately, some evil people have a knack for rising to power.
So Jimmy Carter, the president who left office over 30 years ago is somehow still relevant to our politics today? You have a strange definition of the "here and now."lowing wrote:
When? 2 fucking words Jimmy Carter, that is whenTurquoise wrote:
So, at what point did liberalism become this ominous force of evil? You've clearly backpedalled when I bring up historical figures, so I'd like to know. I'd like to know when and how exactly this transition came to be.lowing wrote:
You did note that all of my examples were of people still alive and pertain to current events.......right?
Lincoln would do whatever it took to keep the union together, if that meant keeping slaves slaves he would have done so.
This MLK? http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea … plagiarist he was a liberal I have no doubt, the shoe does fit.
Ghandi, gimme a break, he has nothing to do with american politics and the liberal agenda today
You bring up figures that have absolutely nothing to do with the here and now.
Anyway, it's clear you're just going to pick and choose whatever fits your agenda of demonizing liberals. It would be like me saying that Nixon is relevant to modern day conservatism.
Whatever the case, a more logical definition of the here and now would include this decade.
The liberals are more intrusive into personal lives than any other group. That makes them worse. They want total govt. control over our lives for one reason, POWER. It is their belief that the lore the people rely on govt. the more power they maintain, and they would be correct. Conservatives want the power in the hands of the people via personal responsibility. they odo not want big brother hand holding us.Turquoise wrote:
No, I didn't say that. I'm saying that the changes made were nothing more than acts of self-interest. They manipulated the system for their own gain, and they want to do it again.lowing wrote:
Sorry, when the liberals big "concern" was voters rights when they removed the power from the governor, it then becomes the issue when they try to removes those same rights from the voter.
However, it's not specifically liberalism that motivates this behavior -- it's corruption and greed. Those are flaws humanity has in general -- not specifically liberals.Um... you worded this kind of strangely. I'm assuming that you're trying to imply that the government really does want to get into our personal lives. The way you worded it though... I'll agree that it ISN'T so much that.lowing wrote:
As far as the govt. take over over private enterprise, the auto industry, the health industry etc. you sure can make it sound so pleasant and benign. Ever hear of baby steps? Do you really think this is as deep as govt. wants to get into our lives? Do you really believe that?
The government doesn't really give a shit about our personal lives. Politicians just pander to whatever oppressive tendencies some voters prefer. For example, I really don't think that the average person cares if some people want to smoke a joint. However, since some voting blocs really do care, the War on Drugs gets pushed continuously.
It's a matter of special interests that drive most government intrusion into our lives. This isn't limited to the Left or the Right.
Still, a certain amount of intervention is necessary for maintaining order and progressing society. I would argue the areas where the intrusion is needed include labor rights, consumer rights, environmental protection, social programs, civil rights, antitrust laws, border security, national defense, healthcare, and education. Beyond that, the private sector can handle things.
So again, it goes back to a balance of government vs. personal responsibility.
The liberals aren't evil overall anymore than conservatives are, but there are evil people among both sides. Unfortunately, some evil people have a knack for rising to power.
I could make the same argument towards social conservatives.lowing wrote:
The liberals are more intrusive into personal lives than any other group. That makes them worse. They want total govt. control over our lives for one reason, POWER. It is their belief that the lore the people rely on govt. the more power they maintain, and they would be correct.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-08-29 17:23:10)
By all means do then, lets talk about itTurquoise wrote:
I could make the same argument towards social conservatives.lowing wrote:
The liberals are more intrusive into personal lives than any other group. That makes them worse. They want total govt. control over our lives for one reason, POWER. It is their belief that the lore the people rely on govt. the more power they maintain, and they would be correct.
No news is unbiased. The least biased news you will find will come from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.T1g3r217 wrote:
It's a Fox News article bashing liberalism. That's unexpected? Or fair? Or trustworthy?
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Really.
(PS. Substitute Fox for NBC and liberalism for conservatism... point made?)
Controlling people's personal lives, eh?lowing wrote:
By all means do then, lets talk about itTurquoise wrote:
I could make the same argument towards social conservatives.lowing wrote:
The liberals are more intrusive into personal lives than any other group. That makes them worse. They want total govt. control over our lives for one reason, POWER. It is their belief that the lore the people rely on govt. the more power they maintain, and they would be correct.
Banning abortion
Banning the use of recreational drugs like marijuana
Pushing for more censorship of things like profanity and nudity via the FCC
Banning sex ed from public schools
Banning the morning after drug (most of the resistance to its legalization was from religious groups)
Pushing for the disbanding of Planned Parenthood
Banning gay marriage
Banning gays from the military (which has since become banning the open acknowledgement of being gay in the military)
Supporting the trade and travel embargo with respect to Cuba (granted this also still has support among some liberals and was started by Kennedy)
There are others, but this is what I've come up with just now.
That sounds like a pretty good platform for me.
It's also extremely authoritarian.Harmor wrote:
That sounds like a pretty good platform for me.
Haha lowing don't talk about liberal intrusion into personal lives after some of Bush's wonderful policies.
shhhhh, don't mention the Patriot Act. That doesn't count as in intrusion cos Papa Bush said it was necessary.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Haha lowing don't talk about liberal intrusion into personal lives after some of Bush's wonderful policies.
Absolutely non of that shit, costs me money. conservatives have a moral stance this is true, but not a single issue you have mentioned is geared toward separating an individual from their earned income.Turquoise wrote:
Controlling people's personal lives, eh?lowing wrote:
By all means do then, lets talk about itTurquoise wrote:
I could make the same argument towards social conservatives.
Banning abortion
Banning the use of recreational drugs like marijuana
Pushing for more censorship of things like profanity and nudity via the FCC
Banning sex ed from public schools
Banning the morning after drug (most of the resistance to its legalization was from religious groups)
Pushing for the disbanding of Planned Parenthood
Banning gay marriage
Banning gays from the military (which has since become banning the open acknowledgement of being gay in the military)
Supporting the trade and travel embargo with respect to Cuba (granted this also still has support among some liberals and was started by Kennedy)
There are others, but this is what I've come up with just now.