Who will win the senatorial election in Massachusetts ?

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cyclops, you will find your agenda, by looking up CPUSA Election Platform 2004 in the link provided, and I can guarantee you that it looks nothing like the constitution or anything like what the founders envisioned. Only a left wing kook or a whacko would think so.

http://www.cpusa.org/

I have no idea why you think it was necessary to post this tripe in both this thread and the Obama '08 one; it's not relevant to the discussion in either thread.

Quote:

By the way, the Dems are the most greedy, they cannot keep their grubby hands off of anything and everything they do not own or earn.

I note that you do not deny my assessment of you, and how could you? I doubt you could name a single policy that you support which doesn't directly add to your personal bottom line.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I have no idea why you think it was necessary to post this tripe

I'm curious why you thought it was useful to re-post the tripe and the link.

There is a group of posters who are careful not to see that poster's tripe. You've now helped it spread its message.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I have no idea why you think it was necessary to post this tripe

I'm curious why you thought it was useful to re-post the tripe and the link.

There is a group of posters who are careful not to see that poster's tripe. You've now helped it spread its message.

It helps me and others keep track of the conversation, of course. That's the entire point of the quote function.

Desires not to read a certain poster are irrelevant to me... the whole 'ignore' feature is just as easily achieved by actually ignoring people.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Plus arguing against another persons position works to make sure that you actually have a superior position. Ehbeth and the rest who assume that they are right without testing their assumptions will one day get a kick in the ass, when events happen for which they have no explanation.

Oh wait, that just happened in Mass didn't it!

1 Reply

No reporting until the polls close (a good thing). Most of the media appear to be acting as though they believe Brown will win, however, that my merely be the story of the moment - something they all do a lot. Nothing would surprise me in the outcome of this one. However, it seems clear that the prospect of an inevitable series of triumphs of the Administration in pursuing its "progressive" agenda is now a thing of the past.

Cap & Trade is dead, now replaced with administrative fiat in a scientifically unjustifiable "finding" by ever objective EPA that CO2, the gas we exhale and which our little friends the green plants require to survive, is somehow "toxic". (Court challenges to follow)

The long sought "government option" in health care reorganization is now dead, replaced by a rather incomprehensible mixture of expanded (and unfunded) Medicaid entitlements; insurance mandates; new taxes and fines' and brueaucratization of health services. Now even this appears threatened by the prospect of yet another Republican Senator, enabling them to sustain a filibuster. Even if Brown loses, the close call is likely enough to spook additional Democrat senators and congressmen, perhaps requiring another round of the bribes and payoffs that have already contributed so much to the growing public disenchantment with the sainted President from heaven (or is it Chicago?).

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

the sainted President from heaven (or is it Chicago?).

Every time you make a comment like this, you reveal just a little bit more of an unflattering personality trait, George. I wonder if you can guess which one?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Ahhhh George,

You are back to being my polar opposite again.

Not only have you said a consensus "justified" by a strong majority of the scientific community is "scientifically unjustifiable"-- but you have also made an argument that floods are harmless (since we excrete water and plants require it to survive).

The term is "public option"-- and there is no part of the health care (or any part of any discussion in Congress) that calls for "bureaucratization of health services".)

It is OK if your opinions are wrong... but you should at least get the facts right.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

you're assuming a lot about what I, or anyone else, is doing when we put posters like Okie on ignore.

I prefer to have my assumptions tested by reading posters like georgeob. I don't always agree with georgeob's conclusions, but I appreciate his skill in presenting his views/opinions/facts/arguments.

I prefer to learn from/argue with someone I respect. It's the same here as it is in real life. I don't waste time listening to fools. At all.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Quote:

Not only have you said a consensus "justified" by a strong majority of the scientific community is "scientifically unjustifiable"-- but you have also made an argument that floods are harmless (since we excrete water and plants require it to survive).

LOL, very true.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Of course you are correct. Clearly EPA should now regulate water and urea.

The quality and objectivity of the "scierntific consensus" to which you refer has become increasingly subject to serious and justifiable criticism. Moreover, even in the relatively small portion of the applicable scientific domain in which I can claim scientific proficiency and competence (fluid dynamics) I can attest beyond doubt that the mathematical models on which forecasts of runaway AGW have been based, have no reliable ability to accurately forecast outcomes beyond a few weeks from the initial conditions. It is a pesky little thing involving, coupled highly non-linear differential equations and it is called chaos.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

you're assuming a lot about what I, or anyone else, is doing when we put posters like Okie on ignore.

I prefer to have my assumptions tested by reading posters like georgeob. I don't always agree with georgeob's conclusions, but I appreciate his skill in presenting his views/opinions/facts/arguments.

I prefer to learn from/argue with someone I respect. It's the same here as it is in real life. I don't waste time listening to fools. At all.

I could sit here and concoct elaborate dissertations about why the sun comes up in the morning as well, but I prefer to make a common sense observation that it just does. Maybe if I spent alot of time elaborating with all kinds of scientific analysis, perhaps you would not place me on ignore but you would disagree with the obvious anyway, so I have decided to cut to the chase here with many of my posts. Besides, I cannot reason with the unreasonable anyway.

Go Scott Brown!!!

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I find your overuse of the word "justifiable" amusing.

You are also confusing predicting the future (which is, as you say, difficult) with predicing the past (which is not so difficult).

There is a strong scientific consensus that there is now measurable global warming. There is a just as strong scientific consensus that this global warming which has happened is caused in significant part by human activity. (I don't know if you accept either of these facts, but they are both widely accepted across the scientific community).

In my understanding... it is the predictions about what this means for the future that have uncertainty.

But... let's get back on topic.

1 Reply

Back to MA. Polls close at 8 pm. As recently as 2 weeks ago, Brown was down by double digits. None of the pollsters/news organizations felt it necessary to set up exit polls.
It could be a long night, with something like 200,000 absentee ballots.

3 Replies

@realjohnboy,

It will be a longer night if the Democrat trails badly, so that ACORN can find more votes.

3 Replies

@okie,

This is more than a sarcastic comment, it is a well founded suspicion and possibility.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Thanks. I wondered why no exit polls, but that makes sense.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Quote:

Back to MA. Polls close at 8 pm. As recently as 2 weeks ago, Brown was down by double digits. None of the pollsters/news organizations felt it necessary to set up exit polls.

Unbelievable! That means a post-election spin free-for-all. Anyone can make any claim about why voters voted for whichever winner. No one will ever know if this was a referendum on Obama, or just a well-run campaign beating a poor candidate.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

This is more than a sarcastic comment, it is a well founded suspicion and possibility.

Based on what evidence exactly? Do you have any evidence of ACORN 'finding' votes anywhere? Ever?

Nope

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Because the Democrats are corrupt, as is ACORN. A strange event today that should be looked into, the premature Boston Globe election results, cyclops, this is very weird and suspicious if you ask me. I am not saying it indicates corruption, but we need to find out more about this. We have Democrats saying cheating is okay, the end justifies the means, example Ed Schultz, he is an example of the thinking in the party.

http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/st-lawrence-news/54-worldnational-news/10809-boston-globe-calls-election-8-hours-early.html

1 Reply

@okie,

So, you have no actual evidence of ACORN engaging in the behaviors you are accusing them of. Read ya loud and clear.

Why don't you have the balls to admit stuff like this? You hide behind 'suspicions' and 'probably' and 'maybe' because you're too much of a pussy to admit that you have no evidence to back up your crazy theories.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Who will win the senatorial election in Massachusetts ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know