Again fatty, why don't you share with us your list of good senators and your reasons. You said you would after you had time to "think" about it. While your at it, maybe you could provide your insights on the legislative process and who exactly is really responsible for the passage of laws. Embedding a School House Rock video will be obvious and lame.
I don't really care about the good riddance stuff. I think people are too sensitive about honoring the dead -- people you know is one thing, but politicians are never above criticism in death to me. But this other stuff you've gotten into, Fatty, this stuff above? I think it might be the stupidest stuff you've ever posted here. Or, at least, it's the best example of your proud and willful ignorance and intellectual laziness. You should be embarrassed, but I know you won't be. Instead you'll freak out on all the liberals again, completely oblivious to the fact that this has nothing to do with party affiliation and is rather a disagreement between people who have paid any attention at all to politics and the world (most people in this thread) and ones who prefer to get their news from bumper stickers and bathroom walls (you).
Lol. Coming from someone who questions people's "beliefs" you certainly have a lot of faith in a career politician voted in consistently based upon his family's name. I'm also really enjoying that most of you, as expected, feel the need to throw the personal insult in. Quite frankly, I'm still shocked that the walrus bukkets haven't been tossed in, as well. Cheers.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act was a Kennedy "brainchild", introduced to every Congress since 1994. it will probably pass this October. like fish in a barrel...
Oh but you see X110th Kennedy didn’t physically sit down and put pen to paper (computers weren’t in vogue those days) and actually write the bill. Don't know know? Or are you being naive?
It's funny that you characterize this as a liberal pile-on. There are two kinds of posts/posters here that liberals pile-on: people we disagree with on policy, etc. and people who are dishonest, disingenuous dicks (like basso). You're in a whole different category. Nobody that 'argues' with you here is doing it on the merits (what would be the point) and nobody is doing it because you troll or play dirty. They (and I) are responding to your weird penchant for talking down to people that just plain know more than you do. That's not a lib/con thing. It's a Fatty thing. It's like when you showed up after months of health care discussion quizzing us on how insurance got tied to employment. You have an amazing ability to believe the factoid you heard around the water cooler (or more likely the keg) gives you hand in a debate with people who have actually been paying attention. It's wholly unnecessary to talk specifically about the Kennedy stuff to illustrate this uniquely hilarious phenomenon since (a) it's evident every time you try to sit at the big boy table, and (b) you are doing an especially good job of owning yourself here. But it would tickle me to no end if you would tell me which "beliefs" I question that apparently disqualify me from criticizing you. This is another of the king hell non sequiturs that are as fun in the D&D as your relationship advice (LOLOLOL) is in the Hangout.
Awesome! Personal insults got more insulting! Way to hit below the belt on relationship issues. You're a peach, sir. It's my opinion about a politician. That's what this has been all about. And people say my opinion on Kennedy was classless.
there have been people asking you who you consider a good senator, yet you haven't responded. why don't you just ignore what you consider personal insults and engage in the debate that some are asking for?
Actually, people are saying your opinion on Kennedy is based on willful ignorance. Which is a pretty simple claim to make, given that you admitted you know nothing about his accomplishments, and then compound that by making claims about his accomplishments that are factually false.
Quite frankly, I can't come up with anyone currently I'd consider a "good" senator. Perhaps I'm jaded, but I see nothing out there that are working for anything other than their own prurient interests. There is a reason that the President has much more power internationally than on the domestic side: There's nothing in it for congress abroad outside of where they're representing. But since you keep asking, let's go with Robert LaFollette. LaFollette pioneered many then-revolutionary ideas for a progressive government that served the people rather than big business. As governor of Wisconsin from 1900-1906, he introduced primary elections, got a civil service law passed to replace the patronage system, regulated the all-powerful railroads, supported a minimum wage, and taxed corporations. After his election to the Senate in Nov. 1906, he worked hard to implement many of these same ideas on a national scale, as well as fighting for women's suffrage, racial equality, child labor laws, civil liberties, and breaking up industrial monopolies. Hmmm. Sounds like someone I recently heard about...
Okay that's a good start. Now can you tell us the specific bills that he sponsored, that were then passed into law? And why you think La Follete played a bigger role in drafting the bills he sponsored, than Kennedy did in drafting the bills sponsored by him?
I'm not sure Wikipedia has that information for him to copy & paste. But if you want 6 other "greatest Senators", I'm sure Fatty would be able to copy and paste them from his original link, which happens to be the first thing to come up in Google when you search for "greatest senators": http://electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Info/greatest-senators.html
so your beef is really with all US senators in general but you think its best to rant about it after one of them dies? link?
That you're wallowing in ignorance, and that you have no clue what you're talking about and have to rely on a Google search to answer a fairly basic question.
The reason, and this has been stated by myself and others multiple times, is that this guy killed a woman (accidentally or not) and immediately went to his aides for help. He didn't even go to the police until they found the body. It reeks of someone who was guilty of something far worse than driving off the road accidentally. People get away with stuff all the time, but this guy was caught with this, and he was still reelected due to his two brothers. I stated before that there are very few politicians that would rouse me one way or the other. He was one that did.
Really? I could've sworn that above that, I specifically wrote that I'm not good with any of them. If you want me to do a ****ing research paper on Senators, you're barking up the wrong tree. But I did pick him to show that he was doing the exact same stuff Kennedy was doing 60 years prior. As I said, these changes would've been done, regardless.
