Who will win the senatorial election in Massachusetts ?

@okie,

No, okie. I'm not a Democrat. And, no, I don't want to fight anyone.

@georgeob1,

Quote:

You've got to be kidding ! THAT would surely set the stage for a real electoral disaster for Democrats in November and a one term presidency for Obama.

What did Reagan do when he lost seats in the Congress? And... how did that work out for him.

1 Reply

@JPB,

So if a killer comes after you, you just say go ahead do it?

2 Replies

@okie,

I think that's kinda off the topic of this thread, don't you?

0 Replies

@okie,

If he comes to my door, I blow a hole in his chest.

If he stays in Iraq, I skip down the street happily; ignoring him.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

That sounds like a soundbite. I'd rather they didn't go towards either.

It was a good soundbite.

0 Replies

The Democrats, in case no one has noticed, still hold an 18 seat majority in the Senate. That's a larger majority than the Republicans EVER had under George W. Bush, yet they seemed to pass pretty much whatever they damned well pleased including the worst Prescription Drug Law ever conceived. (Don't ask me, ask Senator Coburn of Oklahoma)

We will get this Health Care Bill passed because starting tomorrow we are asking all of the Democratic Senators to allow their balls to descend and start really fighting for what they know is right.

Joe(you know it too.)Nation

2 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Very good point Joe.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

If he comes to my door, I blow a hole in his chest.

If he stays in Iraq, I skip down the street happily; ignoring him.

Fair enough.
Incidentally, I've been reading some of your posts, and thanks for the level of support you give the conservative cause as somebody being a sane or responsible Democrat or Independent, as opposed to the really whacked out elements.
But the health care bill is a really bad idea at a bad time, plus it is the wrong solution to problems that have not been correctly diagnosed.

1 Reply

@okie,

Anytime okie.

Although I think this was the WRONG bill at the RIGHT time. Millions have recently lost their healthcare. I think something has to be done.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Any port in a storm Thomas?

I don't know what you mean by that.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

When the people voted for Obama they were inspired visionaries;

I never said that.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

when they voted for Brown they were dumb.

I didn't say that either. I said it's invalid to reason that because voters sent a message, they can therefore not be deluded. And I continue to stand by it.

0 Replies

@Ticomaya,

Ticomaya wrote:

Our tax dollars should go towards weapons to fight them, not lawyers to defend them."

Why not both? Even Republicans pledge allegiance to a republic with freedom and justice for all. Why would they want to de-fund justice?

1 Reply

It seems a bit funny to me that conservatives are more bitter about an impressive win than we liberals are about an unexpected loss.

Whatever... life goes on.

1 Reply

The Republicans don't want to de-fund Justice, although they have never been much in favor of protecting defendant's rights, it's just more of the crap they spew instead of actually believing in our system of Justice. Does anyone think a second year prosecutor couldn't get an conviction in this latest case?? (UnderWear Bomber, Fruit of the Boom, you pick) Spoiled brat kid with a bomb, he must remind some of their own children and that's why they are carping so much about him getting a lawyer on our dime.

Don't pay any attention when they talk like that, they know they are wrong. It's like when Democrats say Republicans can get elected but then they can't govern.

Joe(Oh, wait....that IS true.)Nation

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

I think you haven't been paying enough attention. I have enjoyed watching the surreal Rachel Madow interviews with various left wing Democrat strategists all still confident that they know better than we what is good for us, and outlining various unrealistic scenarios for the speedy passage of anything that can be called health care legislation - and diparaging wiser Democrat heads advocating caution. This was followed by Congresswoman Debbi Wasserman of Florida who blamed it all on public anger at the bankers and an inept campaign by the Democrat candidate. This is the sort of arrogant denial by the current self-appointed "vanguard of the progressives" that cost them the election in Massachusetts and may well cost them more later.

I detected everything but stoic acceptance and realism.

With respect to "conservatives are more bitter" ... who ??? I have yet to see any evidence of that.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Our tax dollars should go towards weapons to fight them, not lawyers to defend them."

Why not both? Even Republicans pledge allegiance to a republic with freedom and justice for all. Why would they want to de-fund justice?

Define "justice," Thomas. What is it? Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in a civilian court? Our system of criminal justice is designed to release a defendant if there is a reasonable doubt as to guilt. Enemy combatants should be tried like soldiers in a military tribunal. I recognize your right to believe otherwise.

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

The Republicans don't want to de-fund Justice, although they have never been much in favor of protecting defendant's rights, it's just more of the crap they spew instead of actually believing in our system of Justice. Does anyone think a second year prosecutor couldn't get an conviction in this latest case??

If that's the case, what's the point, Joe? Why hold the trial? Why waste the resources if it's a slam dunk? Because you want to go through the motions to show how virtuous you are, protecting his civil rights and all?

0 Replies

@Ticomaya,

Ticomaya wrote:

Define "justice," Thomas. What is it? Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in a civilian court?

For example. After all, terrorism is a crime, and he wouldn't be the first criminal to be tried in federal court. I trust American courts to do justice to him.

Ticomaya wrote:

Our system of criminal justice is designed to release a defendant if there is a reasonable doubt as to guilt.

1) What reasonable doubts about Khalid Sheik Muhammed's guilt are you entertaining?

2) So what? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Just a weak or two ago, a federal Court also released a bunch of Blackwater mercenaries who had massacred innocent Iraqis in the street. If you had a problem with the court's conduct, I didn't see you express it in this online community. Why should the USA give apply the rule of law its own terrorists when they kill Iraqis, but refuse the same treatment to a foreign terrorist who wreaked havoc on Americans?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Define "justice," Thomas. What is it? Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in a civilian court?

For example. After all, terrorism is a crime, and he wouldn't be the first criminal to be tried in Federal court. I trust American courts to do justice to him.

Would finding a loophole and letting him go free constitute "justice" to you?

What's wrong with military tribunals?

Quote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Our system of criminal justice is designed to release a defendant if there is a reasonable doubt as to guilt.

1) What reasonable doubts about Khalid Sheik Muhammed's guilt are you entertaining?

What leads you to think I'm entertaining any? Then again I'm not his creative defense counsel.

Quote:

2) So what? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Just a weak or two ago, the Federal Courts also released a bunch of Blackwater mercenaries who massacred innocent Iraqis in the street. If you had a problem with the court's conduct, I didn't see you say so in this online community. Why should the USA give apply the rule of law its own terrorists when they kill Iraqis, but refuse the same treatment to a foreign terrorist who wreaked havoc on Americans?

Do you consider the Blackwater employees to be terrorists, Thomas? Are American soldiers who kill Iraqis also terrorists?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I think you are way misreading to this result. The difference between 60 senators and 59 senators is big (because of some coincidence of senate rules) and this loss was improbable and disheartening.

But come on now-- this isn't "us" vs "them" where Conservatives represent some homogeneous American public and Liberals are somehow alien usurpers.

Not that long ago Obama won the majority of American votes by promising liberal policies from immigration reform to health care. As president he has certainly not turned out any more liberal then the candidate who made all those promises.

Obama being too liberal is not the reason he for this result in liberal Massachusetts.

Of course, I don't mind that you all are taking this position.

If Democrats figure out that they need to run great campaigns, work hard and strongly present their case to voters without taking anything for granted-- well the loss of one Senate seat still hurts, but this would be a silver lining.

If Republicans decide that they should become angrier and louder while assuming that all Americans agree with them because they are right-- that is fine with me too.

0 Replies

Who will win the senatorial election in Massachusetts ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know