Original Mavericks tell McCain;

[Stella_Omega]

"you are no maverick."

A nice detail; the family has a long liberal tradition.

 

[Lee Chambers]

That was nice. Thanks.

 

[xssve]

"Maverick" was only ever a polite term for "asshole" w/respect to McCain I think - I've heard him more often referred to as a "loose cannon", i.e., he's too "centrist" for the party faithful, lol.

A fascinating bit of history there though, I never knew the origin of the term, not a word I use a lot, but I'll be careful how I use it from now on.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The point was that he didn't toe the party line. Though now he does, despite his claims to the contrary in Radar magazine.

Then again, Obama toes the Dem party line, despite claiming to be bipartisan (the most liberal voting record in the Senate).

And you wonder why I rejected both of them.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The point was that he didn't toe the party line. Though now he does, despite his claims to the contrary in Radar magazine.

Then again, Obama toes the Dem party line, despite claiming to be bipartisan (the most liberal voting record in the Senate).

And you wonder why I rejected both of them.

Sev dear, no one wonders why you rejected both of them. You've stated your opinons loudly and clearly. And frequently.

 

[sr71plt]

Sev dear, no one wonders why you rejected both of them. You've stated your opinons loudly and clearly. And frequently.

To and pretty much a "so what?" reception.

 

[Stella_Omega]

A fascinating bit of history there though, I never knew the origin of the term, not a word I use a lot, but I'll be careful how I use it from now on.

I'm thinking the same thing! You could be in danger of a lawsuit for misuse of copyright or something...

To and pretty much a "so what?" reception.

And a "please, that's enough" reception as well...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

And yet people kept trying to convince me of the "error" of my ways.

But my point is that the choice between them is one between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee.

 

[xssve]

Stop the presses.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Stop the presses.

 

[DeeZire]

And yet people kept trying to convince me of the "error" of my ways.

But my point is that the choice between them is one between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee.

Except that Tweedle-Dum would replace the two retiring liberal judges from the Supreme Court with conservatives, and Tweedle-Dee wouldn't. The Supreme Court is not a 4 year stint, it's a lifetime stint, and having no balance on the Supreme Court for the next twenty or so years would not bode well for our democracy. Just like the argument for divided government, the idea of a divided Supreme Court ensures that both viewpoints will be heard - unless you prefer the Fox News approach where one viewpoint prevails and the other is ridiculed.

This is but one reason your comments keep getting rebuffed around here - because they don't hold up to the scrutiny of common sense.

 

[Stella_Omega]

yeah, but Dee-- it doesn't matter what he thinks anyway. Sev cast his vote -- and I mean in the sense of casting a clod of dirt-- long ago.
*shrug*

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Except that Tweedle-Dum would replace the two retiring liberal judges from the Supreme Court with conservatives, and Tweedle-Dee wouldn't. The Supreme Court is not a 4 year stint, it's a lifetime stint, and having no balance on the Supreme Court for the next twenty or so years would not bode well for our democracy. Just like the argument for divided government, the idea of a divided Supreme Court ensures that both viewpoints will be heard - unless you prefer the Fox News approach where one viewpoint prevails and the other is ridiculed.

This is but one reason your comments keep getting rebuffed around here - because they don't hold up to the scrutiny of common sense.

Common sense? You've got to be kidding me. How does it make any sense to reward either of the two parties that made this recession, mortgage crisis (and you're kidding yourself if you think the jackasses who run Congress, give you a hint- they're not Republicans, had nothing to do with the failures of their friends in the GSEs), and the ballooning deficit possible?

How does it make sense, for that matter, to elect either a former independent who betrayed his principles or an untried, probably naive demagogue whose foreign policy is essentially appeasement and who wants to eliminate right to work and an entire medium of free speech?

How does it make sense to pretend that Mao Tse-tung committed no atrocities, as you have claimed? I suppose that you will next tell me that Pol Pot's barbaric massacres of 25% of his own countrymen was the work of a small cadre of young zealots within his own Khmer Rouge, or that Lenin and Stalin knew nothing of the slaughters done in their names (news to the Polish officers in the Katyn Forest)? And yet I have read you defend Mao and Teng and compare Kent State to Tianamen Square, among other things, as if there was any comparison to the crimes committed by the illegal Red Chinese regime to a single incident by a few scared teenage Guardsmen in one Ohio town, which certainly doesn't make us any less of a free, constitutional republic (yes, republic, not democracy).

Again, as the voice of reason, you lack authority. And I am damned glad that I didn't help put lunatics of either the far right or the far left on the Supreme Court. Not even to replace more lunatics already there, who according to their champion, elevate compassion over dispassionate and impartial judgment under the rule of law.

 

[matriarch]

Common sense? You've got to be kidding me. How does it make any sense to reward either of the two parties that made this recession, mortgage crisis (and you're kidding yourself if you think the jackasses who run Congress, give you a hint- they're not Republicans, had nothing to do with the failures of their friends in the GSEs), and the ballooning deficit possible?

How does it make sense, for that matter, to elect either a former independent who betrayed his principles or an untried, probably naive demagogue whose foreign policy is essentially appeasement and who wants to eliminate right to work and an entire medium of free speech?

How does it make sense to pretend that Mao Tse-tung committed no atrocities, as you have claimed? I suppose that you will next tell me that Pol Pot's barbaric massacres of 25% of his own countrymen was the work of a small cadre of young zealots within his own Khmer Rouge, or that Lenin and Stalin knew nothing of the slaughters done in their names (news to the Polish officers in the Katyn Forest)? And yet I have read you defend Mao and Teng and compare Kent State to Tianamen Square, among other things, as if there was any comparison to the crimes committed by the illegal Red Chinese regime to a single incident by a few scared teenage Guardsmen in one Ohio town, which certainly doesn't make us any less of a free, constitutional republic (yes, republic, not democracy).

Again, as the voice of reason, you lack authority. And I am damned glad that I didn't help put lunatics of either the far right or the far left on the Supreme Court. Not even to replace more lunatics already there, who according to their champion, elevate compassion over dispassionate and impartial judgment under the rule of law.

Without compassion, we are but mechanical robots. What point 'mitigating circumstances' without compassion?? Pray to any deity you like that we never, never return to that level in our 'progress'. I shudder to think of the outcome.

Without compassion, we herald a return to the days when a starving, homeless urchin would be sent to prison, or even transported, for stealing an apple or a piece of bread.

Give me a judiciary ruled by compassion and common sense any day, rather than one that does everything by the impartial judgement under the rule of law.