Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Butter Side Up or Down, the Toast Is Still On the Floor

So Specter likes being a Senator more than he likes being a Republican. Is anyone surprised? Is anything likely to change vis a vis his voting moving forward? In short, why do I care that he calls himself a Democrat now when he's already usually voting against my interests anyway?


cnick said...

I find it curious that this is the first time you mentioned him given that you dislike him that much.

MeatAxe said...

What an odd statement. I don't like tailgaters or litterbugs either, and I haven't posted about them yet. What the heck does that have to do with anything?

cnick said...

He says he doesn't care that Specter is a Democrat, and yet he only posts about Specter when he becomes a Democrat, which suggests that in fact the _only_ thing he cares about is his party affiliation.

My point is that AtomSmasher comes off as pure 100% partisan.

Atom Smasher said...

a) Of course I'm partisan - I support those who act and think in my interest more than I support those who don't. Duh.

b) To ape MeatAxe: Are you drunk? I post *some* of the things that cross my mind here. Not all. Some. If I've never posted about Specter before you can rest assured that he's not done anything since we started this blog that warrented comment, although his vote on the Stimulus package came close.

c) Does it amuse you to try and get a rise out of me and my motivations rather than to engage me on the topic at hand at any given time?

cnick said...

Okay, so maybe I'm off base about your prior opinion of Specter.

But, I will say this: Why on earth would Specter represent your interests when he is a Senator from Pennsylvania and you live in MN? Political parties aren't mentioned in the constitution but States are. We need to get away from party-based thinking and partisanship -it is hurting our country.

Atom Smasher said...

Don't be dense. Specter is one of the 500-odd legislators who help run this country, and I'd be a fool to pretend his legislative agenda only impacts Pennsylvanians. Congressmen and Senators vote on *national* bills, or haven't you seen that Schoolhouse Rock episode in a while?

And who says I'm partisan just for Republicans? My blog post itself clearly indicates that I didn't care much for Specter's positions when he had an R after his name, why would I care much more or much less now that he'll have a D as a suffix?

Do yourself a favor and stop trying to ascribe motive to me and just either read, or don't read, what I type. If you have an honest question about why I post something I post, or what I may or may not believe in, just ask. If I feel it's relevant, I'll tell you.

And then you'll know, and can stop just making shit up, for fuck's sake.

cnick said...

*snif* now you're hurting my feelings.

cnick said...

P.S. As long as we're calling each other names, you're the one being dense. The citizens of PA elect their senators, and no one else. The legislative agenda of most of those 500+ legislators is driven almost exclusively by what the majority of citizens of their respective electorates want. So if you think anybody but Amy Klobuchar gives a shit about your interests in the senate, you're deluding yourself.

MeatAxe said...

So... Specter crossing the line and making it easier for the Democrats to pass cap-and-trade bills, or other things that I might disagree with.... I'm not allowed to be annoyed by that?

Or is this talk of the fillibuster-proof majority all so much hooey?

Atom Smasher said...

cnick, you poked me until you got the response you wanted, and now you're gonna act surprised and superior? Are you new to this interweb thingy?

And you are advertising your ignorance of the legislative process. I can call Specter's office right now, or send him a letter, email, or petition, and while I certainly can't pressure him with votes, I can pressure him with money (either to him or his potential opponents), or simply add my voice to the masses. It certainly won't mean as much to him as the same action from a constituant, that's absolutely correct, but it does mean *something*.

Again, these guys are voting on *national* bills, because they are in the *Federal* government, so their business is my business no matter what state I'm from.

cnick said...

I didn't "expect" anything from you, AtomSmasher, though it is true that due to your extremely partisan, reactionary mode of communication, you have become fairly predictable.

You've bought the Republican line completely, haven't you. Don't you get it that they desperately *want* you to believe in the party-based view of things? "You're either with us or against us," that sort of thing? What you're saying regarding influence of politicians outside your own district/state is obviously true, but it is also obviously not how the framers of the constitution intended it to be. Politicians (Republicans in particular) gravitate towards it, however, because it is a way to consolidate power. And you are playing right along with them.

Thankfully, the Republican Party is also destroying itself with this approach.

MeatAxe said...

wait a minute.. we're getting into something I've been reading about a lot recently:

This is from the constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

There's a LOT more, including bankruptcy rules, declaring war, punishing pirates, maintaining the army and navy, post offices and roads, promoting science and the useful arts, constitute state federal courts (what I take to mean by "tribunals inferior to the supreme court.")

All of that looks fairly national in scope, and therefor it grieves me to inform you that I hereby Take Issue with your statement that the founders did not intend politicians to have influence outside their districts and states.


Atom Smasher said...


Why is it so important to you to assume you know what I think and why? Why is it "reactionary" of me to agree with things I agree with, and disagree with things that I don't? And as many times as I've asked, I don't see you actually asking me for deeper explanations of my positions.

Is it as simple for you as "anyone who disagrees with cnick is stupid and therefore dismissable?" Is that your intellectual security blanket?

cnick said...

Atom Smasher: On this blog, you act like a reactionary, partisan idealogue.
*Reactionary means that you respond without much apparent thought and with many indications of emotion driving your response.
*Partisan because your words demonstrate a strong attachment to the "liberal"/"conservative" dichotomy.
*Idealogue because your writings frequently demonstrate idealogy driving your reasoning.

This assessment has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me; I came to this blog hoping to find someone who could reasonably disagree with me, in fact, so that I could see whether my own positions do in fact make sense, and to discard those that do not. Instead, you call me "dense" and ask me if I'm drunk. It's your blog, so if that's what makes you feel good, go ahead and do it. If there's anything that makes me "dismiss" someone, though, it's doing that kind of thing.

meataxe: I didn't say the founders didn't intend politicians to have influence outside their districts and states. Rather, what the founders intended is that states, not political parties, are the primary political division in the electorate; and therefore individual citizens' method of influencing national issues is through their own senators and representatives, not through their political party.

Atom Smasher said...

cnick- This blog is not a dry academic venue; it's a frikkin' *blog*. I can be as erudite or as colloquial as I choose. If you don't get my humor, or don't like my style, that's fine, but trying to find some hidden meaning or agenda is just going to frustrate you. Likewise, dismissing my points based on such hidden things is going to lose you some Fonzie cool points.

Remember, not everyone looks at the same set of data and draws the same conclusions as you do, and not everyone is a reactionary Democratic partisan ideologue like you must be. See, I can draw that weird and no-doubt unjustified conclusion about you because you made a statement in favor of the destruction of the Republican party. So now I know all I need to know about you, you silly reactionary you.

Post a Comment