Ny Senate Seat News

Darla said:
I didn't she cannot, I said she does not. A strawman? Do you know what one is? Basically your entire debate style could be termed the Strawman's Special. I on the other hand, have presented no strawmans.

She's too conservative for a NY Senate seat, because we have a population that can support a much more liberal Senator. Hopefully, in two years, we will correct this.

Of course, there is the possibility, that she will move to the left now that she is supposed to be representing the entire state, and not just one conservative district of it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand what a Strawman is...

This....

The American Conservative Union's top ten most conservative Senators, include, BOTH Senators from the state of Oklahoma:

Coburn at number 3, and Infoe at number ONE.

Two right wing lunatics from one state, and when we factor in what DH just brought up which is another glaring problem, and compare populations, this is outrageous.

Are SF, Leaning, and Smarterthanwhoever, whining about that? Oh no.

But NY State one of the big stalwarth blue states, should send a conservative democrat to "balance" the right wing nuttery. How do we then end up? With a right of center national policy.

Liberals then have zero representation. Just like SF, Leaning and smarter. and the rest of them want it.

The bolded portion is a Strawman. I never said they SHOULD or HAD to appoint a conservative Dem. I simply pointed out that she is just as representative of the State as Schumer. She just isn't as far left as YOU want her to be. Period.

Side note... I did not catch this part the first time...

"Two right wing lunatics from one state, and when we factor in what DH just brought up which is another glaring problem, and compare populations, this is outrageous."

You do understand the difference between the House and the Senate don't you?

The House is representative of the population of each state. It is designed to give more weight to the states that have the greater population so that more sparsely populated states aren't able to dominate.

The Senate is designed to give equal representation to the states so that the more heavily populated states cannot dominate.

The two are designed to provide balance to one another.
 
Darla said:
How the hell did SF get to be a splendid one to behold? This proves a relationship with Damo. You are about as splendid to behold as a hemorrhoid on Rush Limbaugh's ass.

At least I came by reputation honestly!
Click to expand...

actually, it was not Damo that provided the surge from negative to positive.

Quite funny to see that it bothers you though.
 
As is usual SFyou have managed to type a lot but say nothing that you didn't say twelve pages ago, all of which has already been proved wrong.
 
Darla said:
Really, I don't know where you hung out, but when I was there, I felt like either Deliverance or An American Werewolf in London could break out at any moment, and if I hadn't been with my brother (who was the only reason I was there, I was helping him with some business), I probably would have taken the first plane out to get away from those scary assed freaks. However, since my brother, even though he is a right wing idiot (you'd like him), can kick just about anyone's ass, I stayed for three days, and they were the longest three days of my life. I never met more ugly people either! So, tell your story walkin!
Click to expand...

Funny how that works. Last time I was in New York I felt the same way.....scary ___ freaks and all. :) Really, I don't know what area of OK you were in but I feel the same way when I am in OKC. Folks are way too liberal for me there. ;)
 
Darla said:
As is usual SFyou have managed to type a lot but say nothing that you didn't say twelve pages ago, all of which has already been proved wrong.
Click to expand...

except dearest darla... you have not 'proven' anything wrong. Other than your complete lack of understanding of how Congress is set up.
 
This is interesting -she's moving to the left. That's positive.

Gillibrand Inches Leftward, Now Supports Gay Marriage
By Eric Kleefeld - January 23, 2009, 11:20AM
Here's another interesting wrinkle from Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand's (D-NY) imminent promotion to the Senate: She appears to have switched her position on gay marriage from a standard "safe" Democratic stance, to now being a full supporter.

Empire State Pride Agenda has put out a press release saying that Gillibrand has spoken to them, and they are glad to say that New York will have its first Senator who endorses full marriage equality. This is a big change for Gillibrand, who previously had a conventional Democratic position of endorsing civil unions and non-discrimination laws, but not being for gay marriage.

To be sure, Gillibrand's voting record on gay rights was not anything that could be called bad. There weren't too many votes on gay issues in the last two years, but she did vote for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, as well as the hate crimes bill.

Gillibrand's House district voted twice for George W. Bush, then narrowly flipped to Barack Obama in 2008. So one can see why Gillibrand was less than willing to support gay marriage. But if we're looking at this from the assumption of political opportunism, this in turn gives us a new realization: We are now in a world in which endorsing gay marriage can actually be a politically beneficial choice in a statewide setting.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/gillibrand-inches-leftward-now-supports-gay-marriage.php
 
If she's politically cynical and elected in upstate she would've basically been forced to join the Blue Dogs. A lot of Blue Dogs are a lot more liberal than they appear and joined the caucus as a moderate shield so that they could continue winning elections.
 
Darla said:
I hope you are kidding. I've forgotten more than you'll ever know. I read books, not cereal boxes.
Click to expand...

Well, 'see spot run' and ' See Jane castrate Dick' are not exactly books that will help you learn about Congress.

Given your comments on the "glaring problem" in the Senate that Dung brought up, you seemed confused.
 
Superfreak said:
Well, 'see spot run' and ' See Jane castrate Dick' are not exactly books that will help you learn about Congress.

Given your comments on the "glaring problem" in the Senate that Dung brought up, you seemed confused.
Click to expand...

No I'm not the least bit confused.

I have never heard of the book "See Jane Castrate Dick" but the fact that you have, explains a lot about your feelings about women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top