What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Priceless said:
"So now Reid's supposed to obey a law that doesn't exist? What's next - imaginary street signs?"
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't mean to impugn Reid specifically. I should have said "Insert Any Currently Discussed Politician's Name" as I intended to disparage ALL politicians who provide similar lip service to their so-called principles. I don't care if they have an R or a D after their name, if they say they're against something and then do it because there is no law prohibiting it, they qualify as a unprincipled dooooschbag. However, in Ried's case, the shoe appears to fit.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

busterman62 said:
Sorry, I didn't mean to impugn Reid specifically. I should have said "Insert Any Currently Discussed Politician's Name" as I intended to disparage ALL politicians who provide similar lip service to their so-called principles. I don't care if they have an R or a D after their name, if they say they're against something and then do it because there is no law prohibiting it, they qualify as a unprincipled dooooschbag. However, in Ried's case, the shoe appears to fit.
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to understand what Reid did. It's not his ad. It wasn't his ruling. If Big Pharma wants to take advantage of Chief Roberts and the Courts decision by fellating Harry Reid for passing the Health Care Bill, that's their right under the laws given to corporations by the United States.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

ScoobyDoo said:
I'm still trying to understand what Reid did. It's not his ad. It wasn't his ruling. If Big Pharma wants to take advantage of Chief Roberts and the Courts decision by fellating Harry Reid for passing the Health Care Bill, that's their right under the laws given to corporations by the United States.
Click to expand...

And if Reid held a presser to condemn the ad we'd probably hear that he's doing it for attention. And if Big Pharma didn't take the ad off the air, it'd still be his fault. No matter what he does the same people will still complain. The only way he can gain their approval is by deciding not to run again.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

ScoobyDoo said:
I'm still trying to understand what Reid did. It's not his ad. It wasn't his ruling. If Big Pharma wants to take advantage of Chief Roberts and the Courts decision by fellating Harry Reid for passing the Health Care Bill, that's their right under the laws given to corporations by the United States.
Click to expand...
It's more what he didn't do in this case. IMO, the correct thing to do if one actually believes these ads are wrong would be to make a statement that although Pharma was within their rights to put out the ad but I disapprove of it and request they stop showing it.

Maybe I expect too much and should give Reid (et al) a break. He/They didn't do anything wrong or, as Priceless correctly points out, break any laws. He/They just didn't do what's right.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

ScoobyDoo said:
I'm still trying to understand what Reid did. It's not his ad. It wasn't his ruling. If Big Pharma wants to take advantage of Chief Roberts and the Courts decision by fellating Harry Reid for passing the Health Care Bill, that's their right under the laws given to corporations by the United States.
Click to expand...

To be honest it was more of the irony of the story than outright hypocrisy.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

busterman62 said:
It's more what he didn't do in this case. IMO, the correct thing to do if one actually believes these ads are wrong would be to make a statement that although Pharma was within their rights to put out the ad but I disapprove of it and request they stop showing it.

Maybe I expect too much and should give Reid (et al) a break. He/They didn't do anything wrong or, as Priceless correctly points out, break any laws. He/They just didn't do what's right.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure he can by law. He's not supposed to coordinate with outside parties running ads. IIRC that was something that came up during the Swift Boat nonsense. While Bush could have done more to disavow it, I don't know if you can outright call for it to be taken down.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Priceless said:
Here are a few summaries.

The "major" legislation was the "Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006" passed on 20 December.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you put "major" in quotes. They extended a few tax cuts for a year and handed out a few tax cuts to special interests. I dislike the fact that they did so, but I would in no way consider that bill to be major legislation.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Rover said:
I'm not sure he can by law. He's not supposed to coordinate with outside parties running ads. IIRC that was something that came up during the Swift Boat nonsense. While Bush could have done more to disavow it, I don't know if you can outright call for it to be taken down.
Click to expand...
While I doubt that asking someone to stop an ad is what was intended with "coordinate with outside parties running ads", you may be correct as to the "letter of the law". Regardless, I view both situations as a politician professing to be against something in "principle" but more than willing to overlook it as it's to their benefit. See Groucho.

LynahFan said:
I'm glad you put "major" in quotes. They extended a few tax cuts for a year and handed out a few tax cuts to special interests. I dislike the fact that they did so, but I would in no way consider that bill to be major legislation.
Click to expand...

It was a bill introduced in the House by a minority rep (D). It passed the House 367-45 (Dems approving 155-41)and passed the Senate 78-10 (Dems approving 36-4). Hardly a contentious bill let alone an example of a lame duck majority railroading their policy through.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

"Our Founding Fathers," says Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle, "they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact, Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies."
Click to expand...

IMG00121.jpg
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Sweet, Nevada can join Texas and secede from the Union. My lord politicians these days are friggin morons.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

LynahFan said:
I'm glad you put "major" in quotes. They extended a few tax cuts for a year and handed out a few tax cuts to special interests. I dislike the fact that they did so, but I would in no way consider that bill to be major legislation.
Click to expand...

Now, now, stop taking away their excuses... they have to majorly transform this country whether we want it or not, whether it works or not. After all, its only right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top