or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Democratic Dirty Tricks - Massachusetts Edition
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Democratic Dirty Tricks - Massachusetts Edition - Page 3

post #81 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Government has a fuckton of inertia. Change can't happen overnight. And the majority of vocal Republicans have been shouting from the moment he got elected, before he even got inaugurated, OMG HE HASN'T CHANGED ANYTHING YET! Pretend the roles were reversed. Wouldn't you be pissed and saying "FOR FUCK'S SAKE, GIVE HIM TIME. HIS TERM IS JUST GETTING STARTED YOU IMPATIENT TWATS!"

Of course, even though Obama has made progress, all that gets ignored anyway. It doesn't put Republican voters into the booths by commenting on all the good things he's doing.

Honestly, I have not seen a lot of follow through on much of what he promised. However, it was not my opinion I was commenting on, it was from the stories I was quoting.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #82 of 186
I'm not going to pass judgment on him 1/4 of the way through his term, let alone before he even took office like the bulk of the wingers on this forum.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #83 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'm not going to pass judgment on him 1/4 of the way through his term, let alone before he even took office like the bulk of the wingers on this forum.

Great. How long before you hold him accountable for the promises he made?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #84 of 186
I don't know. Probably when his first term is winding down I'll look at what he promised to try to do and the circumstances around his successes and failures. I also don't see why you need this immediate timeline.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #85 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I don't know. Probably when his first term is winding down I'll look at what he promised to try to do and the circumstances around his successes and failures. I also don't see why you need this immediate timeline.

Holding a conversation. That's all. No real need.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #86 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Holding a conversation. That's all. No real need.

Fair enough.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #87 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'm not going to pass judgment on him 1/4 of the way through his term, let alone before he even took office like the bulk of the wingers on this forum.

Interesting.

Did you treat Bush the same way?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #88 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Interesting.

Did you treat Bush the same way?

Yes. You can say you don't like what he's doing but to judge failure or not you have to wait for an outcome. That's the end of his term. I just made this point with SDW in another thread. No one has ever judged a president on just 1 year. Not even Bush. Look how much things changed for Bush after his first year.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #89 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No one has ever judged a president on just 1 year. Not even Bush.

Wow. Do you honestly believe that to be true?!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #90 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Wow. Do you honestly believe that to be true?!

So you would have us just judge him on the time when he took too many vacations and nothing else?

Yes it's true!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #91 of 186
Well what do you know? Mr. 2020 showed up!
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #92 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Well what do you know? Mr. 2020 showed up!

Frank 777 I just knew you'd be the one to jump the gun and crow like Obama's just been impeached or something.

Let's see how this unfolds and if means all that you think it will mean eh what?

Ps. Oh! and for the record I said Obama will probably get 2 terms and I'm still standing by that. That's 2016. Only 2020 if he has a good sucessor and the republicans have none.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #93 of 186
Looking at last night's result, I'm not the one who jumped he gun.

Them 'cycles' must be moving faster than you thought!
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #94 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes. You can say you don't like what he's doing but to judge failure or not you have to wait for an outcome. That's the end of his term. I just made this point with SDW in another thread. No one has ever judged a president on just 1 year. Not even Bush. Look how much things changed for Bush after his first year.

This must be purely for the sake of a theoretical argument because few, if anyone, whose been posting in this forum really believes that you hadn't already pre-judged Bush and judged him to be a failure well before Bush's term was up, second or first. Your partisan blinders couldn't be so heavy that you would have blinded yourself to this fact so completely. If it is true, then your delusional state would have to be taken to a whole new level.
post #95 of 186
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

No. It is not. Enjoy being incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teabagging

You have

a) accused someone of practicing homophobia, demonstrating that you do not understand the term

and

b) whined about ad homs and then in the next sentence made an ad hom about everyone in 'the left'.

Enjoy this being not your finest moment. Sorry and all.

In the meantime, please enjoy providing a link to the place where I so appalling misunderstood how to use quantifiers. Or enjoy apologising.

Wikipedia is not an acceptable source on new protoconcepts, slang, or basically new information. The only criteria it follows is whoever made the last change is right. In areas of disputed info, that concept clearly doesn't work.

I have a Wikipedia account. I could go make teabagging mean that MJ will give me head. It wouldn't make it right. On non-proto information, it does very well because no one cares enough to make or fight over edits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I'm watching her concession speech right now.

Yippee.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

As the article pointed out, olbermann forgot to call Brown a cannibal and baby killer. How sad the Obie has lost his talent for invective.

Well this is going to be part of the lore of upsets of the century - just as Truman's was. Not only did he beat her in a blue boned state, he beat her by 5 or more points. Hell, he ran over her with an election semi-truck trailer.

And what really delights is how the Dems have torn into their own - wow, I havn't seen that from Dems since McGovern and then Carter lost.

This guy may be for real (Heck he looks good...and I am waiting to see if he can speak).

Ya, he may be the 2012 GOP nominee...or VP to Romney.

I don't think we need to go that far but really now with the two governorships and this Senate seat, one in a purple state and the other two in deeply blue states, the GOP has a plan for how to win and it doesn't involve having to become RINOs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The republican won. So I guess this means there's no big conspiracy.

It simply means the win was so large that the dead couldn't undo it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I claimed alternatives that offered as much across the board didn't exist. And I guess you're saying you don't know.

I don't need to argue with you about if they offer "as much across the board" by your own reasoning. Especially since that reasoning involves moving goalposts and weird nonsense about ignoring cause and effect for "cycles." You claimed they offered nothing. You said they were simply the party of no. That has been refuted. Enoy the rest of the argument with yourself in the appropriate thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

What happened jimmac? I thought the GOP was out until 2020? Didn't everybody get the memo?

What happened is that no one buys the lie that small wrongs mean that we can engage in giagantic, HISTORIC, UNPRECIDENTED wrongs and people don't get to judge.

They do get to judge and they are judging at the ballot box right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I love the Republican reaction to this. THIS IS A REFERENDUM ON EVERYTHING OBAMA IS AND DOES! AHHAHAHAHAHAHA! WE WILL RULE WITH AN IRON JESUS FIST ONCE MORE I TELL THEE!

Ya, or...back to reality...Coakley sucked as a candidate, couldn't campaign for shit, and had a very likeable fellow opposing her?

Yes except for those traits have certainly been true of many Democrats in Mass for many years as well. BTW, I like how that NY23 special election was totally a commentary on the national Republican party, especially Palin (who wasn't even involved) and the Tea Party but this election, well it can't possibly mean anything beyond the local matters. I wonder if there are some choice BR quotes I can find on that point.

The two actually match up perfectly. In both instances the more conservative candidate did much better than any RINO could have ever done and this is true not just in the south where all the supposedly males of multiple -isms happen to frequent. It is true in the DEEP NORTH as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

RED ALERT! RED ALERT! Reading comprehension failure imminent! Abort reply! Abort Reply!

You should have paid heed to the warning. It's there for a reason.

One Fellow != Republicans

Also, you're acting like kind of a jerkbag for insinuating that I am a knee-jerk party lines Republican-hater. I am not registered with the Democratic party. I don't find Republicans to all be bad. I agree with many of their core principles. I also, however, have been polarized and pushed away from the mainstream party by those candidates that they have pushed to the forefront (Palin et al) and the terribly corrupt and inept BUsh administration we endured for 8 years previous. That doesn't mean I can't on the surface find an individual Republican to be a likable fellow.

It isn't a failure on his part. Claiming intentions different than your actions doesn't change the actions. BR you know I've been here a long time and I've told you that your postings now are different than before you took off for a while. You are absolutely more pissed, more strident, and more accusatory now than you ever were before. You had many more libertarian leanings before but now mostly just spew angry and dismissive talking points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

If this was a Referendum On ObamaCare, then ObamaCare must have been incredibly popular just 3 or 4 weeks ago, when Coakley was up by 10 or 20 points.

It's called awareness. People had to discover there was an alternative and the possible ramifications of it. As they were educated, they made their choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

That talking point was obliterated when Obama decided to campaign last Sunday.
He's the one who "nationalized" the election result. Can't walk away from it now.

Did you not see Jon Stewart holding his head and screaming yesterday at that crazy decision?

Absolutely funny and your point is absolutely true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'm not going to pass judgment on him 1/4 of the way through his term, let alone before he even took office like the bulk of the wingers on this forum.

Why not? The House is reelected every two years. Hell most of his last year will be spent campaigning. Most presidential terms are about spending that capital quickly because you get that big first year "mandate" and honeymoon. Then you have the second year where the bliss has worn off, often culminating in a few midterm seat losses for your party. After that you triangulate a bit to hold on and either manage to get reelected or go build a library. Most presidents are not introducing bold legislation in their third and fourth years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Looking at last night's result, I'm not the one who jumped he gun.

Them 'cycles' must be moving faster than you thought!

It doesn't help that they are made up nonsense.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #96 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes. You can say you don't like what he's doing but to judge failure or not you have to wait for an outcome. That's the end of his term. I just made this point with SDW in another thread. No one has ever judged a president on just 1 year. Not even Bush. Look how much things changed for Bush after his first year.

You made the point, but it's not a good one. Outcomes are tricky things. One can assign almost any outcome to almost any policy if he chooses. We also have to look at current policies and historical precedent. We have to look at current policy from a common sense standpoint as well. We also need to check those policies against our personal philosophies.

In other words, we can't judge his Presidency in total, because it hasn't happened yet. However, we can judge it thus far. Thus far, it's been a disaster. No one believes that the "stimulus" stimulated anything except massive debt. No one believes we can survive deficits like this for an extended period. We've had broken promises (unemployment, healthcare talks on C-SPAN, no new taxes on the middle class), a foreign apology tour, two terror attacks, weakening of our intelligence services, bowing to foreign leaders, waffling of Afghanistan and massive government expansion. Are we to ignore all of this because he MIGHT turn things around?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Frank 777 I just knew you'd be the one to jump the gun and crow like Obama's just been impeached or something.

Let's see how this unfolds and if means all that you think it will mean eh what?

Ps. Oh! and for the record I said Obama will probably get 2 terms and I'm still standing by that. That's 2016. Only 2020 if he has a good sucessor and the republicans have none.

Based on what's happening now, there is no reason to think he'll be reelected. But as always, you ignore the present.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #97 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Wikipedia is not an acceptable source on new protoconcepts, slang, or basically new information. The only criteria it follows is whoever made the last change is right. In areas of disputed info, that concept clearly doesn't work.

Oh Jesus, no. Not the dreaded ad hominem circumstantial, as dismissed by the poster trumptman here

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...al#post1502795

and here

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...al#post1447076

and here

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...al#post1442452

and here

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...al#post1404992

and here

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...al#post1179666 ?



TOTALLY fine thing to do when you dont like the source, of course.

Teabagging is not an exclusively homosexual term, never has been.

Unless the cast of Sex and the City here are all homosexual men.

http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/e...ns_teabagging/

(You can see them after all the clips of FOX NEWS PRESENTERS USING THE TERM TEABAGGING AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.)

Now find me a decent source that says that teabagging is an exclusively homosexual practice. It isnt. Youre wrong. Just for once, FOR ONCE, take it on the chin (as it were) and admit YOURE WRONG.
post #98 of 186

One can only Hope.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #99 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Frank 777 I just knew you'd be the one to jump the gun and crow like Obama's just been impeached or something.

Let's see how this unfolds and if means all that you think it will mean eh what?

Ps. Oh! and for the record I said Obama will probably get 2 terms and I'm still standing by that. That's 2016. Only 2020 if he has a good sucessor and the republicans have none.

The Repubs won this one because the voters weren't happy, so they vented and put in something worse that they will be very unhappy with and will vote out. Sadly, it's a cycle.

Faux announcers are smiling as they proclaim health care dead. I certainly hope it isn't. Reform might have gotten rough, but there will always be health care in the country. Idiots.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #100 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

One can only Hope.

It truly is a nauseating spectacle, this delight in a partisan victory based on a completely false understanding of the health reforms and in the light of the fact that they will help MILLIONS OF PEOPLE to healthcare - something that in countries like France and Italy, and basically everywhere in the free world, is considered a source of pride and civilisation.

Try and take evil socialised health care away from the French, the British, the Italians, the Swedish, the Germans? You would have riots.

Seriously? Fuck America. There. I said it.

Half of you can't sort this out. The other half are making jokes about it. You people don't deserve the achievements the rest of the prosperous world has.
post #101 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

It truly is a nauseating spectacle, this delight in a partisan victory based on a completely false understanding of the health reforms and in the light of the fact that they will help MILLIONS OF PEOPLE to healthcare - something that in countries like France and Italy, and basically everywhere in the free world, is considered a source of pride and civilisation.

Try and take evil socialised health care away from the French, the British, the Italians, the Swedish, the Germans? You would have riots.

Seriously? Fuck America. There. I said it.

Half of you can't sort this out. The other half are making jokes about it. You people don't deserve the achievements the rest of the prosperous world has.

"You people"? I gather then you are not a member of the American people? I didn't notice where you live or your nationality - you might clarify.

How do you know it was based on false understandings? Mass voters adopted a system very much like the one being pushed in Congress, and polling shows only 27% in the State think it has made things better.

More than any other state Mass voters know what is at stake - and 52 to 47 percent said 'No Mas'.

Finally, the European systems vary greatly but I don't think any of their systems resemble the Senate bill. And I have little doubt people oppose taking away something and replacing it with a system alien to their experience and cultural norms, no matter how good or bad an alternative might be.

Most Americans, for example, have never experienced health care in a market - most don't even know how inexpensive health care was before government started shaping it in WWII. Or tell folks that the VA, for example, ought to be folded into federal health insurance would also cause a riot - folks don't like dramatic change.
post #102 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

The Repubs won this one because the voters weren't happy, so they vented and put in something worse that they will be very unhappy with and will vote out. Sadly, it's a cycle.

Faux announcers are smiling as they proclaim health care dead. I certainly hope it isn't. Reform might have gotten rough, but there will always be health care in the country. Idiots.

Obama thinks this:

Quote:
"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."


I have to wonder if he believes in what he's saying.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

It truly is a nauseating spectacle, this delight in a partisan victory based on a completely false understanding of the health reforms and in the light of the fact that they will help MILLIONS OF PEOPLE to healthcare - something that in countries like France and Italy, and basically everywhere in the free world, is considered a source of pride and civilisation.

Try and take evil socialised health care away from the French, the British, the Italians, the Swedish, the Germans? You would have riots.

You act as if this was a single payer system they were putting forward. It wasn't good no matter where you stood. It was far sort of single payer, but with all the bureaucracy and garbage of one. It wasn't going to help people...it was going DISCOURAGE people from buying insurance.

Quote:


Seriously? Fuck America. There. I said it.

Half of you can't sort this out. The other half are making jokes about it. You people don't deserve the achievements the rest of the prosperous world has.

Yeah. That French system is working out well, as their awesome economy. I suppose that should be the model we follow.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #103 of 186
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

TOTALLY fine thing to do when you dont like the source, of course.

You know MJ, I don't want to believe you are just trolling but you have such odd disconnects in your reasoning. It is clear you are trying, but it is just odd how off the conclusions happen to be.

I never ad-homed Wikipedia. I didn't say you couldn't trust it because it was Republican, because it is run by white men, because it is owned by Soros, or anything like that. I clearly gave a problem it has in its process and how that effects the information it presents.

Quote:
Teabagging is not an exclusively homosexual term, never has been.

This is a strawman argument. No one on these forums, and I myself have never argued it is an exclusive term. Please find a quote where anyone said it was exclusive. As I said before, it doesn't really matter to what degree the term is offensive and to whom, but rather the fact that news personalities are using it is the problem.

I can argue that douchebag isn't offensive to certain people or that douches aren't used exclusively by women. Those are all nice side points, aka strawmen. The main point is that if Anderson Cooper is calling a bunch of people douchebags on CNN, it is not news or analysis but straight up hateful attacks.


Quote:
Now find me a decent source that says that teabagging is an exclusively homosexual practice. It isnt. Youre wrong. Just for once, FOR ONCE, take it on the chin (as it were) and admit YOURE WRONG.

If you can find my quote where I claimed it was exclusively a homosexual practice, I'll apologize, but since I didn't and it is merely a strawman, you're out of luck.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #104 of 186
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Most Americans, for example, have never experienced health care in a market - most don't even know how inexpensive health care was before government started shaping it in WWII. Or tell folks that the VA, for example, ought to be folded into federal health insurance would also cause a riot - folks don't like dramatic change.

This is absolutely true and worse still if looked at from elective health care becomes even more profound.

My friend's son broke his arm at school on the various equipment. It was a break bad enough to require some pins. He spent a day in the hospital. The total cost for his care was $45,000 billed to her insurance.

Meanwhile that Heidi Montag girl shows up on People magazine with basically her entire body and appearance redone thanks to plastic surgery. She had ten very expensive procedures done covering all aspects of her body. The cost... $39,000 paid privately.

Government distorts every market into which it enters and the costs always outstrip inflation once they arrive.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #105 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes except for those traits have certainly been true of many Democrats in Mass for many years as well. BTW, I like how that NY23 special election was totally a commentary on the national Republican party, especially Palin (who wasn't even involved) and the Tea Party but this election, well it can't possibly mean anything beyond the local matters. I wonder if there are some choice BR quotes I can find on that point.

Pretty sure you won't find those quotes.

Quote:
It isn't a failure on his part. Claiming intentions different than your actions doesn't change the actions. BR you know I've been here a long time and I've told you that your postings now are different than before you took off for a while. You are absolutely more pissed, more strident, and more accusatory now than you ever were before. You had many more libertarian leanings before but now mostly just spew angry and dismissive talking points.

I feel betrayed by the system. You'd think that after eight years of Republican rule, we'd have less debt and be safer. We're way worse off than we were under Clinton and way less safe. And the immature behavior of the vocal Republicans and the candidates they've put forth has made me lose even more respect for them. I also saw what happened in the last decade under deregulation when corporations were given more freedom to bend over the American public and ass fuck us without even the courtesy to give us a reach around. Libertarianism is great, in theory. In a bubble. In a world without greedy assholes who will stomp on anyone's neck to make a buck. We don't live in that world. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Quote:
Why not? The House is reelected every two years. Hell most of his last year will be spent campaigning. Most presidential terms are about spending that capital quickly because you get that big first year "mandate" and honeymoon. Then you have the second year where the bliss has worn off, often culminating in a few midterm seat losses for your party. After that you triangulate a bit to hold on and either manage to get reelected or go build a library. Most presidents are not introducing bold legislation in their third and fourth years.

And I bet I could dig up some choice quotes from you about not wanting to judge Bush so quickly. Except this time, those quotes are really likely to exist.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #106 of 186
And teabagging isn't a homophobic term. It's a term of sexual domination over another, but it isn't homophobic. Want to know what's homophobic?



And not allowing gays to marry each other. That's homophobic.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #107 of 186
Trump;

My parents were young adults in WWII, and raised a family after the war. I asked them about medical insurance and they told me most people did'nt have it - you just paid for hospitalization out of pocket.

My father had crappy jobs for 15 years, but paying for a three day stay in the hospital (to have a baby) was not a financial crisis.

And a broken arm? That used to be ordinary stuff, not 45K jobs.

Fplks often claim that its the cost of technology - sure, that is a factor. BUT everything costs much more, including old technology and basics (X-rays, an overnight stay, etc). And back then doctors could afford the time for home visits.

Two events changed all that: first the tax exemption to employers and employees for third party insurance, then the giant Medicare (and Medicaid) expansion (causing a 40% rise in costs).

So the government is chasing its tail, dumping more money in (via reform) while claiming they are going to reduce costs -

The free lunchers never learn.
post #108 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And teabagging isn't a homophobic term. It's a term of sexual domination over another, but it isn't homophobic. Want to know what's homophobic?



And not allowing gays to marry each other. That's homophobic.

No, its anti-homo. Some folks don't want to see gay men swapping spit in public or prancing down the street in pink dresses. A good way to discourage it is to drive homo's underground...to make it's open practice unacceptable in polite society...hard to do that if they have marriages. Keep them in the closet, makes for a more pleasent societ.

So, an anti-homo law does that. Seems reasonable to me.
post #109 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

No, its anti-homo. Some folks don't want to see gay men swapping spit in public or prancing down the street in pink dresses. A good way to discourage it is to drive homo's underground...to make it's open practice unacceptable in polite society...hard to do that if they have marriages. Keep them in the closet, makes for a more pleasent societ.

So, an anti-homo law does that. Seems reasonable to me.

So much better.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #110 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Looking at last night's result, I'm not the one who jumped he gun.

Them 'cycles' must be moving faster than you thought!

Because someone died and left an open seat in a state that already has public healthcare?

Like I've already said let's see if this really means everything you think it does in the long run. Don't worry I'll remember you said this later.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #111 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

The Repubs won this one because the voters weren't happy, so they vented and put in something worse that they will be very unhappy with and will vote out. Sadly, it's a cycle.

Faux announcers are smiling as they proclaim health care dead. I certainly hope it isn't. Reform might have gotten rough, but there will always be health care in the country. Idiots.


Quote:
The Repubs won this one because the voters weren't happy, so they vented and put in something worse that they will be very unhappy with and will vote out. Sadly, it's a cycle.

Yes more of a knee jerk reaction.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #112 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You made the point, but it's not a good one. Outcomes are tricky things. One can assign almost any outcome to almost any policy if he chooses. We also have to look at current policies and historical precedent. We have to look at current policy from a common sense standpoint as well. We also need to check those policies against our personal philosophies.

In other words, we can't judge his Presidency in total, because it hasn't happened yet. However, we can judge it thus far. Thus far, it's been a disaster. No one believes that the "stimulus" stimulated anything except massive debt. No one believes we can survive deficits like this for an extended period. We've had broken promises (unemployment, healthcare talks on C-SPAN, no new taxes on the middle class), a foreign apology tour, two terror attacks, weakening of our intelligence services, bowing to foreign leaders, waffling of Afghanistan and massive government expansion. Are we to ignore all of this because he MIGHT turn things around?



Based on what's happening now, there is no reason to think he'll be reelected. But as always, you ignore the present.

Quote:
No one believes that the "stimulus" stimulated anything except massive debt

You do remember Bush was part of this situation as well?


SDW in case you can't count that's one state. Sure it gives them another seat but I agree with BR in the end they'll be unhappy with him. Tell me do you think this new guy will have the same influence Kennedy did?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #113 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Don't worry I'll remember you said this later.

Oooooooooh! Scary!
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #114 of 186
Shenanigans by Democrats? Quite possible....

But don't forget that it takes two (or more) sides to make a battle;

This article is about our right to know, not about Martha Coakley or Scott Brown. And lest you think something here favors a Democrat, just you wait, I'm still working on anomalies in the NY-23 election that are just plain hard to 'splain. As Richard Hayes Phillips says when people tell him to forget it, "I'm a historian, I've got all the time in the world." NY-23 still has history to be written. My public records are starting to arrive. But that's another story.

Back to Massachusetts, I think you have a right to know that Coakley won the hand counts there.

That's right.

According to preliminary media results by municipality, Democrat Martha Coakley won Massachusetts overall in its hand counted locations,* with 51.12% of the vote (32,247 hand counted votes) to Brown's 30,136, which garnered him 47.77% of hand counted votes. Margin: 3.35% lead for Coakley.

Massachusetts has 71 hand count locations, 91 ES&S locations, and 187 Diebold locations, with two I call the mystery municipalities (Northbridge and Milton) apparently using optical scanners, not sure what kind.

ES&S RESULTS

The greatest margin between the candidates was with ES&S machines -- 53.64% for Brown, 45.31% for Coakley, a margin for Brown of 8.33%. It looks like ES&S counted a total of 620,388 votes, with 332,812 going to Brown and 281,118 going to Coakley. Taken overall, the difference -- 8.33% Brown (ES&S) added to 3.35% Coakley (Hand Count) shows an 11.68% difference between the ES&S and the Hand Counts. Of course, as Mark Twain used to say, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics. These statistics don't prove anything, and probably shouldn't be discussed without a grain of salt handy before examining more detailed demographics.

As a point of reference, however, in the Maine gay marriage issue recently there was no significant overall difference between machine count and hand count locations.

DIEBOLD RESULTS

Diebold's results are 51.42% for Brown, with 791,272 Republican votes counted by Diebold, vs. 47.61% for Coakley, with 732,633 Democratic votes counted by Diebold, for a spread of 3.81% favoring Brown.

LATE-REPORTED RESULTS

It's always interesting to watch hand counts beat machine count results to the newspaper.

In the Massachusetts special senate election, results from six of 71 hand count locations were reported about 2 1/2 hours after the polls closed, with the remaining 65 hand count locations in right away. The slower hand count results represent 8.45% of all hand count locations.

These latecoming hand-counted results favored Coakley very heavily (she got 55.68% of these, earning 4,610 votes to Brown's 42.9%, representing 3,552, a 12.78% margin) Whether the reports came to the media late or the media posted them late is unclear.

ES&S SLOWPOKE VOTES

ES&S had 12 of its 91 locations reported at least 2 1/2 hours after polls closed, a total of 13.2% of all its locations (as compared with just 8.45% of slower reporting hand count locations). So ES&S certainly wasn't faster than hand counts, overall!

These slow-arriving votes represented 88,288 of ES&S's 620,388 votes. Overall Brown got 46,257, for 52.39% of the late-arriving ES&S votes, and Coakley got 41,238, for 46.71%, yielding a margin of 5.68% of the late-arriving votes going to Brown, for a net gain of 5,019 votes to Brown.

North Attleboro and Paxton appear to be the last locations in the state to be reported, and they are both ES&S. North Attleboro brought in 10,881
very late votes, 71.48% of them going to Brown; Paxton brought in 2,036 votes, 65.37% going to Brown.

THE SLOW BOAT FROM DIEBOLD

Yes, I know they're supposed to be called Premier machines now, and ES&S bought the company so it's now all one big monopoly family, and then the whole kit and kaboodle in New England -- Premier and ES&S -- is programmed by the juicy little LHS Associates guys. But I like to just call them Diebold, that familiar name which we all know and love.

Twenty-four of Diebold's 187 locations wandered in late, smoking cigarettes and wearing a bathrobe. That's 12.83% of all its locations. Apparently it was faster to hand count 8,497 ballots, as they did promptly in Newburyport, or 7,339 ballots, as they hand counted in public for all to see in Milton, than to push a button and wait five minutes for the machine to spit out a Diebold results report in Pelham where they had 725 votes. East Brookfield's 899 Diebold votes must have run out of gas somewhere; they weren't reported for hours.

All in all, a total of 170,594 Diebold votes took a long time to stumble in the door, These votes -- surprise! -- favored Coakley. She got 86,214 of them, for 50.54%, and Brown got 82,911 tardy Diebold votes, for 48.60%, putting Coakley on the plus side of the late arrivers by a 1.94% margin, for a net gain of 3,303 slow-moving votes.

They'd called the election by the time the 170,594 tardy Diebold votes showed up. Coakley had conceded. And of course, there are many ways to look at this if you don't trust voting machines, and why should you? It's hard to know who was fooling around, or if anybody was.

You see, the Diebold latecomers represented the strongest showing for Coakley of all and in some heavily populated areas. 32 of 33 Cambridge polling place results couldn't find their way to the media for a long time. Cambridge finally came in with 27,268 votes for Coakley -- 84.11%. Brown was only able to locate 4,921 votes from Cambridge when all was said and done.

And the media couldn't seem to rustle up any Amherst votes for any of its 10 polling places until races were called and candidates had conceded. Amherst generated 84% of its votes for Coakley with only 15% going to Brown.

So this is all very interesting, and hopefully is accurate because I'm spreadsheeting after midnight. And we're talking statistics based on premature and unofficial results which came from the media and not the government, and the Massachusetts Secretary of State doesn't officially tell us which place is using which system, so we're relying on volunteers from the VerifiedVoting Web site who hunted it down.**

** A public service announcement from Disclaimers-R-Us, a subsidiary of the US Elections Industry.

GET OVER IT, SCOTT BROWN WON

Actually, I think any intellectually honest person will see that Brown garnered financing and executed brilliantly, and that's just politics.

He probably DID win. In 71 Massachusetts locations we could watch the counting (woops, he lost those, overall). But in 277 locations, the counting was on computerized voting machines and concealed from the public.

So we can never really know who won, and that is unfair to both Scott Brown and Martha Coakley. But it's most unfair to the citizens of Massachusetts, who have an inalienable right to choose their own governance. You can't hold sovereignty over the choosing process if you can't see it.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #115 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yeah. That French system is working out well, as their awesome economy. I suppose that should be the model we follow.

It is. The French healthcare system is the best in the world. French people love their system.

French healthcare is better than yours. It is cheaper, and it covers everyone, and it provides a better service, with better facilities, than yours, and something like %65 of the French people are happy with it.

The sooner you follow the French model, the better it will be for you.
post #116 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

This is a strawman argument. No one on these forums, and I myself have never argued it is an exclusive term. Please find a quote where anyone said it was exclusive. As I said before, it doesn't really matter to what degree the term is offensive and to whom, but rather the fact that news personalities are using it is the problem.



Oh Jesus. I will try and explain this as simply and clearly as I can. You wrote:

Quote:
The irony of someone calling someone else a homophobe while using the term "teabagger" is just too sad to be funny.

OK. Now, please enjoy finishing this sentence:

"Keith Olberman was homophobic when he used the term "teabagger", which is not a homosexual term, to describe Scott Brown because..."

Or you could just admit YOU MADE A MISTAKE. For ONCE.
post #117 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Shenanigans by Democrats? Quite possible....

But don't forget that it takes two (or more) sides to make a battle;

This article is about our right to know, not about Martha Coakley or Scott Brown. And lest you think something here favors a Democrat, just you wait, I'm still working on anomalies in the NY-23 election that are just plain hard to 'splain. As Richard Hayes Phillips says when people tell him to forget it, "I'm a historian, I've got all the time in the world." NY-23 still has history to be written. My public records are starting to arrive. But that's another story.

Back to Massachusetts, I think you have a right to know that Coakley won the hand counts there.

That's right.

According to preliminary media results by municipality, Democrat Martha Coakley won Massachusetts overall in its hand counted locations,* with 51.12% of the vote (32,247 hand counted votes) to Brown's 30,136, which garnered him 47.77% of hand counted votes. Margin: 3.35% lead for Coakley.

Massachusetts has 71 hand count locations, 91 ES&S locations, and 187 Diebold locations, with two I call the mystery municipalities (Northbridge and Milton) apparently using optical scanners, not sure what kind.

ES&S RESULTS

The greatest margin between the candidates was with ES&S machines -- 53.64% for Brown, 45.31% for Coakley, a margin for Brown of 8.33%. It looks like ES&S counted a total of 620,388 votes, with 332,812 going to Brown and 281,118 going to Coakley. Taken overall, the difference -- 8.33% Brown (ES&S) added to 3.35% Coakley (Hand Count) shows an 11.68% difference between the ES&S and the Hand Counts. Of course, as Mark Twain used to say, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics. These statistics don't prove anything, and probably shouldn't be discussed without a grain of salt handy before examining more detailed demographics.

As a point of reference, however, in the Maine gay marriage issue recently there was no significant overall difference between machine count and hand count locations.

DIEBOLD RESULTS

Diebold's results are 51.42% for Brown, with 791,272 Republican votes counted by Diebold, vs. 47.61% for Coakley, with 732,633 Democratic votes counted by Diebold, for a spread of 3.81% favoring Brown.

LATE-REPORTED RESULTS

It's always interesting to watch hand counts beat machine count results to the newspaper.

In the Massachusetts special senate election, results from six of 71 hand count locations were reported about 2 1/2 hours after the polls closed, with the remaining 65 hand count locations in right away. The slower hand count results represent 8.45% of all hand count locations.

These latecoming hand-counted results favored Coakley very heavily (she got 55.68% of these, earning 4,610 votes to Brown's 42.9%, representing 3,552, a 12.78% margin) Whether the reports came to the media late or the media posted them late is unclear.

ES&S SLOWPOKE VOTES

ES&S had 12 of its 91 locations reported at least 2 1/2 hours after polls closed, a total of 13.2% of all its locations (as compared with just 8.45% of slower reporting hand count locations). So ES&S certainly wasn't faster than hand counts, overall!

These slow-arriving votes represented 88,288 of ES&S's 620,388 votes. Overall Brown got 46,257, for 52.39% of the late-arriving ES&S votes, and Coakley got 41,238, for 46.71%, yielding a margin of 5.68% of the late-arriving votes going to Brown, for a net gain of 5,019 votes to Brown.

North Attleboro and Paxton appear to be the last locations in the state to be reported, and they are both ES&S. North Attleboro brought in 10,881
very late votes, 71.48% of them going to Brown; Paxton brought in 2,036 votes, 65.37% going to Brown.

THE SLOW BOAT FROM DIEBOLD

Yes, I know they're supposed to be called Premier machines now, and ES&S bought the company so it's now all one big monopoly family, and then the whole kit and kaboodle in New England -- Premier and ES&S -- is programmed by the juicy little LHS Associates guys. But I like to just call them Diebold, that familiar name which we all know and love.

Twenty-four of Diebold's 187 locations wandered in late, smoking cigarettes and wearing a bathrobe. That's 12.83% of all its locations. Apparently it was faster to hand count 8,497 ballots, as they did promptly in Newburyport, or 7,339 ballots, as they hand counted in public for all to see in Milton, than to push a button and wait five minutes for the machine to spit out a Diebold results report in Pelham where they had 725 votes. East Brookfield's 899 Diebold votes must have run out of gas somewhere; they weren't reported for hours.

All in all, a total of 170,594 Diebold votes took a long time to stumble in the door, These votes -- surprise! -- favored Coakley. She got 86,214 of them, for 50.54%, and Brown got 82,911 tardy Diebold votes, for 48.60%, putting Coakley on the plus side of the late arrivers by a 1.94% margin, for a net gain of 3,303 slow-moving votes.

They'd called the election by the time the 170,594 tardy Diebold votes showed up. Coakley had conceded. And of course, there are many ways to look at this if you don't trust voting machines, and why should you? It's hard to know who was fooling around, or if anybody was.

You see, the Diebold latecomers represented the strongest showing for Coakley of all and in some heavily populated areas. 32 of 33 Cambridge polling place results couldn't find their way to the media for a long time. Cambridge finally came in with 27,268 votes for Coakley -- 84.11%. Brown was only able to locate 4,921 votes from Cambridge when all was said and done.

And the media couldn't seem to rustle up any Amherst votes for any of its 10 polling places until races were called and candidates had conceded. Amherst generated 84% of its votes for Coakley with only 15% going to Brown.

So this is all very interesting, and hopefully is accurate because I'm spreadsheeting after midnight. And we're talking statistics based on premature and unofficial results which came from the media and not the government, and the Massachusetts Secretary of State doesn't officially tell us which place is using which system, so we're relying on volunteers from the VerifiedVoting Web site who hunted it down.**

** A public service announcement from Disclaimers-R-Us, a subsidiary of the US Elections Industry.

GET OVER IT, SCOTT BROWN WON

Actually, I think any intellectually honest person will see that Brown garnered financing and executed brilliantly, and that's just politics.

He probably DID win. In 71 Massachusetts locations we could watch the counting (woops, he lost those, overall). But in 277 locations, the counting was on computerized voting machines and concealed from the public.

So we can never really know who won, and that is unfair to both Scott Brown and Martha Coakley. But it's most unfair to the citizens of Massachusetts, who have an inalienable right to choose their own governance. You can't hold sovereignty over the choosing process if you can't see it.

Can you please provide a link to the source?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #118 of 186
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #119 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Oooooooooh! Scary!

I already know you probably wouldn't stand behing your words so I imagine not.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #120 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Can you please provide a link to the source?

Don't bother. She has it on for Deibold and always has. Also, it doesn't matter when Democrats win by smaller margins than Republicans. Then, the election was fair despite Republican cheating. Just trying to save you some time!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Democratic Dirty Tricks - Massachusetts Edition