The W
Views: 99943599
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
@382 .beats
The W - Current Events & Politics - Scott Brown projected WINNER in Senate race! (Page 2)
This thread has 9 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.87
Pages: Prev 1 2
(180 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (36 total)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 72 days
Last activity: 72 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.20
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan


      I think I've have had something of a philosophical epiphany in the past two weeks. Sometime if I'm feeling motivated I'd like to write something detailing it, but the very short version is I no longer have any faith in the federal government to be effective with a constituency of 350 million people, and thus I think more power has to rest with the state governments. Democracy just can't work with a pool of that many people. It makes awful presidencies and meaningless power shifts like what we've seen for the past 20 years inevitable. No, it's worse than inevitable ... it's inevitable but also actively encourages people to believe it's NOT inevitable. Unfortunately, coming to this realization doesn't really create any more options as a voter than I had before.


    I'm not sure I'm convinced. Where do we see the states doing anything better?


I just think that, in general, the smaller the pool of people involved in a particular discussion, the greater the chances are for meaningful or insightful discussion. At a university, a class of 10 to 15 students is way more helpful - to me, at least - than a class of 150 students. When you get a class that large, it not only turns into a competition to make yourself heard, it also seems to discourage the most intelligent or thoughtful students from participating.

The same can be applied to a democratic government - it is clear to me that intelligent discussion and analysis of potential policy is not at the forefront of American campaigning, and there is nobody of national prominence calling for a change to this reality. I think that if democracy is to work at all, smaller constituencies has to be the way to go. It's clear that one huge one isn't working.


    Consider that we got to be about two Senators (or, perhaps, one really good Presidential speech, one effective bit of political dealmaking, or one adjustment to the Senate rules) away from a really meaningful health care reform package. Now, I know that even under the best-case scenario the reform would only do so much...but how many states have done better? A couple, perhaps?


But - and this is a huge, very, very long-term hypothetical, I know - if American voters' emphasis shifted from national elections to state and local ones, who knows if this would still be reality? I'm inclined to believe that it would at least be a bit better, in terms of public discourse AND final results. Maybe not, but it's clear the current system isn't working in any case.
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 451 days
Last activity: 412 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.39
    Originally posted by Zeruel

    just think that, in general, the smaller the pool of people involved in a particular discussion, the greater the chances are for meaningful or insightful discussion.


Yeah, the metaphor I've heard before is the difficulty of ordering a pizza for 6 people.

Or as the demotivator put it, "None of us is as stupid as all of us."
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.29
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
      Originally posted by Zeruel

      just think that, in general, the smaller the pool of people involved in a particular discussion, the greater the chances are for meaningful or insightful discussion.


    Yeah, the metaphor I've heard before is the difficulty of ordering a pizza for 6 people.

    Or as the demotivator put it, "None of us is as stupid as all of us."


When did I ever say that?



-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
TheOldMan
Landjager








Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 114 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.48
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    TheBucsFan, is that you? :-)

    I think you hit the nail right on the head. To try & legislate to a pool of people as large and diverse as the US population, from a single/centralized location, is a fools errand. The needs of those in rural Iowa are not the same as those in Urban Chicago & the Federal government can never hope to properly represent both with the same set of rules and directives.

    The Founding Fathers had this very factor in mind when they set us up as a representative republic.


(Not to pick on you specifically Von, but it leads to the point I'd like to try and make.)

The Fathers had their own problems when setting up the new government, and mostly due to the South fearing domination by the more populous North - the compromise was a bi-cameral legislature - one side based on representation by population, the other based on representation for each of the newly united States. The House and Senate.

    Originally posted by James Fallows of "The Atlantic"
    Counting the new Republican Senator Scott Brown from Massachusetts, the 41 Republicans in the Senate come from states representing just over 36.5 percent of the total US population. The 59 others (Democratic plus 2 Independent) represent just under 63.5 percent. If you count up the totals and split a state's population when it has a split delegation, you end up with about 112.3 million Republican, 194.7 million Democratic + Indep. Before Brown's election, it was about 198 million Democratic + Ind, 109 million Republican.)

    Let's round the figures to 63/37 and apply them to the health care debate. Senators representing 63 percent of the public vote for the bill; those representing 37 percent vote against it. The bill fails.


In my opinion, the representative republic appears to fail due to the failure of the Senate. Nowhere else is 41 > 59.

Also, the entire political process of the last year has been framed through the lens of an idea: that since the Democrats had 60 members of their Senate caucus, they could ram through "New Deal II" at will. This was always a fallacy given the united opposition of the 40 Republicans, when they decided that everything of consequence would now be subject to the filibuster.



(And at another new record pace after the first year of the 111th Congress.)

Not to mention that this supposed "filibuster-proof" majority included Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu - and of course Joe Lieberman, who seemingly changed positions on health care anytime a deal appeared near. But the storyline was 60 votes, and the media basically gave the congressional GOP a pass on their nihilism.

The House works fine. The Senate is hopelessly dysfunctional at this point in time.



bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 798 days
Last activity: 20 hours
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.50
    Originally posted by TheOldMan


    The Fathers had their own problems when setting up the new government, and mostly due to the South fearing domination by the more populous North - the compromise was a bi-cameral legislature - one side based on representation by population, the other based on representation for each of the newly united States. The House and Senate.

    In my opinion, the representative republic appears to fail due to the failure of the Senate. Nowhere else is 41 > 59.


I think I'm missing something here because you seem to be contradicting yourself. I'm not sure that how you can describe it as a failure when a body that is chosen by political geography reaches a different conclusion than a body chosen by population. I think that was the point of the system envisioned by the founders.

Fallows' argument is a really bad one because it is profoundly oversimplified in a way that isn't very accurate. Both of my state senators are Democrats, Levin and Stabenow, but that doesn't mean, as Fallows presumes, that the entire state supports them or wants them to act in a certain way. Indeed, one of the major sticking points between the House and the Senate in their treatment of the HCR is due to Bart Stupak, another Michigander. Fallows' argument is that the Senate should be something it was never intended to be because that's what he wants. To put it differently, why should the wishes of the Senators representing under 45% of the United States by area trump the wishes of those Senators who represent the remaining 55+% of the country.

    Originally posted by TheOldMan
    Also, the entire political process of the last year has been framed through the lens of an idea: that since the Democrats had 60 members of their Senate caucus, they could ram through "New Deal II" at will. This was always a fallacy given the united opposition of the 40 Republicans, when they decided that everything of consequence would now be subject to the filibuster.

    Not to mention that this supposed "filibuster-proof" majority included Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu - and of course Joe Lieberman, who seemingly changed positions on health care anytime a deal appeared near. But the storyline was 60 votes, and the media basically gave the congressional GOP a pass on their nihilism.


Again, I'm missing something. In particular, I'm not seeing the fallacy. It's possible to argue that expectations were too high or that there were too many assumptions made, but it remains true that the GOP had no power unless the Democrats allowed them to have some. In other words, the complaint here is that the Democrats weren't able to govern effectively because they, as a group couldn't agree on what they were supposed to be doing and so want to transfer the blame to the Republicans.

As for nihilism, it's a great word that is completely and utterly inapplicable here despite its prominence in the discourse of some of our more hyperbolic political commentators. Seriously, do you really think that the GOP is a group in favor of destroying America? Because their views may differ from yours, and mine, does not make them evil or nihilistic.

    Originally posted by TheOldMan
    The House works fine. The Senate is hopelessly dysfunctional at this point in time.


I think it all depends on your perspective and on your definition of works, but YMMV.

Tim



Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus

All others things being equal, the simplest solution is usually stupidity. -- Darwin Minor
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 451 days
Last activity: 412 days
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.39
    Originally posted by Zeruel
      Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
        Originally posted by Zeruel

        just think that, in general, the smaller the pool of people involved in a particular discussion, the greater the chances are for meaningful or insightful discussion.


      Yeah, the metaphor I've heard before is the difficulty of ordering a pizza for 6 people.

      Or as the demotivator put it, "None of us is as stupid as all of us."


    When did I ever say that?

You didn't say it. I was just agreeing with you and mentioning how I had heard it described.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 72 days
Last activity: 72 days
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.20
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
      Originally posted by Zeruel
        Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
          Originally posted by Zeruel

          just think that, in general, the smaller the pool of people involved in a particular discussion, the greater the chances are for meaningful or insightful discussion.


        Yeah, the metaphor I've heard before is the difficulty of ordering a pizza for 6 people.

        Or as the demotivator put it, "None of us is as stupid as all of us."


      When did I ever say that?

    You didn't say it. I was just agreeing with you and mentioning how I had heard it described.


You quoted something I said and put Zeruel's name on it. That is the cause of the confusion.
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me








Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 42 days
Last activity: 42 days
AIM:  
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.17
TheBucsFan: all of it...

HAW! Here's a cool quote

"If a man is not a socialist in his youth, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 30 he has no head"

Which is total horseshit, of course. But, it's the thought that counts!

Scott Brown'za Weiner! Woof Woof. That state needed a good looking chap to get back the Kennedy charm and boy howdy. To hell with that Old Maid Mahtha and so what if he claims to be Conservative

Not only is Brown a Hunk!, but he pimps his daughters on National TV. My type of guy

Early Bandwagon!

FLEA

(edited by RYDER FAKIN on 22.1.10 1901)


Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high

"Learn to love yourself... for it is the greatest love of all" - Jeremy Borash 11:24 AM May 13th,2009
Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 134 days
Last activity: 28 days
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.34
    Originally posted by TheOldMan
    In my opinion, the representative republic appears to fail due to the failure of the Senate. Nowhere else is 41 > 59.


Just out of curiosity, so that I can get a better handle on the point that you are making: Were you of this same mind regarding the power of the Senate a little over a decade ago, when the House of Representatives impeached President Clinton? I ask because I'd like to know (rather than presume) if you are fully committed to the ideal that a simple majority of the people's direct representatives should always be sufficient, or if you believe (as I do) that there are indeed issues grave enough that they should, before action is taken, require more support than just 50% plus one vote.

Shifting gears just a bit (in order to give my own personal opinion regarding the current composition of Congress) I think it's quite telling in retrospect how much of his desired legislation the previous President was able to get passed by Congress; especially when compared to the current President, who, despite having an even larger majority in the Senate than his predecessor, seems unable to get Congress to pass so much as a bran muffin. Perhaps, just perhaps, Obama's predecessor wasn't all that much of an idiot after all. I mean, at least when it came to getting what he wanted passed by the House and Senate.


EDIT: cleaned up some grammatical errors.

(edited by Downtown Bookie on 22.1.10 1903)

http://www.americasupportsyou.mil


"Share your food with the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless. Give clothes to those who need them, and do not hide from relatives who need your help." - Isaiah 58:7 (New Living Translation)
TheOldMan
Landjager








Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 114 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.48
    Originally posted by Downtown Bookie
    Just out of curiosity, so that I can get a better handle on the point that you are making: Were you of this same mind regarding the power of the Senate a little over a decade ago, when the House of Representatives impeached President Clinton? I ask because I'd like to know (rather than presume) if you are fully committed to the ideal that a simple majority of the people's direct representatives should always be sufficient, or if you believe (as I do) that there are indeed issues grave enough that they should, before action is taken, require more support than just 50% plus one vote.


Okay.. looking beyond the apples/oranges matter of impeachment vs legislation.. in a word, no. I don't want to do away with the filibuster. But the way the Republicans are wielding it is.. disingenuous.

(Unless you think that McConnell, Graham, McCain et al seriously believe what Beck, Limbaugh and the others with no actual responsibility are saying - that the country is in imminent danger of getting ground under Obama's communist heel.)

It's not that they want to filibuster a health care bill. It's the 95 or so filibusters this year on other legislation, administration nominees, procedural motions, etc. before the health bill came up for a vote that is the problem - that's my point.

Maybe Inhofe and DeMint believe that America is actually under attack from within, but there are still a couple of moderate Republican senators that are being obstructionist purely as part of the leadership's partisan political strategy - to grind any progress to a halt. It's technically their right to do it, but it's nothing like just a few "issues grave enough" (to warrant a supermajority) as you suggest the Republicans are using the filibuster on.

= = = = = = = = =

(And incidentally, the Republicans had 55 or 54 members in the 106th Congress, where impeachment needed 67 votes to convict. The two articles brought for trial failed by 45-55 and 50-50. So it's not like a united Democratic party 'saved' Clinton in that case. I was in no way a Clinton supporter then. Or during the last campaign for that matter.)



TheOldMan
Landjager








Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 114 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.48
    Originally posted by bash91
    I'm not sure that how you can describe it as a failure when a body that is chosen by political geography reaches a different conclusion than a body chosen by population. I think that was the point of the system envisioned by the founders.

    To put it differently, why should the wishes of the Senators representing under 45% of the United States by area trump the wishes of those Senators who represent the remaining 55+% of the country.


I think we gave up the idea that land ownership = the vote quite awhile ago. Even before the wimmens got enfranchised.

See my previous rebuttal - I don't object to the filibuster as used before the current Republican leadership decided that it could be a tool to stop the Senate entirely. To object to, or even hold out against that major, sweeping, once-in-a-year measure is one thing, using the filibuster to redefine the rules into you meaning need 60 of 100 to pass anything of consequence is a new concept. (Remember Upperdown, upperdown? that was a GOP battlecry less than a decade ago.)

    Originally posted by bash91
    In other words, the complaint here is that the Democrats weren't able to govern effectively because they, as a group couldn't agree on what they were supposed to be doing and so want to transfer the blame to the Republicans.

    As for nihilism, it's a great word that is completely and utterly inapplicable here despite its prominence in the discourse of some of our more hyperbolic political commentators. Seriously, do you really think that the GOP is a group in favor of destroying America?


The Republicans theoretically have a responsibility to govern, even in the minority. To take the health care issue as an example - how long do you think it would have taken the administration to grab a deal much like the Senate bill, only with serious malpractice/tort reform and some other concessions - if it could get 3 GOP senators any maybe 15 in the House? (Remember, this is the bill financed by taxing Union 'Cadillac' health plans, not the one taxing millionaires)

Health care premiums roughly doubled in the last decade. Forget any other factors, it's single-handedly driving down the standard of living in this country. Medicare is due to go bankrupt in something like 2022, but the GOP is out there saying that they will prevent Obama from cutting your benefits (these are cost savings). And also... Death panels!

The GOP passed a Medicare drug benefit in 2003 that will cost about half a trillion over 10 years, without any funding mechanism or budget cuts to pay for it. All current GOP senators, including the 24 who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion, oppose a health care bill that the CBO says will pay for itself.

Sitting back with their thumbs up their butt while the other party works on a problem that everyone knows is a ticking time bomb is nihilistic. All I can figure is that if things don't improve by 2012, the Republicans figure they can get back into power, since they're the only alternative. That's their whole plan. It may well work, but don't blame me for pointing it out.



Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 134 days
Last activity: 28 days
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.34
    Originally posted by TheOldMan
    Okay.. looking beyond the apples/oranges matter of impeachment vs legislation.. in a word, no. I don't want to do away with the filibuster. But the way the Republicans are wielding it is... disingenuous.
Thanks for the reply. As I stated earlier, I wanted to be sure I understood exactly where you stood on the subject. I agree that I did not provide you with the best of examples, merely with the first one that popped into my head. Again, I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your position.



http://www.americasupportsyou.mil


"Share your food with the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless. Give clothes to those who need them, and do not hide from relatives who need your help." - Isaiah 58:7 (New Living Translation)
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 798 days
Last activity: 20 hours
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.50
    Originally posted by TheOldMan
      Originally posted by bash91
      I'm not sure that how you can describe it as a failure when a body that is chosen by political geography reaches a different conclusion than a body chosen by population. I think that was the point of the system envisioned by the founders.

      To put it differently, why should the wishes of the Senators representing under 45% of the United States by area trump the wishes of those Senators who represent the remaining 55+% of the country.


    I think we gave up the idea that land ownership = the vote quite awhile ago. Even before the wimmens got enfranchised.


Gosh, I must have missed when we became The United of America and got rid of those pesky state thingies. Maybe if I figured out these here intertubes I might have known better.

Isn't silly snark fun? Especially when it lets you entirely avoid the issue. If you want to complain about the representative nature of the Senate, then maybe you should think about exactly what it is that the Senate is representing instead of snarking.

    Originally posted by TheOldMan
    See my previous rebuttal - I don't object to the filibuster as used before the current Republican leadership decided that it could be a tool to stop the Senate entirely. To object to, or even hold out against that major, sweeping, once-in-a-year measure is one thing, using the filibuster to redefine the rules into you meaning need 60 of 100 to pass anything of consequence is a new concept. (Remember Upperdown, upperdown? that was a GOP battlecry less than a decade ago.)


I object to the filibuster in general and was in favor of the nuclear option when the GOP had control of the Senate so no argument here.


    Originally posted by TheOldMan
      Originally posted by bash91
      In other words, the complaint here is that the Democrats weren't able to govern effectively because they, as a group couldn't agree on what they were supposed to be doing and so want to transfer the blame to the Republicans.

      As for nihilism, it's a great word that is completely and utterly inapplicable here despite its prominence in the discourse of some of our more hyperbolic political commentators. Seriously, do you really think that the GOP is a group in favor of destroying America?


    The Republicans theoretically have a responsibility to govern, even in the minority. To take the health care issue as an example - how long do you think it would have taken the administration to grab a deal much like the Senate bill, only with serious malpractice/tort reform and some other concessions - if it could get 3 GOP senators any maybe 15 in the House? (Remember, this is the bill financed by taxing Union 'Cadillac' health plans, not the one taxing millionaires)


On the other hand, here we disagree. The Republicans had no power unless the Democrats allowed them to have power. That was why we heard Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and others all say some variant of "We won." The GOP could do nothing without help while the Democrats didn't need any help to do what they wanted. That doesn't relieve the GOP of their responsibility to govern, but it does make it a whole lot more difficult.

As for your hypothetical, I have no doubt that the Administration could have peeled at least Snowe and Collins if they'd made the offer. But, and it is a really big but, they never bothered to make an overture to anyone outside their caucus until it was already painfully apparent that HCR was in deep trouble and the only reason an offer was being made was for political cover. If they'd opened with something resembling what you proposed, we'd already have HCR and Senator Coakley. Let's face it, HCR is dead because the Democrats in the Senate and the House didn't want to govern, they wanted to rule.

    Originally posted by TheOldMan
    Health care premiums roughly doubled in the last decade. Forget any other factors, it's single-handedly driving down the standard of living in this country. Medicare is due to go bankrupt in something like 2022, but the GOP is out there saying that they will prevent Obama from cutting your benefits (these are cost savings). And also... Death panels!

    The GOP passed a Medicare drug benefit in 2003 that will cost about half a trillion over 10 years, without any funding mechanism or budget cuts to pay for it. All current GOP senators, including the 24 who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion, oppose a health care bill that the CBO says will pay for itself.


I totally agree with everything you said, especially with blaming the GOP for spending like drunken sailors with no way to pay for the damage they are causing, except for that last clause. It's patently disingenuous to say that the CBO says this bill will pay for itself when the CBO also says that the only way this will happen is if certain reimbursement cuts contained in the bill actually happen and there just happens to be another bill on the floor of the Senate sponsored by the same people who are writing HCR that totally eliminates those reimbursement cuts. We won't even get into the whole 10 years of taxes to pay for 7 years of benefits argument.

    Originally posted by TheOldMan
    Sitting back with their thumbs up their butt while the other party works on a problem that everyone knows is a ticking time bomb is nihilistic. All I can figure is that if things don't improve by 2012, the Republicans figure they can get back into power, since they're the only alternative. That's their whole plan. It may well work, but don't blame me for pointing it out.


If that's what the GOP was doing, I'd probably agree with you. But, it wasn't. How many GOP health care bills and or amendment were proposed? 30+ How many got serious consideration by the Democrats? 0 That's the Democrats blowing Bronx cheers and wanting to rule, not the GOP "sitting back with their thumbs up their butt."

To put it a different way, when you think you're being driven off a cliff, shouldn't you try and stop the driver? Or, because you're smaller than the driver, should you just acquiesce to their wishes and blindly follow along? If you want the Republicans to govern, then I'd think you would like them actually doing that and opposing a horrible abomination of a bill.

I don't think there are very many people arguing that there isn't a problem with health care on the GOP side. Instead, I think there are a lot of people arguing that the "cure" is a whole lot worse than the disease. Disagreeing with the Democrats proposed plan isn't nihilistic, no matter how you try and frame it, it is merely part of politics in action.

Tim



Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus

All others things being equal, the simplest solution is usually stupidity. -- Darwin Minor
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.03
    Originally posted by TheOldMan

    See my previous rebuttal - I don't object to the filibuster as used before the current Republican leadership decided that it could be a tool to stop the Senate entirely. To object to, or even hold out against that major, sweeping, once-in-a-year measure is one thing, using the filibuster to redefine the rules into you meaning need 60 of 100 to pass anything of consequence is a new concept. (Remember Upperdown, upperdown? that was a GOP battlecry less than a decade ago.)


Good call on the hypocrisy, which somehow gets completely ignored.

I'd settle for going back to the days when you had to actually DO a filibuster, not just call it.
TheOldMan
Landjager








Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 114 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.48
    Originally posted by bash91
      Originally posted by TheOldMan
        Originally posted by bash91
        I'm not sure that how you can describe it as a failure when a body that is chosen by political geography reaches a different conclusion than a body chosen by population. I think that was the point of the system envisioned by the founders.

        To put it differently, why should the wishes of the Senators representing under 45% of the United States by area trump the wishes of those Senators who represent the remaining 55+% of the country.


      I think we gave up the idea that land ownership = the vote quite awhile ago. Even before the wimmens got enfranchised.


    Gosh, I must have missed when we became The United of America and got rid of those pesky state thingies. Maybe if I figured out these here intertubes I might have known better.

    Isn't silly snark fun? Especially when it lets you entirely avoid the issue.


Or maybe you could have taken the high ground by resisting the urge to deploy your own snark, and just left it where you agreed with the substantive reply in my very next paragraph? Seems hard to accuse me of "entirely avoiding the issue" when the next words off your keyboard are "no argument here".

    Originally posted by bash91
    (lots of talking around my responses, with cherry-picking of parts where I imagine you have a talking point handy)


I'm not Alan Colmes, and you ain't Sean Hannity. We disagree - everyone reading the thread figured that out on the first exchange. But if people judge arguments based on the number of times they're said.. congratulations.





bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 798 days
Last activity: 20 hours
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.23
    Originally posted by TheOldMan

      Originally posted by bash91
      (lots of talking around my responses, with cherry-picking of parts where I imagine you have a talking point handy)



Hey, nice symmetry. Your dishonesty brought me in and your dishonesty is escorting me out.

Tim



Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus

All others things being equal, the simplest solution is usually stupidity. -- Darwin Minor
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread rated: 4.87
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread ahead: Brock Lesner calls Canadian health care "Third World"
Next thread: Supreme Court sticks up for those poor, neglected corporations
Previous thread: Air America R.I.P.
(180 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Yeah, it's not like he worked for a Democratic congressman or anything...oh, wait a minute.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Scott Brown projected WINNER in Senate race! (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.125 seconds.