Journal Timex's Journal: Climate change you can believe in 28
Tomorrow Massachusetts voters get to choose who will fill the Senate seat vacated by the death of Ted "Chapaquiddick" Kennedy. If current polls are to be believed (and we all know that I consider "accurate polls" to be coincidental), Massachusetts will have it's first Republican Senator in a long time.
What is making the race funny is that the Democrat offering, Martha Coakley, can't get any love. Joe Kennedy [strike](D-RI)[/strike] kept calling her "Marcia" last night. Obama's people don't think Coakley will win. There are many that, if you can believe it, are stooping so low as to blame Dubyuh for her poor showing in the polls.
True to form, the Dems are already looking at ways to have their way in the event the polls are right and Brown wins.
I think it's time the Democrats wake up and realize that the REAL reason for the upswell in support for Brown is that people are tired of having craptastic legislation rammed down their throats.
EDIT: The Kennedy family can get confusing sometimes. It was brought to my attention and I found that I was mistaken over which Kennedy couldn't get Coakley's name right. It was Representative (not Senator) Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI), not Joeseph P. Kennedy II. My apologies for the confusion. (Thanks to damn_registrars for the catch.)
Well said (Score:2)
The problem is that they don't WANT to hear that. I observed immediately after the presidential election (immediately being defined as "within 3-4 hours"), the news outlets were all abuzz with Democrat winners, saying it was time to implement their "agenda", and they were not hiding their plans at all. Not once did t
accent? (Score:1)
"Joe Kennedy (D-RI) kept calling her "Marcia" last night. "
Did he use two names interchangeably for her first name? If not, is he doing better now? If not, I would suspect it is his speech impediment, commonly known as an accent.
But, I have not reviewed the tapes. ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
Did he use two names interchangeably for her first name? If not, is he doing better now? If not, I would suspect it is his speech impediment, commonly known as an accent.
I live 15 minutes from Providence, RI. Allow me to assure you that "accent" is not the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I live 15 minutes from Providence, RI. Allow me to assure you that "accent" is not the problem.
I can't find a Joe Kennedy currently serving in US congress from Rhode Island. I did however find a Patrick J Kennedy [wikipedia.org] currently representing Rhode Island. Surprisingly enough, he is from Massachusetts.
Re: (Score:1)
I can't find a Joe Kennedy currently serving in US congress from Rhode Island. I did however find a Patrick J Kennedy currently representing Rhode Island.
Nice catch. You are correct, and the JE has been duly edited to reflect this.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice catch. You are correct, and the JE has been duly edited to reflect this.
Indeed the Kennedy family is hard to keep track of. When trying to find the right person I found a Joseph Patrick Kennedy and a Patrick Joseph Kennedy, both of whom were politicians originally from MA. To further add confusion I think the two were born about half a generation apart (does that make them second-cousins? I'm not sure...), which made it more difficult to figure out who was where when.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, well, I confirm you are allowed to assure me.
What legislation? (Score:2)
I think it's time the Democrats wake up and realize that the REAL reason for the upswell in support for Brown is that people are tired of having craptastic legislation rammed down their throats.
If you are referring to legislation passed since Obama's inauguration, I challenge you to show us something that would not have been passed under GWB. The election of someone from the party of NO won't make much of a difference, since the democratic party is too heterogeneous to pass legislation quickly even when they hold majorities in both houses.
If the movement is for an opposition to work, then electing a republican to replace Kennedy could help with that. Although the democrats are pretty good at n
Re: (Score:1)
If you are referring to legislation passed since Obama's inauguration, I challenge you to show us something that would not have been passed under GWB.
Let's start with that pile of dead trees that nobody has been allowed to read that is commonly referred to as "ObamaCare". Pelosi didn't try for it when Dubya was in office because she knew that he wouldn't sign it off. Obama will, if it lands on his desk.
You might have been asleep the last few months to a year, so let me catch you up on the skinny: Since Obama assumed the Oval Office, Pelosi and her cronies have gone into high gear to pass anything and everything that they can on their agenda. They are
Re: (Score:2)
If you are referring to legislation passed since Obama's inauguration, I challenge you to show us something that would not have been passed under GWB.
Let's start with that pile of dead trees that nobody has been allowed to read that is commonly referred to as "ObamaCare".
First of all, only conservative hacks refer to it as "ObamaCare". The term itself makes no sense as there is no care mandated by Obama in the bill. Anything even remotely resembling universal coverage, government care, or single-payer has been stripped out of the bill sometime ago.
As for nobody being able to read the bill, you must have not read the news recently. Recently Pelosi herself said that the bill will be available online for everyone (legislators and the public) to read for 72 hours before t [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:1)
From the article:
The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, said on Thursday that the final version of major health care legislation will be posted on the Internet for 72 hours before the House votes on the measure.
Given the date, we shall presume that's for the "resolved" version, once negotiations are finished between the House and the Senate. HOWEVER, openness was promised throughout this ordeal, an openness that seemed to fit some obscure definition that still eludes us. Members of the House were expected to vote on a version of the proposed bill that they had not read (either through laziness or because of timing). The Senate version was settled behind closed doors. Whether the final bill mak
Re: (Score:2)
I asked you for examples. Can you provide any?
You're asking me to guess on what may or may not have been passed on Dubyuh's watch? Not gonna happen
I apologize if my question was unclear. I was not asking you to speculate on anything.
Rather the question is this. What bills have passed since Obama was inaugurated that were in some way rushed through, and were clearly legislation that GWB would not have signed?
In other words my point is that as much as people are trying hard to demonize the hell out of Obama, in reality he has hardly done anything so far that his predecessor would not have done.
And on top of that, an argument could be made that
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, only conservative hacks refer to it as "ObamaCare".
False. Mainstream nonpartisan news uses this term occasionally (though I agree it is more often than not used by conservatives who are attempting to attack it).
The term itself makes no sense as there is no care mandated by Obama in the bill.
False.
Anything even remotely resembling universal coverage, government care, or single-payer has been stripped out of the bill sometime ago.
I agree many of Obama's promises have not been kept -- such as his promise that any bill would allow us to keep the insurance we have now, and that it would not increase taxes on anyone making less than $250K, and that it would not increase the deficit, and that negotiations would be open and on CSPAN -- but much of the bill, such as health in
Re: (Score:2)
I agree many of Obama's promises have not been kept -- such as his promise that any bill would allow us to keep the insurance we have now, and that it would not increase taxes on anyone making less than $250K, and that it would not increase the deficit, and that negotiations would be open and on CSPAN -- but much of the bill, such as health insurance exchanges (the other biggie, after a "public option"), is straight out of his campaign literature.
And
And 72 hours -- obviously -- is not nearly enough time to go through the entire bill. So this does not fulfill the promise of allowing people to read it before a vote.
Cannot both be true. In order for you to support your first set of claims, you need to have been able to read the text of the bill. But if it truly is not available, then you could not have done that.
And your first claim of not being able to keep your insurance has been disproven several times already, here's one nonpartisan proof [factcheck.org] of that.
That wasn't the only reason. It also wasn't written at that time because at that point in time there wasn't enough house or senate support for it.
You mean "Senate."
First of all, only conservative hacks refer to it as "ObamaCare".
False. Mainstream nonpartisan news uses this term occasionally
[citation needed]
The term itself makes no sense as there is no care mandated by Obama in the bill.
False.
If you have access to the bill, then kindly provide a source to back up your claim. While the republican party is q
Re: (Score:2)
Your simultaneous claims ... Cannot both be true.
False.
In order for you to support your first set of claims, you need to have been able to read the text of the bill. But if it truly is not available, then you could not have done that.
Don't be daft. I was obviously talking about the bills so far, which Obama has clearly signalled he is happy with. If it changes before the final passage, fine. But we are, obviously, going by what has happened so far.
And your first claim of not being able to keep your insurance has been disproven several times already
False. That is absolute fact. Mandates NECESSARILY MEAN that people cannot keep their insurance. If you have mandates, you have to define "lower limits" for the "amount" of coverage someone has: someone who has less is required to get more, and is therefore disallowed from keeping
Re: (Score:2)
You start by indicating you don't want to discuss anything in detail:
False.
And then you go on to contradict yourself openly (as you were earlier claiming that the bill was unavailable):
In order for you to support your first set of claims, you need to have been able to read the text of the bill. But if it truly is not available, then you could not have done that.
Don't be daft. I was obviously talking about the bills so far, which Obama has clearly signalled he is happy with. If it changes before the final passage, fine. But we are, obviously, going by what has happened so far.
Because if you are going by "what has happened so far" - as in what has been written by the House and/or the Senate - then you need to be reading the drafted legislative proposals. But again, if they are not available then that would not be possible.
Hence your statement of them not being avai
Re: (Score:2)
You start by indicating you don't want to discuss anything in detail
False.
And that you see an inconsistency should cause you to question your interpretation. Perhaps, for example, I did not wish to discuss THAT in detail. Or perhaps -- and I seriously encourage you to consider this obvious possibility, as it is the one Occam's Razor would imply as a good choice -- I simply had nothing more to say on that point at that time and in that context.
And then you go on to contradict yourself openly (as you were earlier claiming that the bill was unavailable)
False. Please quote me saying the bill that passed the Senate is unavailable. I assure you, you cannot do so.
if you are going by "what has happened so far" - as in what has been written by the House and/or the Senate - then you need to be reading the drafted legislative proposals
No, I need to be rea
Re: (Score:2)
I simply had nothing more to say on that point at that time and in that context.
I do not consider that a valid excuse for being condescending.
And then you go on to contradict yourself openly (as you were earlier claiming that the bill was unavailable)
False. Please quote me saying the bill that passed the Senate is unavailable
Here you go. [slashdot.org] In that message you stated
many of Obama's promises have not been kept -- such as his promise that any bill would allow us to keep the insurance we have now, and that it would not increase taxes on anyone making less than $250K, and that it would not increase the deficit, and that negotiations would be open and on CSPAN
However we were not specifically discussing one version of the bill over the other. Specifically, you said that a bill would not allow you to keep the insurance you have - you did not specify any bill that does not - because no such bill exists.
If you want to apply your own spin to the bills, feel free to do so. I won't stop
Re: (Score:2)
As you neither admitted your errors -- claiming that the FactCheck link in any way referred to what I was talking about, claiming that an individual mandate does not necessarily require people to change their insurance when that is the whole point of the mandate and the Senate bill makes it very clear that this is the case -- nor in any way backed away from them, you therefore have nothing interesting to say, and therefore nothing to reply to.
It's sadly uncreative of you to say I should "walk away" when you
Re: (Score:2)
As you neither admitted your errors -- claiming that the FactCheck link in any way referred to what I was talking about
It referred to exactly what you were talking about. You then claimed to have been referring to something else after I provided it.
I also demonstrated how what you said conflicted with other things you said, and how indeed some things you said could not be true if other things you said were to be true as well. If you have a problem with facts and truth, then I suggest you go back to school. Disciplines like journalism often do a good job of making sure their students know how to find facts - oh wait, y
Re: (Score:2)
BFD. 72 hours to read and consider the ramifications of a 2000+-page bill? What kind of pathetic joke is that?
Re: (Score:2)
As for nobody being able to read the bill, you must have not read the news recently. Recently Pelosi herself said that the bill will be available online for everyone (legislators and the public) to read for 72 hours before the vote. The Senate made a similar 72-hour agreement for their version.
BFD. 72 hours to read and consider the ramifications of a 2000+-page bill?
That is actually 72 hours after the debate has ended and revisions are complete. By that point the congress-sheeple will have had ample time to read the original bill (prior to debate and revisions) and 72 hours should be a fair amount of time to review what has been changed - after all they were on the floor for the debate, weren't they?
Re: (Score:2)
If you are referring to legislation passed since Obama's inauguration, I challenge you to show us something that would not have been passed under GWB.
Stimulus absolutely would not have passed, not in anything like the form it did: Bush may have been coaxed into the idea, but it would have been nothing near the size or scope or open-endedness of this one. Probably TARP II would not have been passed, but we can only guess on that (Bush wasn't pleased about the first one, and IMO would not have been convinced a second one was, in his view, "necessary"). The tobacco bill, probably, though Bush likely would have fought certain provisions (though he likely w
Complete rubbish (Score:1)
If people are tired of having craptastic legislation rammed down their throats, then neither a democrat OR a republican would have a snowball's chance in hell of winning anything. Let's face it, Americans like their craptastic politicians.. and their craptastic cable, internets, cars, jobs, and they love their craptastic cell phone service. Hands down.. Craptasic wins. Totally kinky.
Re: (Score:1)
Let's face it, Americans like their craptastic politicians.. and their craptastic cable, internets, cars, jobs, and they love their craptastic cell phone service. Hands down.. Craptasic wins.
Welcome to Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
If people are tired of having craptastic legislation rammed down their throats, then neither a democrat OR a republican would have a snowball's chance in hell of winning anything.
Tell that to Tom Coburn (to take one example).
Re: (Score:1)
OMG [clubforgrowth.org]!