Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Well, let's not forget Strom Thurmond, either.
Seems to me Tommy Smothers had it right. The people with less in the way of clothing tend to be the led. So who's leading us? The Morons.
Specter jumps to the Democratic Party
- Thread starter headscratcher4
- Start date
-
- Tags
- arlen specter
Well, let's not forget Strom Thurmond, either.
Seems to me Tommy Smothers had it right. The people with less in the way of clothing tend to be the led. So who's leading us? The Morons.
Well, by saying Dems "tolerate" conservative Dems in their party, you implied conservatives are inherently "bad." You neglected to say that Dems "tolerate" ex-KKK recruiters. Or do ex-racists Dems not equally qualify for Dem sufferance?
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,892
So, let me see if I understand your complaint. Cleon said that Dems tolerate conservative members among their elected ranks, but he neglected to add that they also tolerate ex-KKK recruiters (I assume you're speaking of Byrd and ... who else?), thereby admitting, by sin of omission, that ex-KKK recruiters are more honored than tolerated. Is that right?
Is there any length you won't go to whine like a baby about the nefarious Dems and their evil ways?
Cleon
King of the Pod People
I implied no such thing; that's your imagination, and nothing else.
Then why did you use the term 'tolerate?' That is a loaded word.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Wow. Somebody else remembers Tommy Smothers telling that joke. You're old, dude.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
What? No, it isn't.
Even if it was, it still wouldn't imply anything like what you claimed.
Sure it is. You could have said the Democratic Party welcomes, incorporates, assimilates, features, contains, includes, encompasses, absorbs, conservative Democrats, but you said "tolerates." The fact "tolerates" was your reflexive description is fine, but you should admit that it has a pejorative connotation in the context it was used.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Sorry, but no. "Tolerate" is not a loaded word, and does not carry the implication you seem to think it does. This is purely a figment of your imagination.
Yes, and I could have said it in Russian, too. However, that still doesn't include any implication about conservatives one way or the other.
You're (intentionally) reading something into it that just isn't there.
It doesn't. At all. Period.
There is an infinite number of wordings I could have used, I used the one that came to mind at the time.
Look, this is too ridiculous for words. If you want to keep arguing this, feel free. You look paranoid and crazy by doing so, but that's really not my problem.
Oh, that explains it.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Could we PLEASE pass on the catfight?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Sure he will. As long as they do plenty of favors for him in return. Why do you think he's a 'moderate?' It's because he'll vote for any bill, if it gets him what he wants. Gun control one week, gun deregulation the next? As long as both authors offer him something. The Democrats can use him because he's very predictable. They'll just have to wash their hands afterward and hope the smell comes off.
Last edited:
I agree with this assessment, and it's why I'm not worried about losing him. You were spot on with the "The man believes in no ideology, no ideals, no goals beyond Arlan Specter". That is SPOT ON.
Policenaut
Infidel Defiler
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 2,191
I know one thing Obama can "change" that everyone can get behind: term limits for senators. People in certain areas seem too stupid to vote out dinosaurs so lets not give them the option. 2 term limit. Isn't 12 years enough time to make your mark? If not then get out and let someone else try.
To be fair and responsible, and consistent, I should not have endorsed GreyICE's comments in their totality. Some of that was a bit uncivil. But I agree 100% that Specter is a self-serving politician.
I mean no disrespect to you GreyICE. I have to be careful now because certain people are looking for any slight examples of my supporting anything even remotely uncivil, as means to discrediting me.
But I want to quickly repeat something I said in the other thread. My beef is about how people here treat each other, not public figures. I don't think what GreyICE said was reprehensible at all. Just uncivil. But not such a big deal.
My problem is with the way people treat each other around here, or anywhere that people debate issues. That is what drives me nuts. There is no debate, just back and forth derision and insults.
I mean no disrespect to you GreyICE. I have to be careful now because certain people are looking for any slight examples of my supporting anything even remotely uncivil, as means to discrediting me.
But I want to quickly repeat something I said in the other thread. My beef is about how people here treat each other, not public figures. I don't think what GreyICE said was reprehensible at all. Just uncivil. But not such a big deal.
My problem is with the way people treat each other around here, or anywhere that people debate issues. That is what drives me nuts. There is no debate, just back and forth derision and insults.
Last edited:
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
I think you've just outlined why he won't be doing anyone any favors. In the end, the fact that he IS so self-serving, so "moderate," (yeah, right), indicates precisely the problem with him, and the problem he presents to both sides. In the end, the smell won't come off, and they'll be stuck with a "Democratic" senator who's not merely mercenary, but flaky on top of it. This is a man with no concept of the hazards his voting record can represent to the party he claims he "represents" at any given time, though the fact that he'd lose in the primaries as a Republican indicates that his constituents most certainly do.
My suspicion is that he might not even win re-election. If anything, he stands a good chance of losing, regardless of how much money the Democratic party is willing to put into play in the race. I'm willing to bet that they know this, and they won't be spending as much as Specter thinks they will. They're willing to take his vote for the time they have it to get accomplished what they want, and then be done with him in 2010.
Expecting Ted Kennedy, Byrd, Biden, Spector, Rangel, Conyers. Inouye, etc to acknowledge that elected office should not be guaranteed lifetime employment is as futile as expecting Favre to stay retired.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Or, for that matter, as futile as expecting a rational argument from the Right, of late.
Why would term limits be an irrational concept?
Last edited:
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
We have them here in California. Right now, one of the longest serving members in California's Assembly is Tim Leslie. When his terms run out, he takes a room in a B&B in a district where he thinks he's got a shot, then runs for office. Usually, he wins, mainly because he's run enough over the years that his name is known.
The Bee, our local paper, has done such a sorry job of reporting Leslie's rather dubious achievements over the years, he's considered a good shot for Lt. Governor in 2010. Never mind that over the years, he's done next to nothing for California, that he's done next to nothing to help curb our out of control budget, and that he's not any sort of a leader, people keep voting for this cretin because they know his name.
Term limits work when the media does its job. In fact, they're unnecessary when the media does its job, because the incompetent, the greedy, the stupid, the crooked, the inept simply don't get re-elected.
On the other side of this, with term limits, we've lost good representatives who worked on the behalf of the people of the state, while in other cases, we would have lost them if they'd been able to stay in office. BT Collins was a superb member of the Assembly for us, and we learned we could trust him. He did what he said he would, stuck to his guns when principle was involved, and was a credit to the Assembly in the eyes of both parties. He died of a heart attack prior to the end of his second term, which is unfortunate, since I'd have voted for him for State Senate.
Consider the case of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who turned out to be the Daniel Webster for our day. While many disagreed with him, he was, in fact, one of the best statesmen this nation had produced in this day. The most moving tribute when he passed came not from those on the left, but from George Will.
I'm not convinced Term Limits have been the benefit they've been advertised to be. It's a concept that caters to the lazy and ill-informed, people who shouldn't be voting in the first place. Frankly, I'm grateful the concept hasn't gone any further, since it's turned out to be such a bust for us here in California. What I'd like to see is the Bee getting some serious competition from the Union and the News and Review, both of which remain weeklies, and both of which need to turn daily. Oddly enough, the N&R, which tends to be left-leaning, ran the best in depth coverage of Gray Davis' "leadership," and showed why the crooked son of a bitch never should have been elected in the first place. (It also revealed just how deeply in Enron's pocket Davis and his cronies were, while Mark Williams, at the time a talk show host at KFBK, currently working with Move American Forward, revealed that Steve Moviglio, Davis' press secretary, had been given a huge chunk of stock from Enron's board. That Moviglio is still in state service is disheartening.)
You have to do more than simply limit terms. You have to demonstrate how that's going to benefit the average citizen of the state. Show how people will gain from that, put together a system that gets rid of the boobs and keeps the brains, and you might have something.
Last edited: