OT: That means NOT woodworking related.

Page 6 of 6  
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:42:34 -0700, "Rod & Betty Jo"

I'm a little puzzled by this. I keep hearing people blaming the Dems for the primary problem in Florida. It was our rethuglican dominated legislature that moved the primary to the early date (as people seem to think being first is important, somehow). The DNC rules were already in place when that move was made. So, is it the Dem's 'failure' to change their rules to accommodate the changed primary, or is it a master strategy by the rethuglicans to render certain primaries invalid by clever legislation? I've seen this legislature in action. They aren't that clever.
Nevertheless, I find it difficult to blame the DNC in this.
--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LRod wrote:

While I find the primary leap frogging silly it was still the DNC and the DNC alone that chose to deny the lawful primary vote so chosen by both Michigan and Florida.....The Republicans apparently had no problem and denied the vote to no one. The big stick (no delegates counted) should only have been used if it would work, it did not thus such threats are and were foolish...... The dopes involved simply thought Hillary was a foregone conclusion, had the election won before it started and the actual delegate count wouldn't matter....
It was our rethuglican dominated

Indeed the inability to change with certain political realities is not a strong leadership position...again the DEMs look foolish

That makes no sense....Republicans and Dems have separate primaries, last I heard the Republicans had no trouble recognizing their delegates.

A true believer... in spite of the obvious facts.....Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:06:52 -0700, "Rod & Betty Jo"

Check your facts. The links below will help.

Check your facts. The links below will help.

Check your facts. The links below will help.

Check your facts. The links below will help.

Here are some obvious facts:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7214763.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/us/politics/04florida.html
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/13/State/Florida_primary_will_.shtml
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-florida20may20,0,5268295.story?coll=la-home-center
Read these and tell me again who is responsible for moving the Florida primary. Tell me about how the rethuglican Party, the ones always talking about rules, would have handled a primary which broke the rules.
I live here and I watched this unfold in real time. It was the rethuglican legislature that moved the primary in violation of party rules (of both parties). What should the DNC have done?
Since I know you won't bother to read the links, being a true believer, I think we're done here.
--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LRod wrote:

What's with the attitude? Nonetheless your links didn't disprove anything I said, did you even read them? If I may quote
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/13/State/Florida_primary_will_.shtml "His comments in New Hampshire were his first public response since Florida Democratic leaders decided Sunday to go ahead and set their presidential primary for Jan. 29, the day state lawmakers had chosen.
Because the DNC bars all but a handful of states from scheduling an election earlier than Feb. 5, Florida Democrats until Sunday had seriously considered making Jan. 29 a nonbinding vote and holding their own caucuses later."
To repeat the DNC chose to withhold the delegates thereby denying the vote to the state of FLA and no matter your attempted spin Republicans did not make this decision for them. However the Republicans did work out a solution for their own delegates that seem to have offended no one. The state DEMS or the DNC could have worked out something but failed to do so thereby causing such silliness. If this isn't a failure of leadership what is it?
Incidentally the FLA state vote that moved the primary required Democrats and Republicans to pass the legislation. Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:31:32 -0700, "Rod & Betty Jo"

I don't care for people misrepresenting what has actually happened in my state. You have.

Yeah, right. I just went out and found some links. I read every one of them. They all corroborate exactly what I'm saying.

You mean 'cherry pick' out of context.

Talk about spin. The DNC rules were well established and in place before the legislature even met. Then the legislature set the date for the primaries. And I don't know (nor care) where you live, but it's not a Democratic primary put on by the Democrats. It's a state run primary. Neither Democrats nor Republicans can hold any sort of election with state funds and resources by themselves. The Democrats did not choose when the election was to be held.
Incidently, the change of election date was a violation of rethuglican rules, too. Being the spineless backstabbers they are, the national committee just decided to break their own rules and allow the delegates to count. There's real leadership.

It's gaming the system. By the flag waving, "law abiding" party of greed.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, the legislature is dominated by rethuglicans almost two to one. They can pass virtually anything they want without a single Democrat's vote. There were Democrats who voted for the change based on other provisions rolled into the measure. Did you read about that?
I'm sorry I came back. I know I said I was done here. But now I really am. Spin it all you want.
--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LRod wrote:

So what you are saying here is that the DNC was unwilling to change its rules (this time) despite the fact that a state in which they had no control changed conditions. That really makes the victim card an awfully hard play.

Sounds like the Republican party recognized the right of states to make decisions related to that state's election procedures.

Who has the richest members of congress? [Hint, it ain't the Republican party]

So what you are saying is those dems were willing to violate their own party's rules for the sake of expedience. Somehow, that's not surprising.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

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

I didn't nor have you demonstrated such a conclusion, however one of the purposes of these exchanges is to learn a little......hearing ones take from your side of country could be interesting, regrettably you appear so defensive it kind of negates such a purpose. Why this is a personal or offensive issue escapes me.

Where? I must of missed those paragraphs

I quoted two complete in sequence paragraphs.....cherry picking generally requires considerably more creativity

That's the cool thing about rules...they can be changed. Somehow I really doubt that these election rules were etched in stone and great disaster will befall anyone whom dares challenge them. If the state must pay for a friggin election why can't the state decide when to hold it?

Some might think it is simply making things work.....is it better to have the vote not count?

As near as I can tell Dems still voted for the date change....if the date change was bundled with other things it was then pretty much still normal legislation or process. It behooves the DEM legislature to still vote it down if they feel so inspired and re-submit favored items separately.

Its amazing how angry you still are...over what? Incidentally I personally don't care if the delegates are counted or not counted.....I fully recognize the DNC can withhold the delegates (there was ample warning) but I do think it was a foolish choice and not worth the political or reputation cost. It may behoove the DNC to pay for their own primary election if they don't like what the state decides...if they can't afford that choice then maybe he who signs the check should indeed make the rules. Faulting the Republicans because they were competent enough to hold an election and count the delegates is simply beyond comprehension....Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
... snip

And when it comes down to the convention, *of course* the dems are going to seat the delegates from FLA & Mich. This is the Democrat party, rules don't mean anything even in the at-large population -- remember how we got Frank Lautenberg? It required violating NJ election law to replace a candidate on the ballot with another outside of the allowable time window, yet the dems got to do it. This is an internal matter, the dems will figure out how to modify the rules and seat the delegates if there is not a clear winner by the convention.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

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

It is not puzzling at all. The Democrats in the Florida Legislature not only supported the bill (not a single Democrat voted no), they were sponsors/co-sponsors of the bill sponsors of the bill.
"If (DNC chairman) Howard Dean thinks the candidates are not going to campaign in Florida, he's got to be insane - not with all the Florida money at stake, " said state Sen. Jeremy Ring, D-Margate, sponsor of the early primary bill."
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/28/State/Earlier_Florida_prima.shtml
The fact is, the bill passed the Florida Legisalture with a combined vote 156-2-2. The nays were from 2 Republicans, the no votes were split between the 2 parties.

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

As a concerned neighbour with almost 90% of his friends and family in the US, I have an educated interest in what happens down there. For you to classify me as a 'hater' might make it easier for you to deal with your inadequacies in regards to your inability to understand and appreciate the true problems that lie before us, but I assure you that I prefer to deal in 'non-hate' dialogue, so you're disqualified to participate.
You almost had me fooled into thinking that your contributions were worth consideration, but alas you have failed yet once again.
Calling people haters, will reap what you no favours from me.
I therefore suggest that from here-on you go and fuck yourself.
r
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

I'd rather not but will readily concede I used a very poor choice of words....Even worse I failed to communicate my actual point. I used parenthesis for want of a better term. On many issues or about various politicians I've heard you rant, on occasion sometimes rather bluntly but my intent here was a honest question and I did not mean nor intend to call you names or impugn your opinion. Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:42:34 -0700, Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Apparently you know a different McCain and Iraq than I do.
The McCain I know is a staunch defender of the "Bush legacy" and if Iraq is engaged in a "march to freedom", it'll only last till we get the bayonet out of their butt.
Alternate universes MUST exist :-).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

McCain wouldn't be my first choice for president, and personally, while he may have claimed to be a hero, I haven't heard him say that. In keeping with the popular opinion of this thread, I wouldn't want to paint him one way or another because of what someone else said.
As far as tea party goes, the one he went to really sucked. I had seen much of this a few years ago on a special about POWs from the Vietnam War, but had forgotten most of it. Interestingly, his own accounts seem to play down what was written by others that were in the camp with him.
This was written after his return in '73 after 5 1/2 years as a POW, maybe before the disease of politics took hold.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1084711/posts
But they did give him a lot of sugar on Sundays! It was just for soup, though. Guess you can't have everything.
Robert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

McCain made it to the top of the heap because of a combination of media infatuation (and desire to push a candidate they thought would be beatable) during the early primaries and cross-over voting. It's really funny that the dems are getting so worked up now over the cross-over votes now screwing with *their* candidate selections. Sounds like chickens coming home to roost to me.
However, although McCain is not my choice, at least some anecdotal information I received indicates he does have a certain amount of integrity and sense of fair play. I was exposed to a comment from someone with whom I work who related that he was in attendance at a celebration in Phoenix for which McCain was the guest of honor. A number of congresscritters and other people of high standing were there as well. After the celebration was over and people were getting their cars, the congresscritters and people of high standing cut to the front of the line, having the valets fetch their cars first. McCain stood in line with the rest of the guests; when he was urged to move to the front, since, after all, he was the guest of honor, he said, "No, I'll wait my turn like everyone else." I have no reason to doubt the story from the person who told it, and this did raise my opinion of McCain a bit.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
o--bama, obama bama oo obama oo. could be a song. i'd rather talk a good cainning ross
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ross Hebeisen wrote:

o-bama hey-bama bama bama o bama hey bama o superstar, hey barak, barak won't you smile at me, bama o bama hey superstar?
Typical Democrat strategy--nominate a candidate who doesn't have a ghost of a chance of getting elected when they have better choices.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
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.