Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
Snake,

Yes the Bushes come to mind in this discussion, granted. And if Jeb Bush were appointed U.S. Senator, I'd be upset about that, too, except maybe somewhat less than Carolyn. Jeb has actually won elected office and executed the job pretty well. He's actually qualified.

Carolyn is not, except for her family name, and frankly I'm sick of them.

DF


I feel exactly the same way about the bush family as you do about the Kennedys. The governor of New York will make the decision. I am not thinking he will be terribly concerned about the opinion of someone in Alabama.
quote:
Originally posted by skymaster:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
Originally posted by skymaster:
At 7:25 PM today. Big Grin

I never said the wealthy shouldn’t hold office. I said we don’t need another trust fund Kennedy.


Thankfully it is not your call.


Thankfully, not yours either.


Ah, but the governor of New York, like me, is a BIG Democrat. I am not thinking his choice will please you. Whom ever he picks will please me. Kennedy especially. See how that works?
Snake is right, the governor of New York is a Democrat, and for the most part New York is a state with an overwhelming majority of Democrats.
The right wing, of which our DF is a loving member, will never be happy with whomever is appointed as it will not be a right wing nut.
IMHO , a Democrat in the White House and Kennedy's in the Senate- Sounds like all is right in the world to me.
The odd think about CK is that she is known to be the "retiring" type, and may not like the life of constant campaigning that she will likely have to subject herself to if she is appointed,
On the other hand, I do think she is as qualified as virtually anybody- a lawyer, has run a large business, dedicated to a life of public service. Much better credentials than a lot of senators have had.
One other thing, She would not likely be the type to take bribes (think Cunningham, and the recent Senator from Alaska), and doesn't need the money, or fame.
Could be she would make the perfect appointment.

Like DF I have an aversion of legacy or dynasty in our political system. I have said this before in reference to Hillary when she was running for president, and no better case can be made for that argument than the current president. By the same token, 1 of 100 senators does not give me too much heartburn , and though none of us on this forum really have a stick in the fire, she gives me no problem.
quote:
Ah, but the governor of New York, like me, is a BIG Democrat. I am not thinking his choice will please you. Whom ever he picks will please me. Kennedy especially. See how that works?

You scared me for a minute,I saw the BIG and then the capitol D and I thought you were going to actually tell the truth and call the governor of New York a *******.
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
By the way, Jeb Bush is considering being Senator from Fla. More legacy !
DF, what do you think of that ?


One of my friends had a sticker in his car.."28 years of Bushes and Clintons is enough". Cut Caroline some slack...she may be the only living Kennedy neither convicted nor implicated in some felony.

A pair of Kennedys in the senate may be a bad thing, but it may be a problem for a very short time. Unless they appoint another one when Teddy finally drives off the The Big Bridge.
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
Unlike the Republican party, who boost the like of Britney , Paris (at least her family) , and Sarah (Africa is a country) Palen, the Democrats do not have a "Bimbo" wing of their party.

Wink


Sorry Excel,
Wrong on Brit, Paris has no position, but mom and dad did contribute.
John McCain's ad calling Barack Obama "the biggest celebrity in the world" and linking the Democrat to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton raises the question: What exactly are the bimbos' political affiliations? In Susan Mulcahy's "Why I'm a Democrat," one party member tells the story of a Republican who chose the GOP because of Spears' behavior - "which he thought was disgusting because she has little children. He seemed to think the Democratic candidates shared Britney's values since it has been so widely reported that they get money from Hollywood donors." To which Mulcahy responds: "But I'll bet anything Britney Spears is a Republican!" A rep for Spears said she's registered as an independent. Hilton's rep said she does not "choose to openly discuss politics." But Paris seems to have GOP blood. Rick and Kathy Hilton contributed $6,900 to the McCain campaign between them.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
She has a beautiful education which includes a degree from Harvard and a law degree from Columbia, great background in politics, a broad world view AND she was born in NYC. I think she would make a very capable Senator.



Wow, another Ivy League lawyer....maybe, for a change of pace, we should try a used car salesman...if we could find one willing stoop low enough too become a senator. Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
Unlike the Republican party, who boost the like of Britney , Paris (at least her family) , and Sarah (Africa is a country) Palen, the Democrats do not have a "Bimbo" wing of their party.

Wink


Sorry Excel,
Wrong on Brit, Paris has no position, but mom and dad did contribute.
John McCain's ad calling Barack Obama "the biggest celebrity in the world" and linking the Democrat to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton raises the question: What exactly are the bimbos' political affiliations? In Susan Mulcahy's "Why I'm a Democrat," one party member tells the story of a Republican who chose the GOP because of Spears' behavior - "which he thought was disgusting because she has little children. He seemed to think the Democratic candidates shared Britney's values since it has been so widely reported that they get money from Hollywood donors." To which Mulcahy responds: "But I'll bet anything Britney Spears is a Republican!" A rep for Spears said she's registered as an independent. Hilton's rep said she does not "choose to openly discuss politics." But Paris seems to have GOP blood. Rick and Kathy Hilton contributed $6,900 to the McCain campaign between them.


Too lazy to find the actual quote, but a couple of years ago Britney was asked what she thought about the "war" in Iraq. Her answer was something like " Well, we should just do whatever the president says".
Sounds like either a lemming or a Republican to me. (not a lot of difference)
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
I'm afraid Carolyn's consideration for U.S. Senator smacks too much of aristocracy.

We should not have a ruling class in the USA. The Kennedys seem to get any political office they ask for.

Maybe Carolyn is qualified. If so, she should at least run in a contested election. Otherwise, it stinks.

DF


Deep, you do know that Andrew Mark Cuomo is the son of the Former Gov of NY. As far as running for a contested election, he has only ran for Gov and lost. All other public jobs has been appointments.

Here is where it becomes interesting, Trying to find out where Carolyn falls in the Kennedy Family Tree I found out that she was the Daughter of J.F. Kennedy. Further I found out that Andrew Mark Cuomo married Mary Kerry Kennedy which is the Daughter of Robert Kennedy.

Either way the Governor of NY goes, he will be helping out a Kennedy.
quote:
Too lazy to find the actual quote, but a couple of years ago Britney was asked what she thought about the "war" in Iraq. Her answer was something like " Well, we should just do whatever the president says".
Sounds like either a lemming or a Republican to me. (not a lot of difference)

Since her brain has been turned to smush, I don't think she is qualified to answer what her name is.
I always thought lemmings were democrat since they hang in groups, expect to be taken care of and blindly follow the leader! Wink
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
Snake,

Yes the Bushes come to mind in this discussion, granted. And if Jeb Bush were appointed U.S. Senator, I'd be upset about that, too, except maybe somewhat less than Carolyn. Jeb has actually won elected office and executed the job pretty well. He's actually qualified.

At least they were elected.

Carolyn is not, except for her family name, and frankly I'm sick of them.

DF


I feel exactly the same way about the bush family as you do about the Kennedys. The governor of New York will make the decision. I am not thinking he will be terribly concerned about the opinion of someone in Alabama.
It occurs to me that most if not all the people on this forum thread are to some degree from Alabama.
It , therefore, would seem to me that for ANY ONE IN THIS STATE to make references to qualifications is an oxymoron.
Exhibit A: Sen. Shelby
Exhibit B: Sen. Sessions

We in this state obviously couldn't recognize a qualified person ( or in our current cases a dufus) if they were to walk down the street, as we actually have 2 of the most dufus people calling themselves a senator from Al.
Just food for thought.
The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 3

"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be Chosen"

These are the qualifications for senator as laid out by our law.
I believe Caroline Kennedy meets those requirements, and is therefore "qualified".
Shelby and Session are "qualified" as well.
'Nuff said
Caroline was considered for ambassador to the Court of St James, however, considering the fiasco her grandfather made of the same position, she and others, reported reconsidered.

Just, as well, I'm sure none of the Democrats wish to hear Joe's words, "that democracy in Britain is finished!" repeated.

Joe spent too much time with Sir Mosley in the UK and Benito and Adolf on the continent.
From Ms. Kennedy-Schlossberg's latest 30 minute press conference, I understand she said, "you know," about 170 times by count. Is this the product of an upper class education -- then give me UNA, please!

While she would not be the dumbest member of Congress, she would certainly be the most inarticulate.

Howard informs me Barbara Boxer holds the title for dumbest of the 535, rating somewhere between a cactus and a rock.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
She has a beautiful education which includes a degree from Harvard and a law degree from Columbia, great background in politics, a broad world view AND she was born in NYC. I think she would make a very capable Senator.


-------------------------------

Not, you know, very evident, you know, after hearing her interview w/ you know, the N.Y. Times, you know. So much, you know, for that, you know, beautiful education and that, you know, broad world view, you know.
quote:
Originally posted by gracies old man:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
She has a beautiful education which includes a degree from Harvard and a law degree from Columbia, great background in politics, a broad world view AND she was born in NYC. I think she would make a very capable Senator.


-------------------------------

Not, you know, very evident, you know, after hearing her interview w/ you know, the N.Y. Times, you know. So much, you know, for that, you know, beautiful education and that, you know, broad world view, you know.


Since she has a law degree, she needs to sue Harvard for not giving her an education.
Why? The same reason we post on any topic here. I'm personally convinced I'll never persuade anyone on any subject. I just like to rant in a semi-private environment. I enjoy twisting the tails of liberal illiterati, and can occasionally learn something here. If we only posted on topics about which we had a vested interest, this would be a totally boring forum. Lighten up.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Why? The same reason we post on any topic here. I'm personally convinced I'll never persuade anyone on any subject. I just like to rant in a semi-private environment. I enjoy twisting the tails of liberal illiterati, and can occasionally learn something here. If we only posted on topics about which we had a vested interest, this would be a totally boring forum. Lighten up.


I'm ok with it, just a little amazed that we in Alabama (or California) would make much ado .
As you see, I've made several comments myself.
excel-


I care deeply that we have the likes of a Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Pete Stark, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Feinstein, Levin, Kerry, Durbin, Lautenberg, Leahy, Waxman, Conyers, Dingle, etc. as dangerous members of the U.S. Congress. Their votes and legislation overtax us and remove freedoms from us consistently. I missed a few more Dems and probably a couple of Repubs.
The question is why don't you care who makes laws that effect the lives and livelyhoods of you and your family for years, even decades to come?
In the case of Caroline, if she was named Smith or Jones, She wouldn't even be considered for this position.
Well old man ,if you really want to get down to it, we can look at the situation our country is in right now and see the outcome of Republican rule for 6 out of the last 8 years.
Actually , I do care, but in this case New York is a solidly Democratic state, and with a Democratic governor it , to me, is a forgone conclusion that he will fill the job with a Progressive Democrat, and not some right wing nut.
I do care, that right now, the people who have already stated they will stand against investments in infrastructure in the United States are both Republicans, in fact the minority leaders in the House and Senate. I do care that these same people were all for investing in infrastructure in Iraq where we have pissed away over a trillion dollars with absolutely no return on our investment ever in site.
I do care that Bush and his rubber stamp Republican congress has brought us to the brink of another depression, just as his party's great leader of the past Hoover.
Even Cheney has stated that if our economy continues down, they (the Republican party) will "forever be known as the party of Hoover".

Yes, I do care about the quality of people we get in congress, however, as Scripture states, we need to deal with the log(s) in our own eye before we attack the speck in New York's eye.

So, they "overtax us " . Well, let me ask you this, during the last 8 years we (our country) has gone from having 2 trillion dollars in surplus, to having a 2 trillion dollars in debt which we have borrowed primarily from China, and those whom the Bush Republicans have seen to give tax breaks to is people who make over $150,000/year that they can't hide, and huge cuts for those who make over $250k. I'm not sure which of those groups you are in, but most of us are not in that income group and so the Republicans have NOT decreased OUR taxes. The incoming Democratic administration has vowed to give those of us in the middle class the tax cuts, so the "us" who in your scenario may have your taxes raised, but those of us less fortunate obviously than you are, will get tax relief. The question is : Who exactly do you expect will pay off that 2 trillion dollar debt that Bush and the Republican Congress ran up.
It ain't gonna go away, so just who will pay for it.

Now, exactly what freedoms have Democrats ever taken away from you ? The Bush admin has taken away freedoms from us guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, and Bush, as he leaves office, has signed a lot of executive orders which will restrict the freedom of a lot of people. Obama will of course , un-do them, but it is Bush who has stripped freedoms from what he referred to as "a God dammed bunch of paper" which shows the regard he holds for the laws of our land.

You have your parties crossed.
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
Well old man ,if you really want to get down to it, we can look at the situation our country is in right now and see the outcome of Republican rule for 6 out of the last 8 years.
Actually , I do care, but in this case New York is a solidly Democratic state, and with a Democratic governor it , to me, is a forgone conclusion that he will fill the job with a Progressive Democrat, and not some right wing nut.
I do care, that right now, the people who have already stated they will stand against investments in infrastructure in the United States are both Republicans, in fact the minority leaders in the House and Senate. I do care that these same people were all for investing in infrastructure in Iraq where we have pissed away over a trillion dollars with absolutely no return on our investment ever in site.
I do care that Bush and his rubber stamp Republican congress has brought us to the brink of another depression, just as his party's great leader of the past Hoover.
Even Cheney has stated that if our economy continues down, they (the Republican party) will "forever be known as the party of Hoover".

Yes, I do care about the quality of people we get in congress, however, as Scripture states, we need to deal with the log(s) in our own eye before we attack the speck in New York's eye.

So, they "overtax us " . Well, let me ask you this, during the last 8 years we (our country) has gone from having 2 trillion dollars in surplus, to having a 2 trillion dollars in debt which we have borrowed primarily from China, and those whom the Bush Republicans have seen to give tax breaks to is people who make over $150,000/year that they can't hide, and huge cuts for those who make over $250k. I'm not sure which of those groups you are in, but most of us are not in that income group and so the Republicans have NOT decreased OUR taxes. The incoming Democratic administration has vowed to give those of us in the middle class the tax cuts, so the "us" who in your scenario may have your taxes raised, but those of us less fortunate obviously than you are, will get tax relief. The question is : Who exactly do you expect will pay off that 2 trillion dollar debt that Bush and the Republican Congress ran up.
It ain't gonna go away, so just who will pay for it.

Now, exactly what freedoms have Democrats ever taken away from you ? The Bush admin has taken away freedoms from us guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, and Bush, as he leaves office, has signed a lot of executive orders which will restrict the freedom of a lot of people. Obama will of course , un-do them, but it is Bush who has stripped freedoms from what he referred to as "a God dammed bunch of paper" which shows the regard he holds for the laws of our land.

You have your parties crossed.


You forgot about Bush causing hurricane Katrina and banning stem cell research(which he did not)and forcing women who were raped by their Deliverance father to have and raise the baby.You're slipping Excelman.Bush is SATAN
As I assume excelman's posting are not from a remote re-education camp and posted from a blackberry smuggled in, I shall take his lost freedoms with an entire shaker of salt, not just a grain.

I have yet to see the source for Bush referring to the constitution as a dammed piece of paper -- more leftist propaganda. Besides, it parchment -- not paper!
quote:
Originally posted by Backwoods:
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:


You forgot about Bush causing hurricane Katrina and banning stem cell research(which he did not)and forcing women who were raped by their Deliverance father to have and raise the baby.You're slipping Excelman.Bush is SATAN


I guess I'm beginning to slip. I failed to mention those things.
Never said Bush banned stem cell research, only refused to allow it to expand with federal dollars. After all, if those horrible diseases could actually be cured, then the need for all those pharmaceuticals that are sold to manage the chronic problems would be needed no longer, thereby putting a dent into the drug companies.
Just a business decision he made in order to help the big drug comanies.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
As I assume excelman's posting are not from a remote re-education camp and posted from a blackberry smuggled in, I shall take his lost freedoms with an entire shaker of salt, not just a grain.

I have yet to see the source for Bush referring to the constitution as a dammed piece of paper -- more leftist propaganda. Besides, it parchment -- not paper!


Don't have a Blackberry, and don't text on my phone (arthritis in my thumbs makes it hurt)

Bush has, at his whelm, stripped us of our right to privacy as his people can tap our phones without a warrant , the right to speedy trial.
Bush just recently, signed an executive order which would take away the right of the owner of a pharmacy to fire a pharmacist who refused to fill a script for birth control pills, or would refuse to sell Plan B to a women. So, a pharmacist can refuse to fill a scrip if he wants, and the owner of the pharmacy has no recourse in his employees running off his clients.

Bush has declared his wishes to be above the law. That is what I was referring to.
The warrantless phone taps were for call originating outside the US and mainly from areas such as Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan. Even then, the calls could not be used as evidence in a trial. Such taps have ceased and the subject is now mute.

From my reading of the executive order, the owner of the pharmacy may refuse to fill such scripts, not the employee.

Its the left that wishes to require all medical personnel to participate in abortions under force of imprisonment, not just loss of their medical credentials. Nowhere in Europe are the present US abortion laws so lenient, let alone such a travesty.

Is that all you've got? Still no source for the claim about the constitution, I see.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×