DescentBB

Its a bit Ironic that the cause Ted fought for his entire life, may fall short because of his death.

Oh well, gratz to those on the other side.

There's plenty of room for health care reform.

There's plenty of room for health insurance reform.


They are not the same.
The House and Senate bills are not significantly either of those things.

Start over, American politicians. My advice - stop trying to figure it out amongst yourselves (and your many vested interest groups) - you are (almost) all utterly unqualified. Get more health care professionals and practitioners involved in the process. Find ways to incentivize and reward successfully met goals. Stop creating mindless one-size-fits-all mandates.

Oh great. Another sexist, misogynistic, paternalistic, theocratic, pro-life, tea party Republican in office. At least he's got a cute six-pack! (Don't worry, it's not a dirty picture)

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/n ... e-in-cosmo

I don't think either party should have a super majority.

I also don't think people who don't own property should vote.

tunnelcat wrote:Oh great. Another sexist, misogynistic, paternalistic, theocratic, pro-life, tea party Republican in office. At least he's got a cute six-pack! (Don't worry, it's not a dirty picture)

Me thinks you watch to much Lame Stream Media.

tunnelcat wrote:Oh great. Another sexist, misogynistic, paternalistic, theocratic, pro-life, tea party Republican in office. At least he's got a cute six-pack! (Don't worry, it's not a dirty picture)

its seems you've forgotten all that tolerance training they taught you in Lib school,
or maybe its that tolerance only applies to conservatives, liberals can hate anyone they want.

Gooberman wrote:Its a bit Ironic that the cause Ted fought for his entire life, may fall short because of his death....

I think the only cause Ted fought for his entire life was self indulgence and that is common and unremarkable within the brotherhood of U.S. Senators.
A man who's best work was perpetuating a political party's power, womanizing and drinking boatloads of scotch doesn't deserve any kind of tribute unless those who offer it are democrat hacks or own stock in the Chivas Regal company.

So for me I find it to be the concept of karma not irony that frames the event.

Will Robinson wrote: So for me I find it to be the concept of karma not irony that frames the event.

That isn't karma.
In order for it to be "karma" he would have had to have done something bad or evil in a "previous life" for it to effect his life now. The penalty of hi "gluttony" as you say, would be attributed to him in his "next life". Remember that karma is a hindu notion and revolves around the laws of reincarnation.

dissent wrote:There's plenty of room for health care reform.

There's plenty of room for health insurance reform.


They are not the same.
The House and Senate bills are not significantly either of those things.

Start over, American politicians.

That just isn't realistic, the whole reason for the rush was that there is no surer path to victory for the republicans then denying Obama the main thing he campaigned on.

Even if he gave them 99% of what they asked for, they would still campaign against the 1% to ensure its defeat.

Supermajorities never last.

Will Robinson wrote:

Gooberman wrote:Its a bit Ironic that the cause Ted fought for his entire life, may fall short because of his death....

I think the only cause Ted fought for his entire life was self indulgence and that is common and unremarkable within the brotherhood of U.S. Senators.
A man who's best work was perpetuating a political party's power, womanizing and drinking boatloads of scotch doesn't deserve any kind of tribute unless those who offer it are democrat hacks or own stock in the Chivas Regal company.

So for me I find it to be the concept of karma not irony that frames the event.

People are not that simplistic, yeah he had alot of skeletons in his closet, or more accurately in his living room ----

I'm not sure many of us would be as stable if we bore witness to our three older siblings being killed.

But I don't doubt his sincerity in trying to improve the quality of life for the poorer in this country.

He, like Scott Brown, was another politician, and it's all the same horseshit. There are no good men on the hill.

Duper wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: So for me I find it to be the concept of karma not irony that frames the event.

That isn't karma.
In order for it to be "karma" he would have had to have done something bad or evil in a "previous life" for it to effect his life now. The penalty of hi "gluttony" as you say, would be attributed to him in his "next life". Remember that karma is a hindu notion and revolves around the laws of reincarnation.

I meant karma as an analogy for what the democrats were served. Their supposed healthcare leader, Teddy, has his seat filled with a republican (the enemy) and that seat was the 60th vote without which they can't avoid republican interference possibly stopping Teddy's alleged dream from coming true....

I understood what you meant. What I was explaining is that the term \"karma\" is chronically misused in western culture.

It doesn't mean: \"you get what you deserve\".

Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine. kinda like \"irregardless\".

tunnelcat wrote:Oh great. Another sexist, misogynistic, paternalistic, theocratic, pro-life, tea party Republican in office.

Here we have a candidate who's expressed fairly moderate views on abortion, who has explicitly stated a belief in evolution, whose views on gay marriage are not significantly different from Obama's, whose primary selling point was "lower taxes, lower government spending, and fix health care but not Obama's way", and whose only connection to the "tea party" seems to be that they funded a bunch of his ads when they realized he could beat Coakley. As far as I can tell, this guy is about the most moderate Republican who ever lived (after all, he got elected in Massachusetts!)

Yet the media's partisan shrills (and their parrots) are out in full force acting like he's the illegitimate lovechild of Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh. It's pathetic, really.

Honestly, we should all hope the Republican party will run more candidates like him.

Duper wrote:I understood what you meant. What I was explaining is that the term "karma" is chronically misused in western culture.

It doesn't mean: "you get what you deserve".

Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine. kinda like "irregardless".

Ahh, well I'm guilty of that use and after looking at your point it looks like I was actually appreciating the irony that goob mentioned after all.

CUDA wrote:its seems you've forgotten all that tolerance training they taught you in Lib school,
or maybe its that tolerance only applies to conservatives, liberals can hate anyone they want.

Me doth think thou speaketh out of both sides of mouth!

Tea Party Haters

See the problem is…

He leveled an argument against you…

You level an argument against him, by proxy.

Well, you see, I'm tired of 'liberals' being called \"haters\" when conservatives have made a spectacle and art out of it at all those 'Tea Parties'.

From a friend in Boston:

Proof positive that even voters in deep-blue Massachusetts are fed up with an overreaching unaccountable government right-wing racist homophobic tea-bagging bigots.

(Works better if the strikeout tags function.)

Lothar wrote:From a friend in Boston:

Proof positive that even voters in deep-blue Massachusetts are fed up with an overreaching unaccountable government right-wing racist homophobic tea-bagging bigots.

(Works better if the strikeout tags function.)

yeah.. I miss the strike out function. and..

..tea-bagging bigots.

Somehow I don't think they're referring to playing Halo.

tunnelcat wrote:Well, you see, I'm tired of 'liberals' being called "haters" when conservatives have made a spectacle and art out of it at all those 'Tea Parties'.

I really don't think you want to get into a contest of demonstrating which side spews more hate when you consider that hollywood is 99% looney moron liberal and their big mouths are almost always in front of a camera....
Seriously, you don't want to do this!
I mean we can dig up hours upon hours of video clips of libs wishing colon cancer on Reagan/Cheney/Bush...and those are just part of the "I hope he dies from cancer" archives
You might be responsible for crashing YouTube servers for weeks if you make this challenge!

I also don't think people who don't own property should vote.

See I disagree with this. This is the one thing I've looked at that should be mandated in a democratic society. Going by the Census Bureaus findings, every single individual in those records should HAVE to vote.

Making more people vote will not improve the quality of the candidates.

flip wrote:

aaronb wrote:I also don't think people who don't own property should vote.

See I disagree with this. This is the one thing I've looked at that should be mandated in a democratic society. Going by the Census Bureaus findings, every single individual in those records should HAVE to vote.

I've got a friend who is even more libertarian than I am. He keeps trying to convince me that we could solve lots of our problems if only people who owned property could vote. (He expands the definition of property to cover more than just land).

I disagree, strongly. BUT, I admit that there is an inherent problem in democracies. Very few humans can resist the urge to vote themselves more money. My friend thinks that people who own property would be less likely to vote for welfare/social programs. And that's true, but I think they are just more likely to vote for welfare for the rich. (Bail out anyone?)

I've proposed a compromise. ANYONE can vote, as long as you are NOT taking any money from a government program. (excluding salaries). This covers welfare for both the rich AND the poor. If you are on the government dole, whether it be food stamps or corporate welfare, then you can't vote until you get back off of it and are independent again.

Of course, this isn't really practical (or entirely fair) either, but I think its a whole heck of a lot closer to addressing the problem than linking voting to property.

Here's my reasoning and just in case there's any confusion I meant vote for their representatives. I also own my house so that's not my motivation either.I believe for the most part people are good. If everyone has to vote, then at the very least, the majority decides how they continue to live.

tunnelcat wrote:Well, you see, I'm tired of 'liberals' being called "haters" when conservatives have made a spectacle and art out of it at all those 'Tea Parties'.

Well, you see, I'm tired of Republicans (like myself) being referred to as sexist, misogynistic, paternalistic, theocratic, 'tea party', ... when I'm not like that at all.

For example:

tunnelcat wrote:Oh great. Another sexist, misogynistic, paternalistic, theocratic, pro-life, tea party Republican in office. ...

Tired of being categorized as something you're not? Perhaps it's because you're doing that to others. You shouldn't get upset about mud thrown your way if you're also throwing mud.

TechPro wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Well, you see, I'm tired of 'liberals' being called "haters" when conservatives have made a spectacle and art out of it at all those 'Tea Parties'.

Well, you see, I'm tired of Republicans (like myself) being referred to as sexist, misogynistic, paternalistic, theocratic, 'tea party', ... when I'm not like that at all.

For example:

tunnelcat wrote:Oh great. Another sexist, misogynistic, paternalistic, theocratic, pro-life, tea party Republican in office. ...

Tired of being categorized as something you're not? Perhaps it's because you're doing that to others. You shouldn't get upset about mud thrown your way if you're also throwing mud.

LOL been gone all day first chance to respond

+1 TechPro

Kilarin wrote:I've proposed a compromise. ANYONE can vote, as long as you are NOT taking any money from a government program.

what does it mean to "take money from a government program"? Does taking a tax break count? If not, you can game the system by creating favorable tax structures for yourself. And if tax breaks do disqualify people from voting, then we need to start with a fair tax system so normal people don't need to take tax breaks (which, by the way, I'd vote for!)

TechPro wrote:Tired of being categorized as something you're not? Perhaps it's because you're doing that to others.

OWNED.

flip wrote:Going by the Census Bureaus findings, every single individual in those records should HAVE to vote.

So you have to vote this seems unreasonable to me. I know a lot of people compromise their values to vote. You know lesser of two evils. How about the people who refuse to do that? People remove themselves from this situation by not voting and letting the world destroy itself. Look at the mess we voters have created.

Insurrectionist wrote:

flip wrote:Going by the Census Bureaus findings, every single individual in those records should HAVE to vote.

So you have to vote this seems unreasonable to me.

"I don't care" is a perfectly valid vote.

Lothar wrote:what does it mean to "take money from a government program"? Does taking a tax break count?

It would have to.

Lothar wrote:And if tax breaks do disqualify people from voting, then we need to start with a fair tax system so normal people don't need to take tax breaks (which, by the way, I'd vote for!)

Indeed! And this would be a good move even without going through any questionable attempts to limit who can vote!

If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it ought to be enough for Uncle Sam

Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1 in Massachusetts, so I think that liberal indifference, apathy or rage is what gave Brown the Senate win. Liberals are really disappointed with Obama and now think of him as just another wishy-washy, no-balls, indecisive, Republican butt-kisser Corporatist who can't seem to follow all those \"change\" promises he made during the campaign.

I don't care seems to be right too unfortunately. I'm just of the opinion that voting in a democratic society is or should have been a duty and not a right. Of course it's too late for that now.

actually, TC. Those that voted for Brown were quite fed up with the status quo and Mass has plenty of that. This reason isn't hard to find.

They didn't get the \"Change\" they were promised last year.

You know the funniest thing to me Duper, is that at the time they actually believed that crap.

tunnelcat wrote:Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1 in Massachusetts, so I think that liberal indifference, apathy or rage is what gave Brown the Senate win. Liberals are really disappointed with Obama and now think of him as just another wishy-washy, no-balls, indecisive, Republican butt-kisser Corporatist who can't seem to follow all those "change" promises he made during the campaign.

Independents outnumber both parties. Obama hope and change LMAO.

flip wrote: Going by the Census Bureaus findings, every single individual in those records should HAVE to vote.

I disagree, in fact I think it should be illegal to persuade someone to go vote.

Voting intelligently takes time, knowing the initiatives, knowing the candidates, etc.

I don't mind someone on the otherside who has given it some thought canceling my vote, I do mind someone canceling my vote just because they feel its their "patriotic duty" to do so, or because PDiddy told them that they should.

People should feel like they HAVE to know the issues and vote.....but if they don't, then I don't want them near the polls.

I can see that somewhat. In my reasoning, considering the state things are in at the moment, it's the lesser of 2 evils. It increases the odds of the majority rule standing more than any other scenario I can think of. As it is now, we have special interest voting in special interest.

Since were speaking ideally here, The best scenario I can think of is that every single big issue gets voted on by everybody. If you want to live in a free society it has it's benefits and drawbacks. The majority decides on all major issues. That would be a true representation of the moral state of things. In an imperfect world there has to be compromise when it comes to government not individuals. The only reason we have government is because man cannot stop himself from taking advantage of others.. There has to be some compulsion to participate or only a few decide for all.

flip wrote:The best scenario I can think of is that every single big issue gets voted on by everybody.

I find direct democracy tempting. BUT, Unfortunately, direct democracy has disadvantages as well. It certainly wont work without shrinking our government to a fraction of its current size. (which would be a GOOD thing). But even then, it requires a well educated, informed, and involved citizenship. Which we simply do not have.

One interesting idea along those lines. A sort of indirect direct democracy:

At my church, when you fill out the offering envelope, there are a long list of different projects the church is working on. Missions, local outreach, church expense, etc. When you give your money, you can indicate how much goes to any particular project, and the church is legally obligated to route the money where you requested.

So, imagine a government where all government programs were funded VOLUNTARILY! At the first of every year, the gov sends out a "Government Funding" form to every citizen. It would list things like: Standing Military, Iraq War, Afghan War, Local Road Maintenance. Interstate Highway Maintenance. Etc.

You, as a citizen, would go down the list and write in how much money you wanted to send to each government project.

Think of it, a war would get funded just as long as enough people were willing to put there dollars behind it. If the funding dries up, the government runs out of money and has to bow to the will of the populace. Local roads full of potholes? Tell the people that the roads will be fixed as soon as they quit whining and send some dollars to road repair. Want to fund a new national healthcare system? Put it on the list, and if people really WANT to put their money into, it will be funded. If they don't, it won't.

This is, of course, not really a PRACTICAL system, I doubt if it would work in reality. BUT, it's a very interesting thought experiment.