celticlord
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,344
- Reaction score
- 3,794
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
See my above post. Can you be any more wrong?
To be wrong, I would have to agree with you.
See my above post. Can you be any more wrong?
Perhaps in the future you should actually CITE YOUR SOURCES when you quote people than if its not using the same source that was already quoted in the article. Am I supposed to be some sort of mind reader, able to bore into the Mind of the illustrious WillRockWell to know that the quote he posted, with absolutely no link citing where he got it from, was not taken from the article being discussed and actually linked in here.
My apologizes, how about in the future clean up your sloppy debating and posting etiquette or be a bit understanding when people misunderstand you because of your inability to follow common protocol.
Now having seen the full version, I sit somewhere between the original implication which appears to be faulty reporting (Funny, you seem to be attacking the poor reporting here while just a week ago you were drooling and frothing over information posted from a "liberal" rag without question) that, again, shows how poor our media is and the one presented by you.
It seems, in the context, he is implying that through his shift to being a democrat he now has a better possability to push for funding of medical research than he had for republicans and if the push he has been wanting actually been done in the past decades that the senator would be alive today.
I do think its a slight shot at the republicans, however I think its a far less over the top and questionable comment than it was initially made out to be. He's making an opinion, one that I think its a bit faulty as I believe cancer research has been one of the most heavily focused on and funded research in both the private and public sector when looking at the entirety of the field, and one that I think his personal interest in it clouds his view, but one that I don't see as being as questionable in character as originally posted.
I think it was a political dig, but an extremely mild one all things considered.
He committed all of these....as the quote you provided clearly and emphatically demonstrates. Your proof substantiates my position. Thank you.
And not to be nitpicky here, but it's...
Specter, not Spector.
Geez people!
:mrgreen:
Look, the son of a bitch used a poor choice of words whether he was really blaming Republicans for Kemp's death or not. Don't praise that old bastard for switching parties, how do you know he won't let you down too? :roll:Please demonstrate, using Specter's actual words, how he committed these offenses.
Look, the son of a bitch used a poor choice of words whether he was really blaming Republicans for Kemp's death or not. Don't praise that old bastard for switching parties, how do you know he won't let you down too? :roll:
Specter was routinely criticized by the right, including on this forum. There wasn't a lot of noise about him the past two years because the Dem's had a majority and it didn't matter as much. If you think back to the "Gang of 14" thing, he was ridiculed a lot. Anytime "RINO'S" were brought up there was a good chance Specter was mentioned. There was a thread ressurected from a couple months ago criticizing him once the news came out he moved to the new party.
Quite frankly, Specter hasn't been loved by Republicans for some time. The ONLy real "conservative" bedrock stance I've found him to be strong on was the 2nd amendment. In every other issue he is either about as moderate as you can come (having a mix of positions or just no strong real feeling), liberal, or conservative in the meekest least outspoken way possible.
Specter rarely made the news because he was strongly pushing for a fiscal budget, or to push for tax cuts, or for calls of needing to shrink the size of government, or to strengthen our borders, or to other things. He was generally only in the news when he was pushing strongly for the "amnesty" bill, was blocking conservative judicial nominations, or was one of 4 to 7 republicans that would jump over and side with Democrats to break fillibusters or sway a big item.
I think if Specter had been at the forefront of a conservative issue or two he'd have had a lot less vitriol shown to him; likely more on par with McCain, who gets insulted but also praised, than with someone like Olympia Snow who I've never seen a good thing said about. But he wasn't, he was a meek quite person on almost all conservative issues unless he was jumping ship to the other side in which case suddenly he was loud and prone to lectures.
His cache had just gone down in recent years becuase there was less of a need for a token republican to drag over to make something "bipartisan" in hopes of getting it to pass or put onto the floor.
Despised by all but the phonies.I've just never seen anything on this forum about him, that's all. I understand why Republicans don't care for him, but that didn't stop them from nominating and backing McCain for President...who is very much akin to Specter. So is it fair to say he was loathed by mostly conservative Republicans, but not all Republicans?
Look, the son of a bitch used a poor choice of words whether he was really blaming Republicans for Kemp's death or not. Don't praise that old bastard for switching parties, how do you know he won't let you down too? :roll:
Yeah I know, and I'm not happy about it. But now you have the weasel.Well if he wins as a Dem and Franken is eventually put in the Senate then Specter has given the Dems 60. That's a gift you know.
Yeah I know, and I'm not happy about it. But now you have the weasel.
Despised by all but the phonies.
Given the fact that our government is rife with weasels, one more won't hurt, and in this case...will only help.
Sure they are, but phoneys like Specter, uh Spector :lol: are not. He's right where he should be, with the other left wing weasels. :roflRight, because moderate Republicans aren't real Republicans. I can almost hear your fingernails digging into the keyboard now. :rofl
I apologize, it did not occur to me that all transcripts would not be complete transcripts, and that the rightwing media, which fills your Favorites, would edit the interview to obtain the most damning result. I understand the confusion, it was not your fault.
Help how? He has admitted he changed parties only to get re-elected, and would not change the way he voted. So how is he going to help the democrats? If anything, I think his joining the democrats just makes us look bad.
Because if Franken ever gets the nod the Dems will be at 60 in the Senate. That's how. Looking good or bad went out the window decades ago. Now it's about getting things done. Should it work out, Specter's defection gives the Dems a very hefty dose of political power on the Hill.
And seriously, how does this make us look "bad?" He joined the Dems, big deal. Both sides have jerks. Specter does nothing to detract from the Democratic party.
It's okay to be wrong, CL. No one's perfect.To be wrong, I would have to agree with you.