Authored by: Christian Avard on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 02:43 AM GMT+4

"The Democrats now have an 18 seat advantage in the Senate, which is
more than GWB ever had when he did what ever the hell he wanted. It's
also a greater majority than Republicans have had since 1923," - Jon
Stewart

"It's time for the Dems to stop trying to placate the myth of centrism
and get on with the change they were elected to make," - Mike Hoefer,
Blue Hampshire contributing editor

Authored by: mr.mike on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 02:46 AM GMT+4

I think what we've seen today just could be the 2nd american revolution. The people haven't been listened to by those that rule over us and this was the only chance the people had to revolt. This was Massachusetts not Texas.

---
The four boxes that ensure liberty.
Soap Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box
Ammo Box

Authored by: SJD on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 03:34 AM GMT+4

The first shots were fired just as the sun was rising over Lexington Green. This, "shot heard 'round the world," began the first American Revolution.

DC and the other 49 States are on notice! Perhaps now the Dems will wake up and start listening to the people and think twice about marginalizing tea-baggers and the like. The people have spoken.

It's always rare see a Republican elected in MA, let alone replace a Kennedy. I do believe in miracles. What a HUGE accomplishment!



---
Don't tell Obama What Comes After a Trillion.

Authored by: NorahCook on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 04:01 AM GMT+4

So those who continue to elevate their own narrow-minded beliefs above
facts, those who worship the rich because of some deluded notion that
they would like to be rich, too, those who think the drowning of New
Orleans was handled in an okay fashion, those who hate women unless
they are firmly under some man's thumb... have destroyed a legacy in
Massachusetts. Well, enjoy your destitute, broken, soulless, gun-toting
country. Isn't it curious that the ones who have solid jobs with health
care benefits are the first to deny it to everyone else.

Authored by: SpudHill on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 07:30 AM GMT+4

Also ironic that MA voters, who have health care, would vote for someone who would deny it to the rest of the country. I think there was fear by some Mass voters that the national health plan would cost them more than what they have so let's hear it for self-centered, self-serving votes.

As for those who voted as a protest because things haven't improved enough, such a lack of understanding of legislative process is really alarming. I'm sure a majority of citizens today would be unable to describe how a bill gets written, passed, or anything about the moving of legislation.

And yes, it would be wise to bring back Dean, somehow I think this might have gone another direction with his stewardship.

Authored by: mr.mike on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 12:38 AM GMT+4

First of all, who better than the people of mass to say STOP to universal healthcare. After all they have among the highest premiums in the counrty now. It's not sustainable just like Catamount. not to mention the increase in appointment wait times. They don't want to see the rest of the country like them. Let each state decide if it wants it's own healthcare, that's what's constitutional.

You are kidding about Howard Dean right? This healthcare thing would've died long ago if he were involved. Which leads to my next point. Maybe the people of Mass. actually thought of him and just looked to their neighboring state to the north. And that's all it took. They decided they didn't want the entire country to turn into some deficient socialist system that can't sustain itself without some sort of continuous handout.

That's when they decided enough is enough.

---
The four boxes that ensure liberty.
Soap Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box
Ammo Box

Authored by: annikee on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 09:00 PM GMT+4

Except that the people of Mass. do accept their healthcare deal, which is the pin in your balloon.

---
Freedom and fear are natural enemies.

If you've a bed, closet & fridge, you're richer than 75% of the people alive.

Authored by: paulgardner on Saturday, January 23 2010 @ 05:29 PM GMT+4

Howard Dean may have flamed out as a candidate, but as party chairman he was a bulldog.
Had he been in charge Coakley would have won, I believe.
I'm not convinced that Obama wants to win. Or maybe I should say his idea of "winning" is a lot more nuanced than mine (in some cases nuance is a good thing, in this situation not so much).

Authored by: AlanF on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 10:45 AM GMT+4

Clearly, this is a referendum against the failed policies and bully tactics of the atrociously arrogant far left Democratic leadership and it's minions of meek followers like Welch and Leahy. Clearly the vote in MA represents the repudiation of these thugs felt by voters from both sides all across this nation. Maybe now they will listen to the PEOPLE.

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 12:31 PM GMT+4

Far left Democratic leadership? Where? Who? All I see are the usual far right Democratic leaders, continuing the heinous Republican policies of war and government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations. If Democrats have failed at anything, it's not delivering the change they promised.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: George Tirebiter on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 01:56 PM GMT+4

what far left leadership?

Huffpost:

"The feeling among voters is that Washington prioritizes Wall Street over Main Street and that, despite Coakley's credentials as a state attorney general who has taken on and beaten Wall Street banks, sending her to Washington would not make a difference."

The article goes to cite a recent poll from the Economic Policy Institute which show that 65% of Americans thought the stimulus served bank interests, 56% thought it served corporations, and only 10% thought it benefited them.

That's why Coakley lost.

---
"Oh, was it a joke, you mean?"
- John Cage

Authored by: pjmelton on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 09:29 AM GMT+4

I think what we've seen today is a swat on the nose to a idiotically arrogant person, who thought she didn't need to campaign. 2nd American revolution? Please.

Although if we could have another one, write a new Constitution, and eliminate the senate, I'd be all for it. They do not actually legislate; they just play games.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: AlanF on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 10:51 AM GMT+4

This was no swat on the nose. You have to be kidding me. What will it take for you progressives to realize the people are rejecting your ideology? I liken this to a title wave of epic significance.

Authored by: pjmelton on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 11:20 AM GMT+4

"I liken this to a title wave of epic significance."

I think you mean "tidal."

You have every right to feel happy about your win, but I think R's and D's are both making entirely too much of this one election. It COULD have major significance...and then again, maybe not. People are getting way ahead of themselves finding a deeper meaning and inventing motives for voters. We can all project whatever we wish onto those voters, because there were no exit polls. This is like an orgy for political pundits, professional and otherwise.

But more generally, the funny thing about people "rejecting" the progressive agenda is that if you ask them whether they are liberals, they will say no way. But then if you ask them specific questions about actual policies they would like to see enacted, they suddenly all become progressives. This is why you saw people telling the government to keep their hands off their Medicare, without even realizing that the government IS Medicare. And it's also why Republicans are working so hard to keep more health care legislation from happening. They know that, once they take effect, "big government" policies are very, very popular. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a family member going on and on about how the government should only run the post office and the military, and then they turn right around a start talking about how great the national parks are and how wonderful we preserved them. That's just one example, but polling statistics actually show that most people are much more progressive than they think they are.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: paulgardner on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 11:48 AM GMT+4

This story fits in with what Paula was just saying. It has been floating around the net for years. If you haven't read it, you should:

Joe Republican

"Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have." "

Authored by: annikee on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 06:11 PM GMT+4

Amen.

---
Freedom and fear are natural enemies.

If you've a bed, closet & fridge, you're richer than 75% of the people alive.

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 12:19 PM GMT+4

The only thing more sad than Democrats who fire the guy who engineered their victory and don't bother to campaign are republicans who think winning one election after losing both houses of Congress and the White House is a "second revolution." Yeah, a one-second revolution, maybe.

Only Democrats could believe that a majority of 59% is an impediment to governing. And only republicans could believe that 41% is a mandate for a return to their disastrous policies.

Did Democrats learn nothing from being under the thumb of republicans for all those years? Just rename the healthcare bill "The American Patriot Freedom Heritage Medical" bill, tell the republican leadership you'll take away the key to the executive washroom if they filibuster, and pass the damn thing!

---
We Rock!

Authored by: pjmelton on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 01:45 PM GMT+4

Your bill does not have an appropriate acronym, Maus. It think they should call it The Extraordinarily American Bill About Gunsandotherstuff Medical Act of 2010.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 01:49 PM GMT+4

Listen up, young GOP whippersnappers.

Kudos to you for knocking off a formerly held liberal dynastic seat,
liberal since Jack Kennedy (yes HE was a liberal too despite the Naked
Guy with the Pickup Truck trying to claim otherwise). Shame on
Martha CHOKE-ly for running a campaign on autopilot. If Jack
Kennedy were running in that situation, he'd have been pressing the
flesh all over the state, talking till his voice gave out, taking nothing
for granted.

But since I'm an old guy and have been around the block a bit, I'd like
to caution you youngsters about getting too cocky, getting your HOPEs
up over this one victory. This was a victory for your side for sure, and
you have one of the most PARTISAN sides the US Congress has ever
seen, even going back to the partisan divide of Clay and Calhoun! We
Democrats don't expect any of you Republicans to work with us.
You're WAY too partisan for that, and we've been burned too many
times trying to offer you an olive branch. So now, it's war. The first
thing the Democrats have to do is pass whatever version of the Health
Care bill they have, NOW. The GOP and some independents will
squawk, but so what? It's not as if they haven't squawked before.
There's a procedural way to get the bill, which is almost completed
work on, passed. From then on however, not much else will get done
until after the November mid-terms. The Democrats have to campaign
HARD, and remind the voters, who overwhelmingly rejected Bush in
2008, that they don't want to return to those days again.

There's historic precedent for the predicament that the Dems and
Obama are in: Reagan's first year. He was down to 49% popularity in
January of 1982, but rose back and got reelected, even passed some
legislation that he wanted with a Congress in Democratic hands. You
say this defeat was worse for the Democrats symbolically? Well, I'm
old enough to remember when Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace,
and the hot shots in D.C. were saying that the Republican party, which
had so carefully built itself back to power in 1968, was finished. But
just six years later, a Republican was elected to the presidency! So
much for the then young hot shot's crowing.

Obama is in a jam, but I really doubt that the country wants to go
back to the Bush years of GOP dominance. What they need is less
confusion, less caving of the Democrats to special interests, the same
special interests who usually side with the GOP: Big Pharma, Big Oil,
Big Insurance and Banking Industries----These corporations, what
liberal/practical reformer Teddy Roosevelt once called 'The Fat Trusts'
don't give a sh-t about "we the people". They only care about their
stockholders and the bottom line. This country is more important than
the pockets of the special trusts, the Democrats know that, and they
also know from this wake up call that they can't simply run on cruise
control and on pandering and negotiating away their bargaining power
to the GOP.

You know, with age comes wisdom. When you fellows get a little
older, maybe you'll find that out too.

Authored by: GSamson on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 03:13 PM GMT+4

Massachusetts has a state-run health insurance program, complete
with an individual mandate, that is significantly more progressive than
the bill under consideration by the Congress. We know that this bill
has been referred to by Republicans as a great evil that will do
everything from consigning the populace to the horrors of socialized
medicine to putting old people to death.

Question:
Can you supply evidence that Scott Brown believes the Massachusetts
system should be repealed? I would assume that, as a man of rock-
ribbed Republican principles, he believes it should be scrapped in favor
of a system that relies on the magic and humanity of the
marketplace. Surely you can present evidence of him castigating
Massachusetts' current system of socialized medicine.

(crickets)

You see folks, with people like Mr. Mike, SJD and AlanF, it's always
about tribalism. Reason and rationality need not apply. And when
you consider that the founding of this country was one of the most
significant products of The Enlightenment, otherwise known as "The
Age of Reason", their professed love for it (as well as their references
to the American Revolution, which reflect a depth of knowledge they
no doubt gained from reading the backs of Fox News Channel Baseball
Cards) would be comical if it weren't so repugnant.

Authored by: SpudHill on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 03:22 PM GMT+4

Scott Brown voted FOR the Mass healthplan and now plans to vote against similar protection for everyone else in the country. It's the old I've got mine, you can eat cake approach.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 03:35 PM GMT+4

>>Scott Brown voted FOR the Mass healthplan and now plans to vote
against similar protection for everyone else in the country. It's the old
I've got mine, you can eat cake approach.<<

Exactly. That's why the Dems need to highlight this and put him on
the spot if he votes or attempts to work to block passage of the
national plan.

I agree with Howard Dean, who said last night that the Democrats
need to forget reaching out to a party that doesn't want to work with
them, and just fight harder by themselves, as they still maintain
majority status and a president from their party. Once the Democrats
do this and fight for principle instead of 'touchy feelie' "bi-
partisanship" (with a party that is merely obstructionist) the rest of
the country will follow. Maybe the former Confederate states who
make up the majority of the GOP base won't go along, but as Lincoln
realized, they could be defeated, liberal reform like freeing of the
slaves could be passed without the Southern bloc.

Authored by: pjmelton on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 05:54 PM GMT+4

State's rights.

That's all the man has to say to justify his position.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: vtjasper68 on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 03:44 PM GMT+4

Two completely differnt bills, even you can see that, can't you?
You can't compare them or the votes for /against!

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 04:31 PM GMT+4

>>Two completely differnt bills, even you can see that, can't you?
You can't compare them or the votes for /against!<<

What you don't seem to understand is, the House can work out a deal
and get Obama to sign it into law and bypass the Senate's ability to
block, as Roll Call reported:
"There is a proposal that the House would then pass a second measure
making changes to the Senate bill. That measure could then pass
through the upper chamber at a later date under special budgetary
rules known as reconciliation, which allow legislation to pass with a
simple majority."

Authored by: SpudHill on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 05:40 PM GMT+4

I read vtjasper's comment as being about the Mass state healthplan as opposed to national healthplan. and my response jasper is no, I don't see the difference excepting that this guy will vote yes when it benefits him/his family/his friends/those in his state but he'll deny the same to anyone else not privileged enough to live in a state that has the foresight to offer healthcare...hence let them eat cake. It's just plain mean-spirited but then we're talking about someone who showed the questionable wisdom to appear sans clothing excepting for some well placed hands, in a magazine that appealed to his vanity just a few years ago and just a few months ago was idiotic enough to insinuate that the president was illegitimate as if that would even matter...he's a mean-spirited man.

Authored by: vtjasper68 on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 06:43 PM GMT+4

Well there are a lot of differences beginning with the MA bill was openly public, no special deals cut to help out one section while penalizing others, all people are being treated equally, no special deals for unions etc, etc etc.
This baloney of dealing behind closed doors when all sorts of promises were made about transparency is just that - baloney.

Authored by: pjmelton on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 07:53 PM GMT+4

Surgery also takes place behind closed doors, and there's a reason for that. The legislative process, because of unanticipated design flaws in our legislative system, is hideous and horrible to watch.

I think instead of focusing on the process, you would feel better if you just read the bill and decided for yourself whether the provisions in it are good. When it passes, insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny coverage to anyone for any reason. They will no longer be allowed to bankrupt people because they're tired of paying for people's cancer drugs. They will no longer be allowed to make you pay co-pays for annual checkups at the doctor's office. They will no longer be allowed to charge women more than they charge men. The working poor will have access to affordable insurance for the first time. Medicare users will have access to affordable prescription drugs.

Yes, the process was gory and sickening to watch. But that fact alone does not make the bill bad. Gory and sickening is how our political system works. Just like surgery.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: GSamson on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 04:39 AM GMT+4

Let me get this straight. Jasper says that the Massachusetts Health
Insurance Program is legitimate, while the proposal to set up a much
more limited program on the Federal is not, because the federal bill
involved closed meetings and deals to satisfy particular constituencies.

I am always astonished at the extent to which folks like Jasper can
regurgitate talking-point cliches that are so provably nonsensical, and
do it so blithely. Is it because they are stupid and intellectually
incurious, or simply shameless?

Let's examine what our brilliant correspondent is tendentiously
asserting here:

1. That non-public hearings are some sort of unusual deviation in
protocol that in itself is an indication of corruption. By that standard,
essentially all legislative initiatives must be tainted, since legislators
on both the state and federal level have always conducted business in
a wide variety of formats, some public, some not. Jasper, are you an
idiot, or a liar?.

2. That deals made to satisfy the interests of particular legislators
and their constituents is somehow a novel feature of the federal
health insurance bill negotiations. For better and/or worse, it's a basic
part of the "sausage-making" involved in legislating; I guess it's only
offensive when your perceived political opponents engage in it.
Jasper, are you a moron, or a liar?


3. That the legislative process that resulted in the Massachusetts
Health Insurance System was conducted completely in public, and that
no deals were made with individual state Senators and
Representatives to get their votes. Jasper, are you simply ignorant,
or a shameless liar?


If I had to choose, I'd prefer to believe option #2 in each case, i.e.
that Jasper is a shameless liar who is willing to throw his country
under the proverbial bus by polluting the debate about an issue that
profoundly affects the lives of his countrymen/countrywomen with
superficial, tribalist argumentation. Because the idea that someone
could actually be stupid enough to believe what he wrote is enough to
make me burst into tears, grab a pillow, find a corner in my living
room and roll up into the fetal position, only occasionally murmuring
phrases like "It can't be", and "It's just not possible", and "Good God,
I share DNA with him, oh, oh, what a world, what a world......"

Authored by: AlanF on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 11:45 PM GMT+4

Authored by: GSamson on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 04:22 AM GMT+4

Folks, here's the sort of thing Alan writes to show that he is
committed to civil discourse:

"Clearly, this is a referendum against the failed policies and bully
tactics of the atrociously arrogant far left Democratic leadership and
it's minions of meek followers like Welch and Leahy. Clearly the vote
in MA represents the repudiation of these thugs felt by voters from
both sides all across this nation."


"Bully". "Arrogant". "Minions of meek followers". "Thugs".


Poor Alan. He fills his empty head with preposterous, fanciful
Republican cliches, blurts them out, then feels hurt when someone
calls him on it. And then responds, not with anything factual or
reality-based, but with ad hominems that are little more than a
collective Freudian projection of his own putrescent inner reality.

Alan, if you have actual thoughtful, reality-based views to offer on
issues of significance, fine. But if you are going to simply pull stuff
out of your butt with the sole purpose of ragging on your perceived
political enemies, then expect that people will push back. People like
you
have damaged this country with thoughtlessness and tribalism for
much too long. The Founders absolutely abhorred the sort of anti-
intellectualism and partisanship your views (too dignified a term;
"brainless rants" is more accurate) embody. No more passes for you
and your ilk, Einstein. Sack up intellectually, or shut up.

Authored by: AlanF on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 10:55 AM GMT+4

Here you are, insinuating vtjaster is possibly
ignorant, a shameless liar, a moron just because you
don't agree with what he says. You need to be called
on the carpet for such impudence. Your personal
attacks are uncalled for and in my humble opinion,
render you completely irrelavant to the discussion.
You can't seem to get beyond attacking the
messenger. Seems to me that is a common trait of
the extreme far left, who, by the way, have been
resoundingly repudiated by the American people.
I realize that his a bitter pill for you to swallow. Get
over it. Pathetic.

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 11:32 AM GMT+4

Alan you were slinging the arrows here
""Bully". "Arrogant". "Minions of meek followers". "Thugs".

You're just proving his point by responding the way you just did.

Authored by: AlanF on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 10:30 PM GMT+4

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 10:51 PM GMT+4

Trust me, this guy is going end up being the best thing that ever happened for the Democrats. This is not a win and remember it's also only a 2 year seat.

This guy is a joke, he's a "birther" who thinks it's funny when jokes about violent rape are made. And this is your big hero because he's not a "girly-man" . . . that's not what the guys around the corral back where I'm from would say about a guy who poses wear only a well-placed hand for Cosmo. . .

Authored by: GSamson on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 07:18 PM GMT+4

Oh, don't worry, Alan; I've "gotten over" the Republicans' astonishing
achievement of a 41 to 59 majority in the Senate.

Fox News churns out the propaganda/talking-point pellets, Alan
mindlessly gobbles them up and poops them out. In this case, it's the
meme that cutting their minority status in the Senate from 20 to 18
has "revolutionized the political landscape". You see, Alan, those of
us with the capacity for rational thought are able to recognize that
such a statement is not only untrue, but absurd on its face.

My goodness, if ignorance is indeed bliss, you must be the happiest
person on the planet.

Authored by: AlanF on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 10:33 PM GMT+4

Authored by: vtjasper68 on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 06:44 PM GMT+4

You just don't get it, do you?

Authored by: SpudHill on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 07:12 PM GMT+4

What I think a lot of people in this country, and it looks as if you're included, don't get is how the legislative process was designed to work.

As for your criticism of the national healthcare plan and all those special deals you're talking about, interesting, very interesting. First of all, you think there wasn't some back-door dealing in Mass to get the deal done...yeah, right
Secondly since a health care plan hasn't even been passed yet and there's more than one on the table how do you know yet what deals were cut etc.

Remember Jasper you start pointing fingers (you just don't get it) and there are four pointing right back atcha.

Authored by: GSamson on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 09:18 PM GMT+4

Such sagacious reasoning; such persuasive, fact-based argumentation!!!

Authored by: annikee on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 05:39 PM GMT+4

A knee-jerk vote does not a revolution mean.

As far as Democrats being "left" anymore, there's one left- Kucinich (and a double entendre there). As far as their actions show, the rest should all be wearing the red Republican suit. Including Obama. But I've always said that about him.

---
Freedom and fear are natural enemies.

If you've a bed, closet & fridge, you're richer than 75% of the people alive.

Authored by: H on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 07:49 PM GMT+4

Let us consider defining our priorities on a state by state basis. The evisceration of health care reform legislation should be a lesson learned that people in other parts of the country have different priorities than we do in Vermont. And what is so bad about that?

Many of us in Vermont place a premium in our attempt at universal health coverage, clean water, clean air, etc. That is why many of us live in Vermont and why other folks, with other priorities live in other parts of the country.

Let us move beyond the reliance of the Federal government being the vehicle to solve our problems. The problem is not how much we, as a state, get back from the Federal government in grants, subsidies and such. The problem is how much we send in the first place.

Both the democrats and the republicans are complicit in the economic shambles we find ourselves in. Do you think the massive deficit and growth in the Federal government is Bush’s doing alone? No, he had help from big government democrats, too. And Barack has lost all creditability as a transformational leader by letting the thieves from Wall Street off the hook.

Don’t diminish the notion of state’s rights. Define it and embrace it. It is where we are headed. And we should welcome this. Keep our tax money for education, social services, health care and such in Vermont to be spent by Vermonters. We know how to take care of our resources better than the Federal government does. And, by the way, I bet the folks in Oklahoma feel the same way about their tax dollars, too.

So is Scott Brown, as several in this thread have suggested, will be just another stooge for Mitch McConnell? Or is he, as someone else suggests, the start of a new way of looking at things? What I find hard to understand is that there is a complacency to continue to send people to Washington whose main purpose is to grow the Federal government.

An example: This fall when you consider Senator Leahy as a candidate; ask yourself if he has been part of the solution or part of the problem. This ship is not going to be turned around by sending tokens of the past. It is much too urgent for that.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 08:15 PM GMT+4

>>Don’t diminish the notion of state’s rights. Define it and embrace
it. It is where we are headed. <<

No it isn't. We're eventually headed toward world government. All it
will take will be for an asteroid to threaten the planet, and suddenly
the UN will get power like you've never seen before. But I see this as
a good thing. The sooner we stop with the tribalisms and the different
religions that keep us apart and fighting, the sooner we become one
earth as the environmental movement flag shows, the better off we
will all be. All of the trends in evolution point to the disappearance of
individual languages and the melding of smaller cultures into one. And
once we become aware that we are one planet, one people, not a
bunch of fragmented states, the more equitable the world can be.

We saw how the failure of the League of Nations helped foster WWII.
We must start by strengthening the United Nations, then work toward
unifying Europe and Africa and North America. With a stronger UN, we
can stop wars before they start. With all of the planet's peoples
working together, we can better come up with solutions to energy and
other problems.

I see the future and it ain't lots of little separate nation states. It's
one world government, one flag with the planet as it's symbol.

Authored by: pjmelton on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 08:43 PM GMT+4

Eek! I hear black helicopters! ;-)

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 11:07 PM GMT+4

I was perhaps being a bit facetious. I love to tweak the VT
Independence crowd. Tell 'em I'm from Stowe. Stowe-ked dude ---ha
ha.

But I seriously think that someday humans will have to evolve a
single government, as John Lennon once said. Also ditch religion and
superstition, as Lennon and Stevie Wonder sang about. Most wars are
fought over stupid borders, and over religious differences, and over
resource allocation. If we had one police force and good global
representation, it'd be a more peaceful planet. I can dream, can't I?

Human evolution seems to point toward more organization, and
toward a more civilized commons and away from small hunter
gatherers out of communication with each other.

Authored by: pjmelton on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 11:46 PM GMT+4

"Human evolution seems to point toward more organization, and
toward a more civilized commons and away from small hunter
gatherers out of communication with each other."

I wish you were right, Buddy. Usually we respond to a crisis by fighting more, not less. Evolution schmevolution. We're a bunch of territorial f word primates.

I am glad there are still optimists in the world, but I'm afraid I'm not one.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 12:30 AM GMT+4

You have to remember that we have only been living in civilizations
for 10,000 years, with the advent of harvested food and domesticated
animals. If you look at the total process of evolution from a single
cell, it's massive amounts of time involved in change. We humans are
just beginning to learn how to solve problems and work in societies,
and it's a new work in progress, when you consider the scale of
evolution just of humans, from primate ancestors. And let's not forget
that the modern nation state has only been in existence since about
1600 CE, 'modern' in the sense of having not just a monarch but a
primitive legislature, and bureaucracy to handle problems of
urbanization and development of state projects. Prior to the modern
state, there was only kingdom and empire, and before that, tribal
chiefdoms. We have a way to go to learn how to live more effectively
in civilization. Planning is relatively new, Paris being one of the first
modern planned cities. The idea that we should set aside public
spaces, "parks" like NY's Central Park, is less than 200 years old. This
concept evolved in part from European and New England town
common areas. Also the idea of park reserves evolved from kings
having specially set aside hunting preserves, where commoners could
not cut trees down for fuel. Anyway, I think if we can keep the
climate from deteriorating too much, if we can keep weapons of mass
destruction from being used in conflicts, and if we can keep human
population under control (overpopulation is one of our biggest
threats), we may make it to a higher, more civilized level. There will
be trade offs, but people looking back on the early 21st century will
balk at how primitive we were to burn fossil fuels, believe in religion
and superstition, and not want to build public infrastructure to benefit
everyone: health care, access to nutritious food for all, true freedom
of thought and expression, etc.

Authored by: pjmelton on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 12:12 PM GMT+4

You are way more optimistic than I am. I think we will be part of the mass extinction from global warming. And I also think we deserve it.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: SpudHill on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 09:50 PM GMT+4

"Many of us in Vermont place a premium in our attempt at universal health coverage, clean water, clean air, etc. That is why many of us live in Vermont and why other folks, with other priorities live in other parts of the country."

Oh my yes, aren't we just special......
Yup that's right buddy, we're the only ones that care about health coverage, clean water, clean air, why we're just so darn spectacular that there wouldn't even be an environmental movement without us little ole Vermonters up here in our special little state.....why without special little Vermont and our special little priorities I just don't know what I would do, if I couldn't live here I would just have to do myself in because it's so special here and SO AM I!

Are you kiddin' me?????

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 11:00 PM GMT+4

Are you referring to me, as in "that's right buddy (love)"? Because I
didn't say that, it was "H".

Authored by: SpudHill on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 12:19 AM GMT+4

Sorry that was the generic "buddy" but in the future I'll use Pal so there's no confusion.

Authored by: SJD on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 01:05 AM GMT+4

Wow SpudHill, you don't get around much in the good old USA. I dare say every State and every region of the country care about clean water, air, health care etc. Vermont doesn't have some exclusive on the concept. It's the way to the end that sets a part locations.

---
Don't tell Obama What Comes After a Trillion.

Authored by: mr.mike on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 01:40 AM GMT+4

No SJD, what he's trying to say is what progressives say about conservatives all the time. We want to pollute the water with oil and the air by burning the children of liberals and cut down every tree on the Earth so we can asphalt one huge parking lot which will drive the stock price of oil companies up.

---
The four boxes that ensure liberty.
Soap Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box
Ammo Box

Authored by: SpudHill on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 08:43 AM GMT+4

NOTE TO SJD AND MIKE:
When one puts quotes around something it means that they are referring to something someone else wrote.
Please refer to H's post about 5 post above where an attempt to argue for state's rights is being made based on the premise that Vermont is so special and only Vermonters care and clean water, clean air, etc.

Sorry I should have mentioned the post, it was a bit confusing.
Funny how you the two "insulatanators" get all hurt and testy when you think someone's turning the tables on you.....

Authored by: pjmelton on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 12:16 PM GMT+4

"We want to pollute the water with oil and the air by burning the children of liberals and cut down every tree on the Earth so we can asphalt one huge parking lot which will drive the stock price of oil companies up."

Wow, Mike, you actually have a sense of humor!

No one thinks you personally want to pollute. It's just that conservatives as a founding philosophical principle do not want to regulate companies, and if you don't keep companies from doing bad things, guess what happens? They do bad things!

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Tenacious on Saturday, January 23 2010 @ 02:03 PM GMT+4

"We want to pollute the water with oil and the air by burning the children of liberals and cut down every tree on the Earth so we can asphalt one huge parking lot which will drive the stock price of oil companies up."

Ah, finally some honesty from a righty!

I always thought it might be easier for conservatives to move to mars where the defoliation and desolation is already complete. That would leave the rest of us to enjoy an existence where we didn't have to struggle merely to achieve something approaching common sense and could potentially move into a new era of cooperation and innovation where destroying the biosphere was no longer an accepted trade off for enriching a small fraction of the population.

Of course even after the nutjobs left for Mars we would need to recognize that the federal government is not designed to accomplish progress and more easily creates gridlock.

But who knows what might be possible if 13th century thinking was abandoned for a while?

Of course I recognize that at least some right wingers might initially hesitate at actually burning children, but there would certainly be enough to get the fire started (Ann Coulter, Michelle Bachman and a slew of other psychos) and once a fun group activity was underway, who would want to miss out? Book burnings used to really get people excited and pretty soon they were gassing millions! Rhetoric became policy in a few short years.

Authored by: AlanF on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 11:15 PM GMT+4

Authored by: pjmelton on Wednesday, January 20 2010 @ 11:48 PM GMT+4

If you want Leahy to retire, may I suggest sending him a strongly worded letter.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: SpudHill on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 12:23 AM GMT+4

Since he's an American last I'm wondering what all comes in between second and last. Oh but please that's okay you don't have to fill in the blanks.

Boy, this one little two-year election win has really brought out the nasty in some of our local conservativebirtherteabaggers. Melton suggestion is right on....a strongly worded letter....he'll probably really take notice I'm sure.

Authored by: AlanF on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 10:57 AM GMT+4

Authored by: SpudHill on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 12:35 PM GMT+4

Why Alan, I'm disappointed in you. Wouldn't think it would take you weeks to write a strongly worded letter.

Authored by: AlanF on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 11:10 PM GMT+4

Authored by: pjmelton on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 12:58 PM GMT+4

I was actually making a joke, because while Leahy was heroic in his persistence with trying to hold the Bush Administration accountable for civil liberties violations, all he ever did was send strongly worded letters. Of course, that was all he could do - and it's all your or I can do as constituents. Also, it was more than most people did. But they were still just letters, never subpoenas.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: AlanF on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 11:21 PM GMT+4

Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 12:34 AM GMT+4

I really don't want to get into this with you, but as far as I know the wide-ranging and illegal spying on American citizens has stopped, as have torture and rendition practices. And when is the last time someone in the Obama administration outed a CIA agent? I have many criticisms of this president, but at least he follows the basic laws that make us who we are.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: AlanF on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 01:00 AM GMT+4

Authored by: mr.mike on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 12:42 AM GMT+4

Oh but Alan, he's great for the sheeple of Vermont. He gets so much PORK for the people. His entire career has been to get federal money for the state. So what if there's all kinds of strings attached. It's free money right?

---
The four boxes that ensure liberty.
Soap Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box
Ammo Box

Authored by: George Tirebiter on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 02:35 AM GMT+4

As Archie Bunker would say, pppppppppffffffllllll.

You right wing republicans miss the whole point.

Goodbye!

---
"Oh, was it a joke, you mean?"
- John Cage

Authored by: AlanF on Thursday, January 21 2010 @ 10:59 AM GMT+4

Authored by: SJD on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 12:00 AM GMT+4

On TV a reporter in MA was asking the public on the street for a reaction to the election results. One comment was striking and could apply to Leahy.

-The women said that they hope Brown works out, but if he doesn't, they will vote him out, however she went on to say, had Martha won and didn't live up to her promises, she wasn't sure if they could ever get her out.

That's the problem with entitled politicians in States with lopsided political systems, you just keep going and going..

---
Don't tell Obama What Comes After a Trillion.

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 12:40 AM GMT+4

"The women said that they hope Brown works out, but if he doesn't, they will vote him out,"

Two days before the election Brown laughed at a comment made at an event that the female candidate should have a pipe shoved up her whatever and he indicated that he liked that comment and then proceeded to try and auction off his daughters 2 days later. The women said that they hope Brown works out, but if he doesn't, they will vote him out. I wonder just how these women think he'll be voting on issues concerning them....women.....he seems so sensitively aware of the issues of sexual violence and pandering that women have to deal with.

Authored by: SJD on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 01:09 AM GMT+4

So your litmus test is to only elect a PC a-sexual. Scott sounds like a typical guy, thank goodness not a girly-man. Just another PC example of beating up the individual's use of language not the message. Oh ya, he drives a full size pick-up truck.. boy did the PC crowd hate that one!

---
Don't tell Obama What Comes After a Trillion.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 02:02 AM GMT+4

What's typical about posing naked with your hand over your crotch?
Oh yeah---family values. I forgot.

What the truck does any of this have to do with governing? Zilch.
But I guess that's what fills the average Republican brain these days.
They see a candy coated shell in a pick up truck and they run to support
it, like crows to shiny objects.

Authored by: mr.mike on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 02:08 AM GMT+4

Like Brown said. It is the people's seat not Kennedy's. The reason they refer to it as Teddy's is because he bought that seat with the currency of Washington.

PORK

The Cost?....... Freedom

---
The four boxes that ensure liberty.
Soap Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box
Ammo Box

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 03:08 AM GMT+4

Well, hopefully Brown won't bring any pork home to the people in his state.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 01:12 PM GMT+4

mike,

If it is "the people's seat, not Kennedy's" and the Kennedys are so 'evil',
WHY DID SCOTT BROWN TRY TO MORPH HIMSELF INTO JFK IN ONE OF
HIS CAMPAIGN ADS??

The hypocrisy and downright STUPIDITY of the right wing argument is
incredible!

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 10:29 AM GMT+4

And while we're at it. There is absolutely no chance that any woman candidate (pick the most experienced, competent and brightness) having had posed sans clothing with a hand over her crotch just a few short years ago would have even gotten near a nomination regardless of party. And to tell your the truth I would hesitate to vote into public office someone who had, male or female.

SJD comments
"So your litmus test is to only elect a PC a-sexual. Scott sounds like a typical guy, thank goodness not a girly-man. Just another PC example of beating up the individual's use of language not the message. "

Wow SJD, you really want it both ways don't you. This wasn't about use of language it was about the message, the message being that violent rape is funny, as well as the idea of a single daughter not attached to a man. But then your entire comment (typical guy, girly-man) says so much....about you.

And I'm with Buddy, I've known a lot of "typical men", in fact I'm friends with a lot of "typical men" and not one of them has posed sans clothing in a nationwide publication. In fact I've known a lot of "typical women" and had a lot of friends that were "typical women" and the same thing is true of them.

Typical, this guy is far from "typical."

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 11:40 AM GMT+4

I have a serious question here, for everyone, but I'm especially curious about SJD, Mike, AlanF et al. response.

I've been wondering why I would hesitate to vote for someone male or female who had posed sans clothing just a few years ago in a national publication. I think I know why this would give me pause but
let's say guys
that Hillary Clinton had been photographed and published in exactly the same pose as Brown. Be really honest here fellows....would you comment on that and if so what would your thoughts be about it in terms of her serving politically on the national stage. And no hedging with well I wouldn't vote for her any way because I don't agree with her politically....what would you be posting here on iBrat and exactly (truthfully) what would your response be if such photos surfaced?

Authored by: tiny on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 12:40 PM GMT+4

A serious question? Really Spud, it is hypothetical nonsense.

Brown's Cosmo pictures have been in circulation on the 'net for
awhile. I don't recall them surfacing during the election, but then
again, I blinked and missed the whole thing as did the Democrat
candidate. His photo were taken in 1982, over 25 years ago!

I am shocked Brown won, who would have thought? This seat has
been referred to as "Teddy's seat" not the "MA senate seat." And
down in RI, you better believe that people are beginning to realize
Patrick Kennedy could lose his seat. Who would have thought Dodd
would exit his race?

So to answer your nonsense honestly, if Clinton was in a similar
picture when she was a law student, I wouldn't give a hoot. Why
would you? Are you that hang up on nudity?
And while you don't like her, I think she would have the good sense
not to posed in any pics in the last decade. But then again, she is a
smart woman and could be far more enlightened and comfortable with
her body. And if she is, good for her.

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 01:45 PM GMT+4

This is not hypothetical nonsense. This is an inquiry into how people with certain political stances see this behavior and I would posit that 25 years ago or not, it indicates a certain mindset that carries through life experiences whether one ever does such a thing or not. And it's not the nudity it's the willingness to take it one more step to be seen in a national publication that doesn't offend me in your "typical person" but would trouble me in a politician.

As for your assuming that I don't like Hilary Clinton, not true at all, I'm just picking a politician who is female and from the other party in an attempt to see how Mike, SJD, AlanF would feel. Whatever their thoughts are your suggestion that Clinton would be "comfortable enough with her body to do this" is utter nonsense, there's absolutely no way she would pose in such a manner even within the last 10 years. The suggestion is silly. Perhaps 25 years ago but I really really really doubt it. In fact I fail to see anything in her background to suggest she would have done this so what is it in Scott that made him willing to do so. that's what I'm curious about.

Authored by: tiny on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 03:49 PM GMT+4

Okay, you don't dislike Sec. Clinton, I stand corrected.

As Sec Clinton posing naked, you misread my comments.
Maybe it is nonsense, maybe isn't. As I said, she's a smart person,
and let me add a intelligent woman of the 1960's generation. You
know her so well, you must have gotten a christmas card from her.

As for why Brown did, maybe for money, maybe for laughs, who
knows? Does it matter now? No.

Spud says " I'm... really curious what our local right wing friends
would think of this..." This is not an inquiry as you suggest but you
are baiting Mr. Mike, Alan and SJD. Don't be a phony, ask them
something that isn't so hypothetical or stupid, and you might get a
thoughtful response and a decent discussion.

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 04:42 PM GMT+4

"Does it matter now? No."

Well I think it does.

Am I baiting SJD, AlanF, Mike....no not really....in fact why would you think I would be baiting them unless you believe that their response would be complicated in some way. It appears to me that ye are the one with little faith.

I do have my ideas about how they would respond but I wanted to give them a chance to speak to this without me speaking for them. I'm not baiting them, I'm asking a straight out and out question and the only reason it might be seen as "baiting" is if one believes that they would have difficulty speaking in defense of supporting one without supporting the other and one (meaning you) might find it difficult to believe that their reaction to Hliary's posing would be as nonchalent as their reaction to Brown's posing. Hmmmmmmmmmm

Well guys speak up...........we know you're not girly-men so what are you afraid of......

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 04:45 PM GMT+4

"girly-men"
Not my phrase
A phrase used by SJD when justifying Scott's not calling out a supporter who suggested a violent and sexual act be performed on his opponent at one of his gatherings.
SJD's comment
"Scott sounds like a typical guy, thank goodness not a girly-man."

Authored by: tiny on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 05:51 PM GMT+4

"I do have my ideas how they would respond...."

Not only do you have a keen inquiring mind, you are a mind reader.
What amazing powers of mental telphathy you possess.
You are not Spud Head, you are Karnak!

"...but I wanted to give them a chance to speak to this without me
speaking for them..."

That is so generous of you Spud to allow them to speak for
themselves. Is that the smooth line that David Gregory uses to
entice people on "Meet The Press"? Who are you kidding? You just
want to jump ugly for your personal jollies.

Your post is a sanctimonious sack of stuff.

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 06:08 PM GMT+4

My my my y'all are getting testy
My thought is that if someone could justify a response by Scott (the poser) that indicates finding a comment about violent rape funny by saying well whadya think he's not a girly-man I could from then extrapolate a response about a woman who posed for sans clothing photos and then ran for public office.

You think it would be a sign of Hilary being a proud confident woman, well , bully for you but let's be honest that is definitely not the response you would get from most people. It would be an indication of some sort of weakness, silliness, lack of serious thought but for some reason in Scott's case it's not. Puleeeez there's absolutely no way a woman candidate with this same background wouldn't have been destroyed by a wave of big ole macho right wing attacks.

Now I'm personally going to find it a stretch and perhaps it would depend on the situation to find this excusable for a politician but it wouldn't bother me a bit if most others had this photo in their background.

But as far as I'm concerned it's SJD Mike and AlanF who've been "jumping a little ugly" re this whole election and jeez if you guys have to get all hissy fit (read: girly men) upset because someone calls you on it well toughen up a bit will ya.

Authored by: mr.mike on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 11:21 PM GMT+4

Sorry for the late response. I was actually working to pay for those that can sit home all day and surf on the state's dime. You're welcome to whom it may apply.

Anyways, I didn't know about the pose that Brown did until after the election. Which is when the media started to focus on it. I must admit I didn't follow the Brown campaign until the last few weeks.

I honestly would have had a problem voting for him had I known that especially if their was no remorse on his part. But I don't know the details. At any rate, for me, I would have been voting for the lesser of two evils. And who knows, I may have actually voted for Joe Kennedy, the Libertarian, but I don't know where he stands on all the issues and don't need to since I can't vote for either of them.

But know this, Martha Coakley was responsible for keeping an innocent man, Gerald Amirault, behind bars for 17 yrs while knowing he wasn't guilty. And I know how many here on ibratt would feel about that. How about some intellectual honesty on your part.



---
The four boxes that ensure liberty.
Soap Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box
Ammo Box

Authored by: SpudHill on Saturday, January 23 2010 @ 12:40 AM GMT+4

I'll look into that.
And thanks for weighing in although the skeezy comment at the beginning of your post could have been left out...really unnecessary Mike...I would suspect that most work here, as for myself I just have the luxury of making my own hours but work an incredible amount of hours 7 days a week usually. I think you assume that others are "living" off your work when it's probably quite far from reality at least as for poster here.

At any rate that's interesting but why.....why would it give you pause....indication of character?

I did consider later today, he actually came from a pretty poor famiy, maybe he did it for the bucks but again a woman/young girl doing that would have caused a lot of political headaches for herself. I do think there is a double standard.

Authored by: mr.mike on Saturday, January 23 2010 @ 01:48 AM GMT+4

Yes he did, apparently his mother was on welfare at one time. Funny how that happens. Mine was too.

You see, I am a bastard. Really. Not in a metaphorical sense either.

---
The four boxes that ensure liberty.
Soap Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box
Ammo Box

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Saturday, January 23 2010 @ 03:02 AM GMT+4

>>You see, I am a bastard. Really. Not in a metaphorical sense
either.<<

Don't worry mr. mike, so was Alexander Hamilton, but he got over it.

Authored by: SpudHill on Saturday, January 23 2010 @ 02:33 PM GMT+4

Mike you state that Martha Coakley was responsible for keeping Gerald Amirault in prison for 17 years when she knew he wasn't guilty.
This is what happens when we pick up talking points off of the TV or the internet and don't fact check.

While what you stated isn't true, Coakley's connection to this case is very troublesome. But her involvement didn't occur until 3 years before he was released so one could argue that she was responsible for him being in prison 3 years longer than he should have been.

"When Martha Coakley became district attorney of Middlesex County in 1999, the Amiraults were still in the news. But by this time hardly anyone believed they were guilty of the horrendous crimes they were alleged to have committed. In fact there was no evidence that anyone had abused any children in the Fells Acres Day Care.

But what did Martha Coakley do when the Parole Board voted unanimously (5-0) to pardon Gerald Amirault? She did everything in her power to see that he stayed in prison, including sending an assistant DA to oppose his release at the hearing. Coakley also went on talk shows to spout her views about his guilt. (Read about Martha Coakley's involvement in Cheryl Amirault's Plea Bargain also). "

These witchhunt child abuse scandals in the 80s were well known to have been just that by the time Coakley was involved in this case and there was plenty of evidence that the children's testimony in this and other cases was manipulated and the children were often coached or influenced.

For Coakley not to have known this shows a lack of interest or curiosity that is very troubling, it seems to me it would have been her responsbility to look into the evidence before taking this move, if in fact this was a callous move for political gain then it was just plain criminal.
HOWEVER, I can't find concrete evidence of what the entire situation was and I did find that she also at this time moved to get the sister released on time served and out early. But one certainly can argue that what happened to this family was a travesty and certainly it was so obviously apparent by the late 90s that in many of these cases where people had been jailed after children's "testimony" that the testimonies had been false. I would also argue that in this particular case it should have been obvious at the time of trial that something was a little goofy and this trial never even should have been held. There was not one piece of actual evidence that pointed to any abuse by anyone and considering we're talking two foot knives and lobsters (read the link), someone should have had the good common sense to throw this thing out. Instead 3 members of a family spent a considerable amount of time in jail and the mother spent her last years of her life in jail because of overzealous prosecution.

I'm beginning to think that Coakley was just an awful candidate anyway, based on refusal to campaign when it was cold, mis-speaking about sport figures in a sports nuts town (just brush up for G*d's sake, I know it's crazy too but just do it), she just didn't seem to realize what campaigning was. Which means that the Reps shouldn't be crowing as hard as they are about this because it wasn't really a win over a strong candidate and the Dems once the dust settles should really look long and hard at this campaign before seeing it as any sort of referendum.

And this also explains why polls are showing that people whose very core values are at odds with Brown's avowed values (like they support single payer health care) voted for Brown. It think it was just votes against Coakley for whatever reason. As for her involvement in this case, it was not for 17 years as Mike states but it certainly was questionable, my final verdict is still out but it is troublesome.

Here's the link, I would suggest watching the video, it's enlightening and yes, I don't like Stoessel all that much either, but this is reaffirmed by other inteviews and articles I've read so I think this is quite accurate.

The link follows:

Authored by: SpudHill on Saturday, January 23 2010 @ 02:35 PM GMT+4

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Saturday, January 23 2010 @ 01:08 AM GMT+4

Ha! Says the tax cheat!

---
We Rock!

Authored by: mr.mike on Wednesday, January 27 2010 @ 01:31 AM GMT+4

Huh? I didn't see any reply by Sec Giethner or Charlie Rangle. Or were you referring to Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, William Jefferson, etc,etc.

---
The four boxes that ensure liberty.
Soap Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box
Ammo Box

Authored by: tiny on Saturday, January 23 2010 @ 02:27 PM GMT+4

No one is getting testy, just pointing out your ponce like behavior.

Authored by: SpudHill on Saturday, January 23 2010 @ 07:50 PM GMT+4

Oh ouch....
well yes you are getting testy and ornery
because you guys can dish it out all you want
but you can't seem to take it when it's back in your face
Reading through this thread other than a couple of spots it
seems there's a certain group who resort to hurling insults
at the get go and then get upset when it comes back to them.

Authored by: SpudHill on Saturday, January 23 2010 @ 07:56 PM GMT+4

Oh and by the way Mike did respond and it was interesting...his response and he also brought up an interesting point about Coakley, although he had the number of years wrong, it still was a very good point about some perhaps questionable behavior on her part.

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 12:41 PM GMT+4

I would have thought it was an indication that she was shallow, narcissistic, and has poor judgement. You know, a typical politician.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 12:52 PM GMT+4

I agree totally with your definition but I'm trying to sort out for myself why this would make me more hesitant than your normal shallow narcisistic etc. mind set of your typical politician's background. and I'm, as I said, really curious what our local right wing friends would think of this and looking forward to their honest unadulturated responses.

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 05:10 PM GMT+4

Well, I was really joking about the "typical" part. I suppose most of them are narcissistic to a point, by definition and necessity, but I would hope they aren't typically shallow and lacking in judgement.

The other thing is, it indicates to me that his (or her, in the hypothetical question) values and standards are much different than mine. I don't mean to say that his values are "bad," just that they don't reflect mine.

The centerfold puts it all out there in one reference point.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, January 22 2010 @ 05:26 PM GMT+4

Hmm, my first message was deleted as spam, so maybe I'll be a little less "clear."

You can be in a centerfold, hire women of the evening, have affairs and cover them up with hush money, and suggestively tap your feet in airport bathroom stalls without ruining your political career, if and only if you run year after year on a platform of family values.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR