Who is the most respected political rival across party lines and why?

[Ivan Seeking]

Of those on the opposite side of the aisle, or those who generally oppose/support legislation that you support/oppose, whom do you respect the most, and why?

This idea came to mind as I watched John Boehner - Republican Congressman and minority leader - on television, this morning. A little over a year ago, back when I saw his impassioned plea to Congress in support of the bank bailout, I did a complete 180 when it comes to my perception of Boehner. I know that it took the highest degree of dedication to the common good, to abandon his ideology and support the bailout bill. While Boehner and I generally disagree, it is clear to me that, right or wrong, he is fighting the good fight. I have to respect that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVOS1CC6V5I

 

[MotoH]

I like him too. His speech last night before the votes were cast in the house for the bill was full of fire and brimstone, and I really enjoyed it.

That person for me would have to be Nancy Pelosi. Regardless of the fact that she looks like the anti-christ and her voice annoys the heck out of me, I still respect her for what she has done as Madame Speaker.

 

[Brian_C]

I respect Al Gore for his skills as a fear monger. Well done, Mr. Vice President.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I respect Al Gore for his skills as a fear monger. Well done, Mr. Vice President.

So you are unable to make an appropriate post? Too bad.

 

[calculusrocks]

Of those on the opposite side of the aisle, or those who generally oppose/support legislature that you support/oppose, whom do you respect the most, and why?

This idea came to mind as I watched John Boehner - Republican Congressman and minority leader - on television, this morning. A little over a year ago, back when I saw his impassioned plea to Congress in support of the bank bailout, I did a complete 180 when it comes to my perception of Boehner. I know that it took the highest degree of dedication to the common good, to abandon his ideology and support the bailout bill. While Boehner and I generally disagree, it is clear to me that, right or wrong, he is fighting the good fight. I have to respect that.

He's not exactly a rival if he agrees with you, now is he? Did the bank bailouts work? It didn't unfreeze the credit markets like they said it would, and now the banks know forever that the citizens will be the lender of last resort. That just creates a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard" , which precipitates a cycle that will lead to another banking crisis down the road.

The job of a bank is to manage risk. And they did manage risk. They thought the politicians would bail them out and they were right. They were successful in offloading the risk to the taxpayer!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He's not exactly a rival if he agrees with you, now is he?

As I said, we generally disagree. You might try reading the post.

Did the bank bailouts work?

Yes. We did stop the collapse of the national and global financial systems. We are not in the middle of the next great depression.

 

[calculusrocks]

As I said, we generally disagree. You might try reading the post.

Just logically speaking, it's not a true rivalry.

Yes. We did stop the collapse of the national and global financial systems. We are not in the middle of the next great depression.

It's impossible to disprove a negative, and besides the jury on the depression is still out. We're not exactly in the midst of a sunshine and lollipops recovery.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just logically speaking, it's not a true rivalry.

If you wish to play word games, so be it, but I am telling you that I saw him as a political rival. I know that it had to be terribly difficult for him to abandon the free-market philosophy for the good of the country - eating a mud sandwich, as he called it. Before that I believed him to be a pure ideologue.

It's impossible to disprove a negative, and besides the jury on the depression is still out. We're not exactly in the midst of a sunshine and lollipops recovery.

The recession IS officially over. And yes, you cannot prove that the bailout did nothing. We can only judge the situation by the leading indicators, which have all turned around. The hemorrhaging of the financial system also stopped after the bailout.

 

[calculusrocks]

So Ivan, are you saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong then?

 

[MotoH]

I respect Al Gore for his skills as a fear monger. Well done, Mr. Vice President.

I approve this message.

Did you know that Al Gore invented the internet, television, and magazines?

 

[turbo]

I detest Mitch McConnell, but I am in whole-hearted agreement with his tactics. He demanded NO health care reform and by refusing to participate in the process, he lost his chance to force changes that the GOP could have supported. He will try to weaken financial reforms if he can't obstruct them outright. [irony]Given the great love that most US citizens have for the financial institutions that plunged our economy into the tank [/irony], GOP obstructionism on that front could result in even larger Democratic majorities in Congress.

In his Ahab-like fixation on denying Obama any achievements, McConnell is sowing the seeds for the destruction of his own party. It may be best that the GOP loses some ideologues, if that opens the door for rational conservative candidates in the future.

The Democrats have majorities in both chambers and should immediately draft and pass legislation negating the ill-conceived SCOTUS decision that allows unlimited corporate money in our campaigns. If the GOP obstructs that, the Dems should hang that albatross around their necks this fall. The trouble is, they don't have the spine to do it.

 

[calculusrocks]

I respect Al Gore for his skills as a fear monger. Well done, Mr. Vice President.

Al Gore is a good choice. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/03/21/clinton-returns-to-washington-needling-himself-obama-and-the-press/"

Elsewhere in his remarks, he noted he was speaking on the night before the start of spring, “otherwise known to Al Gore as proof of global warming.” Of the current vice president, he said: “Vice President Biden, God bless his mouth.”

 

[calculusrocks]

The Democrats have majorities in both chambers and should immediately draft and pass legislation negating the ill-conceived SCOTUS decision that allows unlimited corporate money in our campaigns. If the GOP obstructs that, the Dems should hang that albatross around their necks this fall. The trouble is, they don't have the spine to do it.

My god, you don't even understand the separations of powers, do you? How sad.

 

[turbo]

My god, you don't even understand the separations of powers, do you? How sad.

You are the one that does not understand. The Congress has the right and the responsibility to legislate and they can pass legislation that negates activist court decisions. If that legislation encounters legal challenge, the courts get to take it up. That's how separation of powers works. In this case, the right-wing justices legislated from the bench to give corporations unprecedented influence in our elections.

The job facing the Democrats is to make the law simple and unassailable by Constitutional challenge.

 

[calculusrocks]

You are the one that does not understand. The Congress has the right and the responsibility to legislate and they can pass legislation that negates activist court decisions. If that legislation encounters legal challenge, the courts get to take it up. That's how separation of powers works. In this case, the right-wing justices legislated from the bench to give corporations unprecedented influence in our elections.

The job facing the Democrats is to make the law simple and unassailable by Constitutional challenge.

First of all, you're just getting way off topic for the hell of it. Second of all, everyone has the right to free speech, corporations too. Third of all, who the hell are you to tell someone else how they can spend their money? Fourth of all, the legislature has no ability to repeal Supreme Court decisions, lol. But a supreme court decision can repeal legislation.

 

[calculusrocks]

Fifth of all, Obama was for campaign finance reform before he was against it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/prominent_dem_slams_obamas_cam.html

ON the question of public funding of presidential campaigns, we Democrats who strongly support Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy and who previously supported limits on campaign spending and who haven't objected to Obama's opting out of the presidential funding system face an awkward fact: Either we are hypocrites, or we were wrong to support such limitations in the first place.

The next time we speak of the virtue of level playing fields or state our strong belief that democracy can't survive in the modern age unless big money is taken out of campaigns, we'll be counting on our audience's forgetting our silence this year, when the free market was flowing in our direction.

A hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue - who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. And that, it seems to me, is what we're doing now. -- Sen. John Kerry

 

[turbo]

First of all, you're just getting way off topic for the hell of it. Second of all, everyone has the right to free speech, corporations too. Third of all, who the hell are you to tell someone else how they can spend their money? Fourth of all, the legislature has no ability to repeal Supreme Court decisions, lol. But a supreme court decision can repeal legislation.

I'm off topic? Please take a civics course. The Congress can pass legislation that effectively negates the overly-broad definition of "personhood" that the court handed to corporations. That's their right. If there are legal challenges to that law, the judiciary gets to evaluate the law. That's the way separation of powers works.

All the while W and Shooter were decrying liberal activism on the SC that would "legislate from the bench", they were building a right-wing activist majority that would do exactly that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The purpose of this thread is to name a rival whom you respect. If you aren't mature enough or sophisticated enough to do that, then please stop posting in this thread.

 

[turbo]

So McConnell doesn't get all the credit (on my part), I rarely agree with Olympia Snowe on most issues. I am glad that she chose to participate in crafting the health-care bill in committee, even though her main intent was to make sure that the public option (which I favor) was eliminated. She took a lot of heat from the GOP, while our other senator, Susan Collins, kept her head down. Maine is a very rural state with a high percentage of low-income citizens, many of whom have part-time and/or seasonal jobs and NO health insurance. Our state would benefit disproportionately from expanded health-care coverage. Thanks Snowe, thanks for nothing Collins.

 

[calculusrocks]

I'm off topic? Please take a civics course. The Congress can pass legislation that effectively negates the overly-broad definition of "personhood" that the court handed to corporations. That's their right. If there are legal challenges to that law, the judiciary gets to evaluate the law. That's the way separation of powers works.

All the while W and Shooter were decrying liberal activism on the SC that would "legislate from the bench", they were building a right-wing activist majority that would do exactly that.

I could be wrong, but doesn't the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution? Do you really think that the legislature passing a law on what it views the definition of a person to be would make the difference? I don't.

I'm going to go with Al Gore as well as my rival as well.

 

[turbo]

I could be wrong, but doesn't the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution? Do you really think that the legislature passing a law on what it views the definition of a person to be would make the difference? I don't.

Yes, you are wrong, both still and again, so you're at least consistent. Congress can pass a law limiting the rights granted to corporations by the SC. If there is a legal challenge to such a law that makes it up through all the layers of the judiciary, it may be heard by the SC. Those are two separate processes. Congress does not strike down SC decisions, any more than the SC can strike down Congressional decisions. The critical difference is that the SC can alter the intent and interpretation of laws such that the Executive branch may be forced to subvert the will and intent of Congress as it executes law based on SC activism. Please take a course in Civics. It will serve you well if you have any interest in politics.

 

[calculusrocks]

Yes, you are wrong, both still and again, so you're at least consistent. Congress can pass a law limiting the rights granted to corporations by the SC. If there is a legal challenge to such a law that makes it up through all the layers of the judiciary, it may be heard by the SC. Those are two separate processes. Congress does not strike down SC decisions, any more than the SC can strike down Congressional decisions. The critical difference is that the SC can alter the intent and interpretation of laws such that the Executive branch may be forced to subvert the will and intent of Congress as it executes law based on SC activism. Please take a course in Civics. It will serve you well if you have any interest in politics.

You'll have to at least provide a source for your claims. Companies are persons whether you like that or not, and I'm not convinced a bill passed by congress would have the effect you apparently think it does.

 

[calculusrocks]

turbo, are you saying that the legislature could nullify the 1st amendment?

 

[turbo]

You'll have to at least provide a source for your claims. Companies are persons whether you like that or not, and I'm not convinced a bill passed by congress would have the effect you apparently think it does.

You have provided no sources for your far-fetched claims. The authorities of the Congress, the Administration, and he Judiciary are quite well-defined, yet you seem to have no grasp of their spheres of influence/responsibilities. Did your high school have no requirement that students get a basic grasp of civic responsibilities and the functions of the branches of government? It is getting quite tedious to refute political arguments made by someone who apparently makes up rules from thin air, based on ideology. Our Constitution has been bent and perverted in recent years by activists, but it is still the basis for our system of government.

 

[calculusrocks]

You have provided no sources for your far-fetched claims. The authorities of the Congress, the Administration, and he Judiciary are quite well-defined, yet you seem to have no grasp of their spheres of influence/responsibilities. Did your high school have no requirement that students get a basic grasp of civic responsibilities and the functions of the branches of government? It is getting quite tedious to refute political arguments made by someone who apparently makes up rules from thin air, based on ideology. Our Constitution has been bent and perverted in recent years by activists, but it is still the basis for our system of government.

gee wizz, you go way off topic and expect me to cite sources? Look, you try to re-define what a person is by Congress and the Supreme Court is just going to see that as a veiled attempt to usurp their authority to repeal unconstitutional legislation. It ain't going to fly.

 

[turbo]

turbo, are you saying that the legislature could nullify the 1st amendment?

Do you need that straw-man? The Congress can legislate to restrict individual rights to INDIVIDUALS, and they should. There is no reason to "nullify" the 1st amendment. There is also no reason to extend that right to artificial conglomerations of investors and their managers. The SC recently did so, legislating from the bench and applying a drastically-broad interpretation of what constitutes an "individual". If you want the US to fall into outright facism, please support that decision. If you want the US to be a representative democracy with reasonable limits on corporations, you might want to reconsider your views.

 

[calculusrocks]

Do you need that straw-man? The Congress can legislate to restrict individual rights to INDIVIDUALS, and they should. There is no reason to "nullify" the 1st amendment. There is also no reason to extend that right to artificial conglomerations of investors and their managers. The SC recently did so, legislating from the bench and applying a drastically-broad interpretation of what constitutes an "individual". If you want the US to fall into outright facism, please support that decision. If you want the US to be a representative democracy with reasonable limits on corporations, you might want to reconsider your views.

I dislike being lured into this conversation, because you were just so off topic. It may be better if you just start another thread on why the Supreme Court condoned fascism in its recent decision, and why if I don't agree with you, then I'm plain ignorant.

 

[calculusrocks]

oh, you already did start this thread -
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=371543

 

[lisab]

I knew if I thought long enough about it, I'd think of one!

I'm a big fan of Sam Reed, the http://www.sos.wa.gov/Default.aspx" . He's a Republican whom I see as eminently fair and balanced. I vote for him every chance I get.

 

[mheslep]

Great idea for a thread Ivan, if people will stick to the point:

Senators:
Webb (Va). He's a serious man, no BS.
Inouye (Ha)
Wyden (Or)
Lieberman (Conn-I)

Administration:
Gates (Defence)
Arne Duncan (Ed)