RE: Ted Kennedy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

mnottertail -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/23/2009 1:26:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
in both cases he is trying to insure the seat stays in party hands.


Exactly, Ron, and he is putting that partisan goal above the rule of law.  What do we call it when the laws change according to the circumstances?




The nation's business. Wasn't so long ago slavery was legal, wasn't so long ago Japanese-Americans avoiding internment camps was illegal, wasn't so long ago that torture was in style.........ad infinitum.
Nothing at all illegal or underhanded in lobbying to change a law. Laws always benifit someone, and leave someone else out in the cold.....nature of the beast, Rich.


Ron



popeye1250 -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/23/2009 2:09:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot

The sadly humorous part of Kennedy's letter to the governor is the part where he wants to ensure the people of Massachusetts are represented with 2 Senate votes. This coming from the Senator who has been absent for 96% of the Senate votes this year. So I guess he wants to ensure we get what he hasn't given us. Makes sense to me.[8|]

                                        mbmbn



http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/k000105/votes/missed/



Yeah, he wasn't too "concerned" about missing all those votes was he?
The people of Massachusetts will be much better off when they rid themselves of the Kennedys. Sure, if you were "connected" like for the "Big Dig" you benefitted but most of the 6 million in Mass aren't "connected."
I've read that Louisiana and Massachusetts are the two most corrupt states in the country.
You can't even get on the police or fire up there without "knowing" someone!
Everytime I'd drive through the Mass Pike I'd say to the toll collectors; "Who'd brother-in-law are you?"
"Someone's" was their answer most of the time.



Sanity -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/23/2009 3:05:58 PM)


Best Ted Kennedy joke ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APx2YJ-_jos

[sm=applause.gif]



TheHeretic -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/23/2009 3:08:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Best Ted Kennedy joke ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APx2YJ-_jos

[sm=applause.gif]




I really liked this one..
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-hillaryobamakennedy.htm



rightwinghippie -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/23/2009 4:58:27 PM)

But I am not trying to force anyone mnot. Anyone who accepts the utter nonsense you posted in 140, is going to accept it.

I am sure some of the DTB won't notice that in your first quoting of me here, I state there is no reason for him to do this, nor the previous change, except for PARTISAN ADVANTAGE. Which Kennedy himself, as well as Spinner and RML are trying to argue he did for nobel reasons of the importance of allways having 2 Senators up there.

You agree with me that he did it to keep Dems in power.

I feel it is wrong to waste taxpayers money to keep one party in power, like he is trying to do.
I feel that using emotion like that to try to pass a law for naked partisan advantage is wrong and corrosive t the rule of law nd the concept of a democratic republic.

You can disagree if you like. You can even frame it differently than I do.

Some of the DTB might not even notice you demanding that I give you evidence of stuff that was cited in the OP of the thread.



SpinnerofTales -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/23/2009 5:41:47 PM)

quote:

SoT:

IF it is not partisan, why on earth did Senator Kennedy not write this " 5 month interim appointment " in to his previous proposal, when the sitting Governor was a Republican ? Why were the people of Massachusetts perfectly able to have lived with a vacant Senate seat, if John Kerry had won the election, for a few months. You know, when a Republican Governor would have appointed an " interim " Senator ?

What earth shattering events have caused we the people of Mass., to be unable to live without a Senator for a couple of months ? Senator Kennedy and the Mass. legislature felt that was reasonable 8 or so years ago. Please enlighten me to the events that have now made it unreasonable. < Hint : Partisan politics >

Not Partisan ? Pleeeaaase ! Ya really think he would be writing to a Republican Governor, proposing the same thing ?

mbmbn
maybemaybenot



Of course there is a partisan element to this. We are dealing with party politics. I would defy anyone to show me a rules change that was NOT influenced by partisan politics. I will go further and say that this very thread is incredibly partisan. No one cares whether it is a better or worse idea to have an interim senator appointed for the months until a special election is held. The whole matter boils down to how many democrats and how many republicans are in the senate at any given time.

What I find laughable is the tremendous indignation one side shows (and this is true for both democrats and republicans) when their particular interests are at stake. I will wager that if there was a republican governor was in power in MA and a republican had suggested this rule change, the respectable republicans on this board would have nothing much to say against it.

And on a further note, there is a big difference in appointing an interim senator for the months between the vacation of a seat and one who is appointed for the remainder of the original senator's term.

In the meantime, let me offer a tissue and warm hug to all you noble republicans who are above partisan political maneuvering. with all the good and wonderful things that you have done for the country, it is just a shame that you've been rendered irrelevant by the votes of Americans.




rightwinghippie -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/23/2009 5:49:19 PM)

Which is wierd because in post 116 you state, " this is not a partisan matter at all".

Of course it is. The thread would have ended pages ago, except several left/Dem posters argued otherwise.

Nothing wrong being partisan.

Is things wrong with spending tax money on it.

Is wrong to slide it by using emotinal tugs.

Maybe some readers won't notice.



SpinnerofTales -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/23/2009 5:50:00 PM)

quote:

But I am not trying to force anyone mnot. Anyone who accepts the utter nonsense you posted in 140, is going to accept it.

I am sure some of the DTB won't notice that in your first quoting of me here, I state there is no reason for him to do this, nor the previous change, except for PARTISAN ADVANTAGE. Which Kennedy himself, as well as Spinner and RML are trying to argue he did for nobel reasons of the importance of allways having 2 Senators up there.

You agree with me that he did it to keep Dems in power.

I feel it is wrong to waste taxpayers money to keep one party in power, like he is trying to do.
I feel that using emotion like that to try to pass a law for naked partisan advantage is wrong and corrosive t the rule of law nd the concept of a democratic republic. ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie



I hate to interrupt your paranoia, RWH, but can you please tell this poor, ignorant leftist a couple of things?

1) What money is being wasted in appointing a temporary senator to serve in the months before the mandated election? I was not aware that senator's made so much money that up to 5 months salary for one is a waste that should be at the top of the list to be curtailed.

2) How is suggesting a political rule change, to be enacted according to the current rules for changing such procedures "corrode democracy"?

3) When the big reason that the conservatives are fighting this idea is that they benefit from an empty senate seat during the time the health care reform bill is crafted and acted upon, is it not a wee bit hypocritical to wave the "partisan politics flag"?

As offensive as you find the emotional appeal of Ted Kennedy's brain cancer to be, I find your disingenuous pretense that your objections are any less partisan than the proposed rule changes.



rightwinghippie -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/23/2009 5:56:15 PM)

You would have to point out anywhere I said I was non partisan, because I am certainly not aware of saying so.


The money is spent in changing the law...

You don't understand how changing the law willy nilly, based on nothing but party advantage has a corrosivve effect on a republic? I think most of our readers can grasp how that works. So I guess you will have to remain confused.

I guess you have some wierd definition of Paranoia.

I guess that's all a bunch of blather to try to cover the fact you have switched positions on me, but are not man enough to own up to it.




SpinnerofTales -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/23/2009 6:59:55 PM)

quote:


Indecent



Posts: 107
Joined: 8/12/2009
Status: online You would have to point out anywhere I said I was non partisan, because I am certainly not aware of saying so.


The money is spent in changing the law...

You don't understand how changing the law willy nilly, based on nothing but party advantage has a corrosivve effect on a republic? I think most of our readers can grasp how that works. So I guess you will have to remain confused.

I guess you have some wierd definition of Paranoia.

I guess that's all a bunch of blather to try to cover the fact you have switched positions on me, but are not man enough to own up to it.
ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie



I find your personal attacks most offensive, RWH. So far you have accused me of bumper sticker reasoning, getting my facts from popular tv and now have questioned my manhood. However, not to sink to your level, I will try to explain my position without resorting to personal attacks.

I have not changed my opinion at all on this matter. Of course this is a partisan maneuver in the sense that I do not believe that this same initiative would have been brought if the governor of MA had been a republican. However, the procedures for replacing a vacated senate seat is not a partisan matter. It is one that the electorate of that state, and tangentially  the rest of the electorate of the United States should consider and debate from time to time. This is as good a time as ever. It is non-partisan in that an entire electorate, whatever their party affiliation is benefited by the best possible rules of succession.

That said, I would ask you to show me the same politeness in your future posts as I have in this one and refrain from personal attacks in order to advance your political agenda. It is uncalled for and detrimental to an exchange of ideas.







rightwinghippie -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/23/2009 9:14:20 PM)

Sure, if you would not call me paranoid, and reverse imply that I called you a "poor ignorant leftist"

I never said anything of the sort. What do you call it when you accuse someone of something they did not do?

You seem to want dialouge based on you offering hankies and talking about peoples panties in a bunch, ect. Are you honestly pretending that your posts are not regularly full of snide insults?

Now I agree that succession rules should be considered from time to time in a way that benefits the entire populace. I agree it shouldn't be a partisan issue. The Dems have made his partisan and political.

This is an example where they have to spend extra time (special session right?) to pass a special law that was just changed 5 years ago, again at the urging of the Democrats for their naked political power. Forcing the Non Democratic voters to pay taxes to increase the power of the Democratic Party. And they are attempting to use a dying man to get it through/sympathy.

It's legal, I suppose. But it stinks...and you know it does.










rulemylife -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/23/2009 9:24:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


I knew that Reagan / Alzheimer's jokes would be different. I just wanted to illustrate, for the class.


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

And as always, taking things out of context without looking at what provoked the remark, which by the way, was a joke, unlike the Kennedy remarks.



Point taken.

Though I do see a difference in that the Reagan joke was made in response to another poster's joke, so the context was different.



kdsub -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/23/2009 9:27:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie

You don't understand how changing the law willy nilly, based on nothing but party advantage has a corrosivve effect on a republic? I think most of our readers can grasp how that works. So I guess you will have to remain confused.




I think you may have the wrong idea about how laws and bills are passed in this country... EVERY law or bill is passed willy nilly according to the whim of the political party in power.

This is how it should be because the majority of our citizens entrusted the power to make or break legislation to their representatives.. This is true on the Federal or State level... When the republicans were in the majority they had the power...now the democrats have the power and they will make laws and bills as they deem advantageous to their party and represent the wishes of their constituents. If the voters don't feel they are representing them properly they will be voted out of office.

It is simple and ethical.

Butch



SpinnerofTales -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/23/2009 9:40:52 PM)

quote:

This is an example where they have to spend extra time (special session right?) to pass a special law that was just changed 5 years ago, again at the urging of the Democrats for their naked political power. ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie



Most representatives are paid a salary, not by the hour. A special session is not a real money waster. And, since the duty of these representatives is to consider and perhaps pass laws and revisions, they are not wasting money, they are doing their job.

As for a naked power grab, I still do not see that aspect of it. We are talking about a Democrat being appointed for up to five months before the electorate can pick a permanent replacement. Further, with these rules in place, should a republican take office and a seat open, it would probably be a republican filling it until the voters can speak.

It seems as if you are equating this rule change with the destruction of the democratic system (as opposed to the democratic party). This simply is not so. You may approve of the idea of not. But it is not a scummy affront to the American way. It is the way the American system is made to work.




rightwinghippie -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/23/2009 10:27:47 PM)

Spinner, if you want to pretend it does not cost money to convene the legislature, because the Legislators are paid salary I can't help. they get paid per diem, thier staff works. Bills have to be printed, it costs money to do absolutly eveything. It is not thier job to spend extra money to get power for thier side. I do not see that as the American way.

There is no purpose to this but to increase Dem power. And that's not the American way.

Like I said, its legal, but it stinks.

I am getting tired of you putting exagerated words in my mouth. I did not say this is "the "destruction of the democratic system". I said its corrosive of it. And I stand by that. Wasting taxpayer $ for party gain always is.

If you want to be debated with politely, please deal with what I say, not what you want to pretend I said.



SpinnerofTales -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/24/2009 9:56:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie


There is no purpose to this but to increase Dem power. And that's not the American way.

Like I said, its legal, but it stinks.



What I still fail to see is how you equate this proposal with any kind of grab for power. In actuality, this proposal does nothing to increase democratic party power in any way. The number of seats controlled by the democrats as well as those controlled by the republicans would remain unchanged by this proposal. Further, it stays with the spirit of the first revision (passed a mere half decade ago) that lets the voters choose the new senator rather than having the governor appoint a senator for the remainder of the unseated senator’s term. Any alteration would be made by the voters in the special election that needs to be held within five months of the seat being vacated.

Without accusing anyone of anything, I would think that taking the position of “Hey..the guy died. That gives us one less (insert party here) to deal with. Yea for us” would be a tad more “scummy” than a dying man trying to make sure his death or inability to continue with his position will not hurt causes in which he believes. Yes, I believe such a blatent try to use a man's death or disability to increase the power of one's chosen position truly would stink. Don’t you agree?



rightwinghippie -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/24/2009 12:55:48 PM)

That was kind of convoluted, but basically you are advocating spending taxpayers money to make sure that Dem gets the seat, even though 5 years ago, it was important to leave the seat empty so Rep wouldn't get it? And someones health has anything to do with the issue? Yeah I guess that does stink.

And somehow you switching from saying it was completely non partisan, to of course it is partisan, thats the American way. But I don't know, I think I have said what I can about this issue...barring any new ideas, you can have the last word.



LotusSong -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/24/2009 1:09:48 PM)

awwwwwwwwww you're just upset that the Republicans didn't think of that first...



SpinnerofTales -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/24/2009 1:25:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie

That was kind of convoluted, but basically you are advocating spending taxpayers money to make sure that Dem gets the seat, even though 5 years ago, it was important to leave the seat empty so Rep wouldn't get it? And someones health has anything to do with the issue? Yeah I guess that does stink.

And somehow you switching from saying it was completely non partisan, to of course it is partisan, thats the American way. But I don't know, I think I have said what I can about this issue...barring any new ideas, you can have the last word.

quote:

And somehow you switching from saying it was completely non partisan, to of course it is partisan, thats the American way. But I don't know, I think I have said what I can about this issue...barring any new ideas, you can have the last word.


RWH, A Dem is going to get the seat anyway. It's been three decades since they voted a republican into office in MA. It's obvious you don't have any idea what this really is about and it's not "let's keep a Dem in the senate"....what it has to do with is that at this moment, the health care bill is the biggest, hottest issue around, and Ted Kennedy wants it passed before he dies. Failing that, he wants it passed soon after. Therefore, the idea of letting his senate seat go unoccupied when this bill is voted upon is not one he likes. So he is playing politics. This is not a partisan issue, it is a career politician trying to make sure a cause in which he believes is not harmed by his dying.

Would he open his mouth about it if he thought a republican would take his place to add to the opposition to the bill he wants passed? Of course not. But to attribute this to a desire to see a Dem keep the senate seat in MA for it's own "our team" sake is a gross oversimplification.

As for changing my mind, sometimes I do that. It's called consideration. It's called reflection. It's called not being so bound up in an initial position that one cannot change towards more wisdom and correctness. I think the conservatives call it "flip flopping".




rightwinghippie -> RE: Ted Kennedy (8/24/2009 3:16:50 PM)

"RWH, A Dem is going to get the seat anyway. It's been three decades since they voted a republican into office in MA."

Actually they had a Republican Govenor 5 years ago, which seems less than 3 decades. That was why they changed the law in the first place.

Nothing wrong with changing your mind, but pretending you didn't seems kind of cheesy.



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875