Yes, that’s right, because I posted this several days ago about what a Democrat in Md. did. The whole Frist thing is RT’s hijack of this thread where he willfully ignores what I actually say in the other thread.
Since I condemned a Democrat in this thread, and Frist (a Republican) in the other thread, it sure seems bi-partisan to me. You must have a different definition.
:smack: Quite right. My mistake.
See above. you’re getting the treads confused, as RT undoubtedly intended.
If you agree with me, why do you insist on continuing with the partisan attacks? Have you ever-just once-admitted that a Democrat was wrong?
Right, but Republicans in MD do the same thing. Why did your OP focus on the Democrats in this thread? In the thread about Republican wrong doings, why did you go out of your way to blame both sides?
Apparently, I do have a different definition. To me, bi-partisan means treating both sides equally, when they do wrong or when they do right. At least in these two threads, you haven’t done that. In this thread, you specifically blamed the Democrats, despite the fact that you’re complaining about something that both sides do regularly. In the other thread, about a Republican, you deliberately avoided condemning Frist specifically, instead blaming the whole of Congress. That’s a classic partisan defence: “Sure, it’s wrong, but your guys do it too!”
Yer cute when you pretend people can’t read. And there haven’t even been that many posts since #72.
Again?? :rolleyes:
Yer even cuter when you don’t even read what you’ve written that I agreed with.
Well, hell yes - I used to be a Republican. (Go back far enough, and I used to be a Goldwater Republican with a well-thumbed copy of The Conscience of a Conservative.) I’ve only considered myself a Democrat for a fairly short while - just a couple years longer than you’ve known me. So I’ve criticized my fair share of Dems, thankyewverymuch.
Oh, you mean since I became a Dem? Well, sure. Let me name a few names of Dems I’ve disagreed with lately: President Clinton, Sen. Clinton, Rep. Steny Hoyer (who represents me in Congress). None of these are exactly DINOs, either, althugh I have my problems with them too, obviously.
Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for you to say something like, “Sen. Frist and Speaker Hastert shouldn’t have snuck that present to Big Pharma (call it something more neutral if you want) into the Defense Appropriations Bill after the Conference Committee conferees had already signed off on the bill.” Not that I’m expecting miracles anytime soon, of course.
The Republicans (in Maryland) used a procedural tactic to bring a bill to the floor to be voted on. While that procedure is usually used for, and is actually intended, to free up bills that are locked in committee, so in that respect their move was political shenanigans as well, the purpose of using it was to bring the thing to a vote, a very democratic goal. The Democrats responded by recessing the legislature in order to prevent a vote from being taken*, in no small part (if you know Maryland politics this makes sense, I referenced it above) because some of them would have felt compelled to vote FOR this repugnant legislation to cover their ass with their religious black constituents, most of who adamantly oppose SSM and who vote in large numbers and contribute heavily to party coffers. Thus their act was not only one of obstruction to the political process, but of great cowardice as well. One of the reasons I became a Democrat was because of the party’s traditional support for important civil rights issues, racial equality, women’s rights, abortion, gay rights, ssm, separation of church and state, education, etc… Many of these noble and vital issues have been distorted beyond recognition. The civil rights struggle of the 60s has morphed into an entitlement program based upon inequality and an institutionalized inferiority complex. Education is still the right of every child-but only an education sanitized and approved by the leadership of large teacher’s unions. Democrats absolutely support SSM-or at least civil unions-unless they might be forced to, you know, actually vote that way when it might displease some of their constituents. If you’re going to take the position that you support something, then goddammit, vote that way and let the chips fall where they may.
But you’re missing the point in that other thread. I’m not defending Frist at all. However, to my mind the big problem here isn’t that Bill Frist stuck an 11th hour amendment onto a bill, the problem is that anyone can do it at all. “MG, Bill Fri st did XXX, isn’t that teh suxx0r?!” is a partisan wank fest. “XXX is wrong no matter which side does it” is a bi-partisan argument. To anyone reading that other thread it should be obvious that I don’t approve of Frist’s actions, I’ve said so many times, but the important distinction is that I disapprove not because it’s Frist doing the hanky panky, it’s the hanky panky itself. I am convinced that some if not all of the people chewing on me in that thread would be absolutely beside themselves with joy if a Democrat had done the same thing and the result was funding for stem cell research (another thing I personally strongly support but would oppose in that particular instance) and that simply perpetrates the problem.
*And that’s the difference in my mind, I guess. One was utilized to allow a vote, the other was utilized to prevent one. To me, that’s an important distinction, although I don’t particularly like either one.
Now that makes sense. I don’t hardly agree with it, but it does make sense.
I view it as the Republicans trying to avoid a vote. They knew a vote was coming in committee, and they know they would lose; their procedural games were intended to prevent that vote.
Both the petition and the recess were quite legal and within the rules of the General Assembly. I don’t think there can be any disagreement about that.
I would take issue with your idea that, in respect to the petition, “the purpose of using it was to bring the thing to a vote, a very democratic goal.” The purpose of it, in my opinion (and no one here being a member of the Assembly, we can but give opinion), was to in an election year, force members of the legislature to vote on this cold-hearted, hateful, and quite doomed-to-failure bill. This done, they would take the vote and hold it up to the most cold-hearted and hateful supporters in an attempt to garner a more favorable electoral outcome in November. The vote, therefore was not, in my opinion, towards a democratic goal, but just more electoral noise targeted at a tiny, twisted, vociferous minority.
As for “the Democrats” recessing the House of Delegates, that is the prerogative of the Speaker. He can do it alone and at his will. So, it is his decision alone.
That said, I think you are right that many Afro-American Maryland Democrats are quite parson-ridden, and thus prone to make very bigoted, small-hearted, and stupid decisions when it comes to contemporary human-rights issues. It will be, as I am sure you agree, a good thing when someone rids the party of these meddlesome priests.
I just found this thread a couple of hours ago. (There are times that I really hate having to work for a living …) Wish I could have jumped in sooner.
After filtering out some of the language, I believe that, despite some really good points that have been made by Wierddave, Frank, RT and others, I still have to stand by my previous post applauding Lissa.
There is, I think, a subtle point in [her?] post that needs to be expanded on.
The United States of America was founded as a Republic. The principle being that, ultimately, the majority rules - but not at the expense of the rights of others. My feeling, as was so clearly pointed out by Lissa, is that the Constitution of the United States was intentionally written in such a way as to slow things down. A means to allow ‘We, The People’ a period of time to say “Hey! Wait just one damn minute …”. I fully see Weirddave’s point – however, if all those nasty little tricks and road blocks weren’t there, things could go to hell in a hand basket pretty damn fast.
On the parallel subject of Democrats vs. Republicans that seems to be running strong in this thread, I’ve never understood why this nation bcame polarized between two extremes. Us vs. Them.
I believe that We, as a nation, stand at a crossroads. There are a number of very spooky political parallels in history that mirror our political dilemas today, but, one of the most serious problems we face as a nation today is the lack of a solid, viable “third party” to represent those of us who stand on the middle ground.
I hold many of the Democratic Party’s ideals close to my heart.
I AM NOT a Democrat.
I hold many of the Republican Party’s ideals close to my heart.
I AM NOT a Republican.
Nor do I view myself as either liberal or conservative.
You see, I am (quite simply) an American.
I stand alone (or so it feels most of the time), unrepresented by either of those parties. I reserve my right to reject party affilitation if none of the parties represent (in my view) the best interests of the Nation. So, when election time rolls around, I find myself looking to the individual asking for my vote in search of someone who I believe will represent the best interests of our Nation (or my state). The candidates I vote for rarely win.
I look forward to the day when there exists a “third party” that stands between the political extremes we face today, and has the foresight to take the best of the Republican Platform, and the best of the Democratic Platform, and what ever else makes sense, and uses those ideas and ideals to serve the best interests of our Nation. (As opposed to ‘special interest groups’ or who ever donates the most money to their campaign chest.)
Perhaps we could call it the “Republicrat” Party.
Then again, I suppose that it is entirely possible that I am alone out here on the middle ground.
