Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Following the Last Lion: MA Senate Elections

1363738394042»

Posts

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Brown is on Capitol Hill talking to reporters. His response to one the first questions spent about 5 minutes talking up Obama.

  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    Brown is on Capitol Hill talking to reporters. His response to one the first questions spent about 5 minutes talking up Obama.
    Whaaa? Really?

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    Brown is on Capitol Hill talking to reporters. His response to one the first questions spent about 5 minutes talking up Obama.
    Whaaa? Really?

    Good, maybe he really is realizing he was just elected by Massachusetts.

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    Brown is on Capitol Hill talking to reporters. His response to one the first questions spent about 5 minutes talking up Obama.
    Whaaa? Really?

    Good, maybe he really is realizing he was just elected by Massachusetts.

    Looks like the President and Senate are rolling over to play fetch. They won't do anything concerning Healthcare until Brown is seated.

    What. The. Fuck?

    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    The only problem is that he's not down with the main things that were supposed to fund the bill (taxes, cuts to Medicare part D). Though he did qualify it by saying he knew reform is "important to the president" and would be reading the bill to know his positions fully.

    I'm going to hope he just bought into the stupid fearmongering and is actually rational enough to support the bill once he reads it. He didn't go off on a talking point tangent when asked for his positions, just those two things.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    The only problem is that he's not down with the main things that were supposed to fund the bill (taxes, cuts to Medicare part D). Though he did qualify it by saying he knew reform is "important to the president" and would be reading the bill to know his positions fully.

    I'm going to hope he just bought into the stupid fearmongering and is actually rational enough to support the bill once he reads it. He didn't go off on a talking point tangent when asked for his positions, just those two things.
    I guarantee that there will be 58 votes for, 42 against. There hasn't been a single republican willing to step out of line for the past year, no matter their personal convictions.


    And Lieberman is a big jerk so.

  • hjparcinshjparcins Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    In a country where you are told to fall in line once you're elected to congress (no matter what you or your constituents believe), I have a lot of respect for Lieberman not giving in to party threats.

    There are definitely more Dems than just Lieberman that don't support the bill. The difference is, Reid or Pelosi threatened them and they gave in rather than standing by their convictions.

  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    hjparcins wrote: »
    In a country where you are told to fall in line once you're elected to congress (no matter what you or your constituents believe), I have a lot of respect for Lieberman not giving in to party threats.

    There are definitely more Dems than just Lieberman that don't support the bill. The difference is, Reid or Pelosi threatened them and they gave in rather than standing by their convictions.

    But...but that's how a two party system works.

    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    hjparcins wrote: »
    In a country where you are told to fall in line once you're elected to congress (no matter what you or your constituents believe), I have a lot of respect for Lieberman not giving in to party threats.

    There are definitely more Dems than just Lieberman that don't support the bill. The difference is, Reid or Pelosi threatened them and they gave in rather than standing by their convictions.

    Lieberman isn't technically a Dem anymore. They let him hang out with them because they need his vote.

  • hjparcinshjparcins Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Well, he's an independent democrat or some shit. And he's still a registered democrat.

    But yeah, they definitely shouldn't expect him to just shut up and vote, especially since Connecticut keeps electing him.
    [But...but that's how a two party system works.

    If that's how it was supposed to work then we would vote "democrat or republican" each congressional election and we would just pass every bill the winner wanted for a couple of years.

    The reason you have the various leaders in congress is to attempt to get the parties in line; the very fact that they exist assumes that that is not always going to happen.

  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    hjparcins wrote: »
    [But...but that's how a two party system works.

    If that's how it was supposed to work then we would vote "democrat or republican" each congressional election and we would just pass every bill the winner wanted for a couple of years.

    I for one would love a parliamentary-style coalition government.

  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    hjparcins wrote: »
    [But...but that's how a two party system works.

    If that's how it was supposed to work then we would vote "democrat or republican" each congressional election and we would just pass every bill the winner wanted for a couple of years.

    I for one would love a parliamentary-style coalition government.

    It would probably be a boon.

    We'd be able to actually see how big/small the various "fringe" groups actually are. It also provides for a more effective means of setting "party policy", as you know how many of the members are "far-left" versus "moderate left", etc.

    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I just feel somehow that Obama must be just waiting, lurking, about to leap out with some epic new policy that will show us all what he's been up to. Like "I've just arranged to build a machine that reverses entropy and can turn CO2 from the air into oxygen and energy". The man seems so reasonable and calm, and to be happy in his job. ANd yet, his opposition is so unreasonable and being such utter dicks that everything he clearly wants to do isn't getting done. I don't see how those two pictures gel together, you'd think he'd at least be telling people to 'get shit done, NOW' Not demanding they wait and see etc.

    The only thing I can think, is that what was REALLY important to him was restoring the presidency and the office of the president to being secondary in power to the other branches of government. If thats the case he is doing fine by his own standards, but if he truly believes that the Senate and House in their current state are fit to lead then it's absurd.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »
    I just feel somehow that Obama must be just waiting, lurking, about to leap out with some epic new policy that will show us all what he's been up to. Like "I've just arranged to build a machine that reverses entropy and can turn CO2 from the air into oxygen and energy". The man seems so reasonable and calm, and to be happy in his job.

    so was bush

    that's because he wanted to screw over the country, screwed over the country, and loved every minute of it

  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    No, I really don't think that's what he wanted to do. I think that's what he did, but I don't think he was waking up going "in what way should I screw Americans today?" That's just silly.

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    hjparcins wrote: »
    In a country where you are told to fall in line once you're elected to congress (no matter what you or your constituents believe), I have a lot of respect for Lieberman not giving in to party threats.

    There are definitely more Dems than just Lieberman that don't support the bill. The difference is, Reid or Pelosi threatened them and they gave in rather than standing by their convictions.

    What threats? They didn't threaten to take away his committee positions and they didn't threaten to kick him out of the caucus.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2010
    No, I really don't think that's what he wanted to do. I think that's what he did, but I don't think he was waking up going "in what way should I screw Americans today?" That's just silly.

    maybe not in that phrasing, but it was the basic thrust of everything he did

  • GothicLargoGothicLargo Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »
    I just feel somehow that Obama must be just waiting, lurking, about to leap out with some epic new policy that will show us all what he's been up to. Like "I've just arranged to build a machine that reverses entropy and can turn CO2 from the air into oxygen and energy". The man seems so reasonable and calm, and to be happy in his job. ANd yet, his opposition is so unreasonable and being such utter dicks that everything he clearly wants to do isn't getting done. I don't see how those two pictures gel together, you'd think he'd at least be telling people to 'get shit done, NOW' Not demanding they wait and see etc.

    I think it is becoming apparent to Obama that Pelosi (who has been in the house since the end of the Reagan days) does not respect his input, and that he only leads half of what has become a two party party. Just as the Republican party has split into neocon and libertarian halves, the democratic party has split into green socialist and reform populist halves.

    We're halfway to a party split. The problem is that neither side, on either party, wants to be the side that gives up the name, because the name will live, and the splinter party won't.

    The socialists won't jump the democratic party and vote green because they'll be cut out. Likewise, the populists won't vote reform (or libertarian) because they'll likewise be cut out, and the neocons are incapable of contemplating taking another name because Reagan was a Republican.

    We have a three party population that is trying to wrestle for control of two names. The moderate swing will become more and more powerful and more anti-incumbent until a persona appears with the capacity to lead a credible third party that can actually organize itself. When it happens it will be because of social media and it will happen very fast.

    atfc.jpg
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Rust wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    I just feel somehow that Obama must be just waiting, lurking, about to leap out with some epic new policy that will show us all what he's been up to. Like "I've just arranged to build a machine that reverses entropy and can turn CO2 from the air into oxygen and energy". The man seems so reasonable and calm, and to be happy in his job.

    so was bush

    that's because he wanted to screw over the country, screwed over the country, and loved every minute of it

    But Bush was an idiot. His goals were to invade Iraq, build more guns, and push a Christian agenda. He was doing all those things. It made sense why he was happy, since you could see him working towards making his goals happen.

    The only goal Obama seems to be pushing, is the goal of limiting the powers of the president.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • hjparcinshjparcins Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Well, and the goal of expanding the powers of the federal government.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    hjparcins wrote: »
    Well, and the goal of expanding the powers of the federal government.

    Err, assuming I did believe that this Health Bill "Expanded the powers of the blah blah" he isn't even working hard to push that! He's not busy interfering in the running of the banks, or demanding cruel repayment schedules. He's not enforcing his powers over the motor companies. He's not passing sweeping proclamations against the will of the people, or repealing popular policies.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • hjparcinshjparcins Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Don't forget the student loan takeover a-brewin'.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »
    I just feel somehow that Obama must be just waiting, lurking, about to leap out with some epic new policy that will show us all what he's been up to. Like "I've just arranged to build a machine that reverses entropy and can turn CO2 from the air into oxygen and energy". The man seems so reasonable and calm, and to be happy in his job. ANd yet, his opposition is so unreasonable and being such utter dicks that everything he clearly wants to do isn't getting done. I don't see how those two pictures gel together, you'd think he'd at least be telling people to 'get shit done, NOW' Not demanding they wait and see etc.

    I think it is becoming apparent to Obama that Pelosi (who has been in the house since the end of the Reagan days) does not respect his input, and that he only leads half of what has become a two party party. Just as the Republican party has split into neocon and libertarian halves, the democratic party has split into green socialist and reform populist halves.

    We're halfway to a party split. The problem is that neither side, on either party, wants to be the side that gives up the name, because the name will live, and the splinter party won't.

    The socialists won't jump the democratic party and vote green because they'll be cut out. Likewise, the populists won't vote reform (or libertarian) because they'll likewise be cut out, and the neocons are incapable of contemplating taking another name because Reagan was a Republican.

    We have a three party population that is trying to wrestle for control of two names. The moderate swing will become more and more powerful and more anti-incumbent until a persona appears with the capacity to lead a credible third party that can actually organize itself. When it happens it will be because of social media and it will happen very fast.

    This is the dumbest, least-connected-to-reality analysis I've seen since I turned on Fox News one time.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    hjparcins wrote: »
    Don't forget the student loan takeover a-brewin'.

    Yes, because allowing banks to skim 10 billion dollars a year guaranteed off of students trying to pursue an education is wonderful.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    I just feel somehow that Obama must be just waiting, lurking, about to leap out with some epic new policy that will show us all what he's been up to. Like "I've just arranged to build a machine that reverses entropy and can turn CO2 from the air into oxygen and energy". The man seems so reasonable and calm, and to be happy in his job. ANd yet, his opposition is so unreasonable and being such utter dicks that everything he clearly wants to do isn't getting done. I don't see how those two pictures gel together, you'd think he'd at least be telling people to 'get shit done, NOW' Not demanding they wait and see etc.

    I think it is becoming apparent to Obama that Pelosi (who has been in the house since the end of the Reagan days) does not respect his input, and that he only leads half of what has become a two party party. Just as the Republican party has split into neocon and libertarian halves, the democratic party has split into green socialist and reform populist halves.

    We're halfway to a party split. The problem is that neither side, on either party, wants to be the side that gives up the name, because the name will live, and the splinter party won't.

    The socialists won't jump the democratic party and vote green because they'll be cut out. Likewise, the populists won't vote reform (or libertarian) because they'll likewise be cut out, and the neocons are incapable of contemplating taking another name because Reagan was a Republican.

    We have a three party population that is trying to wrestle for control of two names. The moderate swing will become more and more powerful and more anti-incumbent until a persona appears with the capacity to lead a credible third party that can actually organize itself. When it happens it will be because of social media and it will happen very fast.

    This is the dumbest, least-connected-to-reality analysis I've seen since I turned on Fox News one time.

    Its like a parody of a bad op-ed.

    "Blah blah blah extremist liberals blah blah blah NANCY PELOSI blah blah blah moderates are great blah blah blah."

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »
    I just feel somehow that Obama must be just waiting, lurking, about to leap out with some epic new policy that will show us all what he's been up to. Like "I've just arranged to build a machine that reverses entropy and can turn CO2 from the air into oxygen and energy". The man seems so reasonable and calm, and to be happy in his job. ANd yet, his opposition is so unreasonable and being such utter dicks that everything he clearly wants to do isn't getting done. I don't see how those two pictures gel together, you'd think he'd at least be telling people to 'get shit done, NOW' Not demanding they wait and see etc.

    I think it is becoming apparent to Obama that Pelosi (who has been in the house since the end of the Reagan days) does not respect his input, and that he only leads half of what has become a two party party. Just as the Republican party has split into neocon and libertarian halves, the democratic party has split into green socialist and reform populist halves.

    We're halfway to a party split. The problem is that neither side, on either party, wants to be the side that gives up the name, because the name will live, and the splinter party won't.

    The socialists won't jump the democratic party and vote green because they'll be cut out. Likewise, the populists won't vote reform (or libertarian) because they'll likewise be cut out, and the neocons are incapable of contemplating taking another name because Reagan was a Republican.

    We have a three party population that is trying to wrestle for control of two names. The moderate swing will become more and more powerful and more anti-incumbent until a persona appears with the capacity to lead a credible third party that can actually organize itself. When it happens it will be because of social media and it will happen very fast.
    I have to admit; this alternate political reality you're inhabiting is a lot more interesting than the one we have now.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited January 2010
    No, I really don't think that's what he wanted to do. I think that's what he did, but I don't think he was waking up going "in what way should I screw Americans today?" That's just silly.

    True. I don't think he cared about Americans at all. I think he woke up every day wondering how he can make his buddies and himself even more powerful and rich.

    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • hjparcinshjparcins Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Yes, because allowing banks to skim 10 billion dollars a year guaranteed off of students trying to pursue an education is wonderful.

    Yeah, it is pretty wonderful. That's just business, man. And I can almost guarantee that I have more student loans than anyone here.

    And don't act like the government is going to offer 0% interest rates or something. Please.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    hjparcins wrote: »
    Yes, because allowing banks to skim 10 billion dollars a year guaranteed off of students trying to pursue an education is wonderful.

    Yeah, it is pretty wonderful. That's just business, man. And I can almost guarantee that I have more student loans than anyone here.

    And don't act like the government is going to offer 0% interest rates or something. Please.

    They can, however, always offer a lower rate then a private company.

    Which sounds good to me.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    hjparcins wrote: »
    Yes, because allowing banks to skim 10 billion dollars a year guaranteed off of students trying to pursue an education is wonderful.

    Yeah, it is pretty wonderful. That's just business, man. And I can almost guarantee that I have more student loans than anyone here.

    And don't act like the government is going to offer 0% interest rates or something. Please.

    Here is the current situation:

    1) Banks make loans to students.
    2) Government guarantees those loans to the banks.
    3) Government subsidizes those loans to the banks.
    4) Banks hike interest rates on students.

    There is no risk to the banks, it's just free money! The government is providing the loans, but there is a bizarre middle man because the banks own a bunch of Senators.

    It's not business, it's corporate welfare. Which is interestingly something a large majority of the "free market" believers support in this country.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    hjparcins wrote: »
    Yes, because allowing banks to skim 10 billion dollars a year guaranteed off of students trying to pursue an education is wonderful.

    Yeah, it is pretty wonderful. That's just business, man. And I can almost guarantee that I have more student loans than anyone here.

    And don't act like the government is going to offer 0% interest rates or something. Please.

    Here is the current situation:

    1) Banks make loans to students.
    2) Government guarantees those loans to the banks.
    3) Government subsidizes those loans to the banks.
    4) Banks hike interest rates on students.

    There is no risk to the banks, it's just free money! The government is providing the loans, but there is a bizarre middle man because the banks own a bunch of Senators.

    It's not business, it's corporate welfare. Which is interestingly something a large majority of the "free market" believers support in this country.

    It's just business, man! Free market! Free market! Those kids can just take those loans elsewhere!

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User
    edited January 2010
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    hjparcins wrote: »
    Yes, because allowing banks to skim 10 billion dollars a year guaranteed off of students trying to pursue an education is wonderful.

    Yeah, it is pretty wonderful. That's just business, man. And I can almost guarantee that I have more student loans than anyone here.

    And don't act like the government is going to offer 0% interest rates or something. Please.

    Here is the current situation:

    1) Banks make loans to students.
    2) Government guarantees those loans to the banks.
    3) Government subsidizes those loans to the banks.
    4) Banks hike interest rates on students.

    There is no risk to the banks, it's just free money! The government is providing the loans, but there is a bizarre middle man because the banks own a bunch of Senators.

    It's not business, it's corporate welfare. Which is interestingly something a large majority of the "free market" believers support in this country.

    It's just business, man! Free market! Free market! Those kids can just take those loans elsewhere!

    Even though I know you are being facetious, I feel an urge to stab somebody in the face with my pen. There are a sizable number of people in this country who would nod their heads in serious agreement.

    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
Sign In or Register to comment.