Sen. Saxby Chambliss(R), GA

The BBQ Pit
41

Posted by Bricker:

Nobody asked you, Bricker. Kindly butt out.

Posted by Monty:

Did I not say that we shouldn’t hijack a perfectly good thread about one of my state’s inadequate Senators? I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that you didn’t pay attention. Fine; briefly, then:

I understood your question.

Then you should have answered it, rather than a different question I didn’t ask.

I am not a right wing shill.

It never occurred to me that you might be, but thanks for the assurance.

Bush actually won the election.

As has been pointed out to you, there are different proper ways to use the word “actually”; I believe you’re deliberately responding to a meaning I wasn’t using. Again, you’re being disingenuous. Obviously, Bush legally won the election; I just strongly suspect that the votes in Ohio were not honestly and accurately counted, and that if they had been, the state (and the election) would have gone to Kerry.

Learn how the government of the United States is set up and perhaps you will refrain from future ignorant comments on the matter.

Thanks, but I know how it’s set up; my remark was not ignorant (although it was off-hand).

Read Bricker’s post if you need help with the big words.

Are you attempting another insult? If so, it’s a wretched attempt, yet somehow touching. I’d appreciate it if you’d go practice for a while, gain some skill at the art of invective, then come back and show me what you’ve learned; you’ll find me supportive and encouraging of your efforts at self-betterment. Also note that sesquipedalian rhetoric does not by itself make a reasoned argument.

Incidentally, the popular vote is irrelevant to the issue; as I read on the back of my box of Cocoa Krispies this morning, we elect Presidents using something called the Electoral College.

I’m sure the significance of events in Ohio last November have already been debated at length and in depth on the SDMB; therefore, let’s end this hijack now, now, very now.

Getting back to the actual subject of the thread, here’s what Senator Chambliss said after meeting with John Roberts:

Regardless of what you think about Judge Roberts, this really is a load of fatuous blather. Not exactly unusual for a member of Congress, of course – but I haven’t so far heard Chambliss say anything more meaningful.

So, not a very impressive Senator. Hey, don’t we have at least a few Dopers from each state? Maybe we could have 50 threads, one for each state, describing the two Senators and rating them in some way. (Georgia’s other Senator is Johnny Isakson, who’s not terribly inspiring.)

42

Look, I clearly saw Baldwin’s comment. Take yet another gander at it and you, also, shall notice that he made a comparison between actually and officially. So you are now either intentionally telling a lie as to the post’s contents, too stupid to recall what you posted or read, or just don’t understand the concept of comparison. Perhaps just the latter two.

My point, which you are studiously avoiding for no apparent reason, is that Baldwin’s comment was an ignorant comment in a thread berating someone for an ignorant comment. I still find it funny.

43

Drat. I forgot to mention something. In the United States, officially is actually for the presidential election.

44

Nope. Every thread is open to commentary from every member of the board. You post stupid shit, and I’ll call you on it. You tell me to butt out, and I won’t, kindly or otherwise.

Ass.

45

tsk tsk…seems like you’d know by now dissenting opinions are allowed on public boards, whether asked for or not.

He did pay attention. Just happened to be the erroneous part of your post. Being all snide and condescending to cover up your fuckup isn’t going to work, my friend.

Wow, this type of doubletalk would make Bill Clinton proud! You’re faulting **Monty ** for not understanding your meaning for “actually?” Talk about being disingenuous. And no, other meanings for “actually” have not been discussed in this thread, so I think it’s safe to assume that **Monty ** thought that “actually” meant “in reality” like everyone else who read that post.

Thus sayeth the man with pants firmly around ankles.

46

Well that was a fun thread for a little while.

47

Yeah, except as has been thoroughly and clearly demonstrated, it wasn’t an ignorant comment, it was a comment that reflected a thorough knowledge of recent electoral history and the disputes over the Ohio vote. Fact of the matter is, the 2000 Presidential election was such a blatant fraud that any close election will necessarily be viewed with extreme suspicion by many people, and with good reason. The Republicans are demonstrably involved in electoral frauds, comments indicating doubts about their “victories” are just people being honest.

48

Re: Saxby Chambliss

I have met the man, he is in fact a blithering idiot, just the sort of tool the Pubbie machine likes to use. And he did benefit from that flyer showing Osama and Max Cleland as good buddies. Nauseating. I also think there was some electoral trickery there – the election results were WAAAAAY off the polls, right after we got those Diebold voting machines installed. Fancy that.

49

Why, because he’s schooling your ass?

You said something stupid and untrue. Admit it and move on. Adamantly defending the indefensible makes you look like a bigger idiot, when saying “hey, I got carried away” or maybe “I was thinking of 2000” would have ended the matter immediately.

50

Hmmm, I screwed up the C&P there. Sorry about that, obviously Bricker did not tell himself to butt out.

51

And if he had offered a comment indicating doubt about the accuracy of the outcome, I’m sure no one would have blinked.

But his comment went well beyond doubt. His comment asserted as a matter of fact that Kerry actually won.

THAT is ignorant.

52

Actually :slight_smile: that was posted by Baldwin.

53

Is Kerry/Gore in the White House now? No. Bush is. If you feel Bushies cheated in the past, use that info in the future. That is all. Go make your own thread.

Grabs thread and wrenches it back on course

I hail from PA, home of the Dover “Snopes Trial, Part Deux” and the lawmakers who voted themselves a 54% pay raise, while delaying the minimum wage raise and getting bloody with the budget. I’ll see your idiots and raise you a Santorum, our local empty-headed goatfelcher.

We also have Spector, who’s good people as far as I can tell.

54

Santorum

To fight ignorance, and so you get the full picture of this “remarkable” man.

55

Take this stupid hijack elsewhere. Lamest non argument I’ve ever seen here.

56

If it weren’t so representative of the smear technique -the most successful “stupid partisan trick” in the history of American politics- I certainly wouldn’t have pursued it. But the problem is, calling well founded opinions “ignorant” or those who make accusations of fraud or corruption “crazies” or “shrill partisans” is so popular among the current Republican Borg because it really does discourage close examination of their policies, tactics and practical record.

Here’s a fearless prediction for the coming midterm elections: The prominent right wing apologists on this board will be using the terms I identified above (“ignorant” “crazy” “shrill”) in ever increasing frequency in all discussions of the growing list of Republican political figures implicated in corruption investigations. And when in November 2006 election results in all districts with unverifiable electronic voting defy the exit polls and the Republicans retain control of the House and Senate, the concerted rightwing smears will once again relegate assertions of electoral fraud to the domain of the “unhinged”, and it will once again work to suppress scrutiny of elections in this country.

I hope I’m wrong. History and this thread indicate that’s probably a forlorn hope.

57

:smack:
Coding fart.

58

Please tell us that you posted that as a joke.

59

I’m wondering how it happens. I know it’s a meme that politicians at a national level are bad and corrupt, and we almost automatically blame everyone else for voting people in that we don’t approve of, but… Doesn’t it make some sort of sense that there would be -some- good, effective politicians out there? And I ask this in all seriousness. Is it just a given that there aren’t, and therefore we won’t work to try to make it so?
The alderman for the city I grew up in is a hard-working, honest, (if a tad boring) man. I’d like to think that if we cloned him a few dozen times and put him in positions of authority in Washington, good things would happen. I know cloning is out of the question, but I can’t imagine he’s the only politician who people might actually want to see in office.
One possibility I see is that there’s so much broad definition of what we’d like to see that it is hard to single out a ‘good’ politician.
One other possibility is that, due to the fact that politicians spend so much time making sure they keep their job in the next election, their job becomes that instead of what they were hired to do. Case in point- I have a friend who worked for the state of Missouri, and he tells me that half of the state legislature that was passed while he was there was just ‘for show’… Politicians showing that they were doing -something- for their constituants, so they’d get their support at the next election.
Another possibility, and this one scares me, is that we, as voters, are actually pretty convinced of the meme of bad politicians, and because of that we assume there -is- no way to get a good one in office, so we don’t ‘waste our time’. Sadly, I think this one is pretty possible. I’d love to see a good politician in office, but my fear that it can’t be done, or that worse, only having -one- in office will mean nothing, makes me unable to actually go out and do anything about it.
So, thoughts? I’m sorry to bring this up in the Pit, but I figure… It’s still discussion against ignorance.

60

People don’t really want good politicians. What do you think happens when a candidate tells the truth?

“You people want lots of government services. So I’ll give them to you. Of course, I’ll have to raise taxes to do it.”

“You’ve all said how much you hate government pork projects. So elect me and I’ll vote against that proposed federal funding for your new school.”

The voters say they want one thing and then vote for people who give them something else.