OT: Edward

Page 5 of 7  
On 27 Aug 2009 23:16:00 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

All I know is that Bush, while in a drunken stupor, didn't murder someone he was banging, and not spend one single day in jail because of his daddy's money.
Gordon Shumway
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The end of an errror.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

+1
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"RonB" wrote: ----------------------------------------- Apparently Walmart merchandisers do not understand the SE Kansas folks very well.
When does this end? -------------------------------------------------
What's the population of Kansas?
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RonB wrote:

In Boston, probably. In Zimbabwe, not likely.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"RonB" wrote:

Probably not; however, his senate career will continue to have an impact on the the USA for at least the next 50 years.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thankfully for all of us.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Further proof God is a Republican. (I used to think God was an Englishman, but now I'm thinking He's of mixed heritage - like Winston Churchill.)
According to Senate Rule 22, invoking cloture in the Senate requires "three-fifths of those chosen and sworn." With the vacancy caused by the death of Kennedy, 60 votes are still required, but there are only 59 Democrats. If there were TWO vacancies, it would take only 58 votes. Odd, but now ALL the Democrats cannot invoke cloture. If another Democrat dies, however, they can.
Just hope Robert Byrd takes his vitamins.
The senate vacancy in Massachusetts must be filled by a special election (changed from gubernatorial appointment back when there was a Republican governor and it looked like John Kerry might be president) and experts think it may take as long as SEVEN MONTHS to put an election together.
One reason an election might take so long is that the state is broke, partially due to universal health care.
How ironic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Isn't it though. I suspect that the new way to treat the elderly when they become worn out and not worth fixing is to give them a ride in that Teddy mobile that runs off bridges.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

The irony that Kennedy was the one who pushed the legislature in 2004 to pass the bill to call for the special election rather than allowing the governor to appoint a replacement makes it doubly ironic.
The fact that Kennedy just recently passionately urged the repeal of that law and urging reinstatement of governor appointment just makes it sleazy and demonstrates that Democrats don't like a level playing field.
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

The deeper problem is that he (or anyone else) should be able to become a permanent member of the ruling class, having voted some 15,000+ times in the Senate. The U.S., in part, was formed to neuter the pestilence of Monarchy, one of several forms of permanent rulers (the others being Theocracy and Tribal rule). Yet, less than 300 years into this experiment we have these politicians-for-life, a Federal government utterly disconnected from the citizenry, and government as an institution becoming the leviathan that Hobbes and so many of the Enlightenment thinkers railed against. We desperately need a Constitutional amendment to trim the sails of these people and limit the time they can "serve." If Kennedy was a "Lion Of The Senate" as his admirers claim, then We The People were his prey ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/26/2009 9:25 PM Tim Daneliuk spake thus:

Just to address this small tangential point in this thread (term limits): what is it with the right wing and their fanatical interest in this cause?[1]
Think about it; we *already* have term limits.
They're called "elections".
Of course, the same idiots who fulminate about term limits are the same ones who steadfastly refuse to consider public financing of election. If one is concerned about incumbents wearing out there welcome in office, then it would behoove one, as always, to follow the money.
Removing the corrupting influence of money from elections would go a looong way towards cleaning house in every legislative body. But nooooo, can't have that: why, that's creeping socialism.
[1] Though to be fair, it's not only Repugnocrats who support term limits. It's become an article of faith with the dumbasses^H^H^H^H^Hvoters as well ...
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Uh, how does public financing of elections help the situation? Seems to me that it would give the government complete control over who gets to run.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

I can't speak for the rightwing insofar as I rarely speak to them.

The public funding of elections would simply continue the path of the execrable "McCain-Feingold" phony finance "reform" bill. These tactics should be renamed "The Incumbent Reelection Advantage Bill."

Money cannot corrupt what it cannot buy. A single term system would be brilliant on two levels: It would never give any elected official long enough tenure to have much to sell to the monied interests (like the AARP - the biggest lobby of all of them) AND It would keep the government from getting too efficient, wherein all the mischief ensues.

Anyone who values personal liberty (i.e. not liberals) is likely to support term limits.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I favor an informed electorate. Probably never happen though.
I'm in favor or reducing the number of members in Congress. How about doubling the constituents, thus halving the reps? One senator per state. I'm sure that will never happen.
How about 30 states? Join together Rhode Island and CT, join North and Sound Dakota. And a bunch more.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

That's one of the biggest understatement I've read all year.
--
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

How about we have a press corps that actually digs into what the candidates believe in and do away with all the televised photo opportunities and the like, so the election is based on something other than what kind of impression the candidate makes on television?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That would be a good start, but how many people would understand and comprehend it? The candidates themselves also have to issue position papers or similar and not take advantage of the 15 second sound bite when it suites them.
Far too many people are swayed by how the candidate looks on TV that what his actual position on issues is. Far too many people are one issue voters (i. e. stem cell, abortion or favorite cause) than there should be. I have to wonder how many votes are gained or lost by an appearance on Entertainment Tonight as compared to a debate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

And if they do issue such papers then the press needs to hold them accountable--when an elected politicians does something that contradicts his published position the press should be all over him--personally I don't _care_ who he's sleeping with or how much he drinks or how ugly his dog is as long as he's voting the way he said he was going to vote.

I have less of a problem with single-issue voters than I do with the ones who vote the party right or wrong. The single-issue voters at least are making an effort to know where their guy stands on _one_ issue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've only been voting since the mid-1990s, and only really been paying attention since around 2000, so please forgive my ignorance, but when have we had a real debate between our potential political leaders?
I mean, last year's debates were pretty much a joke, if I remember correctly, and I don't remember 2004's being any better.
-Nathan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.