I see how it is now.SConn1 may not be the col, but the actions are simular. He starts to lose an arguement, realizes he can't talk his way out. So then he starts with the name calling. And when that doesn't work you blacklist me.....what a COWARD! Just leave it out for "all" of JU to see what kind of person you really are.
Below is a cut & copy of the exchanges between SConn1 and myself. You make the call. And unlike "him" he is not blacklisted on this site.
#13 by Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1
Fri, January 12, 2007 6:05 PM
Concession? You're really saying that there is no run-up to an election in the year before?
by that logic,,,we are always in a "run up to the election" (your term) then as the house is up every 2 years. but unfortunately, the examples you cited were senators, who weren't up for re-election in the next election after the quotes you cite.
i would define "the run up to the election" as the several months preceding it. in this cycle, maybe from around july thru nov. you could be a lil more generous if the situation merits it, but an extra year +? try again....
Bonus Rating: Trolling Insightful
#14 by BakerStreet
Fri, January 12, 2007 7:22 PM
"by that logic,,,we are always in a "run up to the election" (your term) then as the house is up every 2 years."
No... if you recall the house is the gerrymandered part of congress. Something like 80% of the house doesn't even face an opponent each election. Many of them haven't had an opponent in ages.
The last election was a huge event and... like 30 out of 435 seats actually changed. No, House elections aren't really a big deal to the people sitting in the house unless there is something to be gained.
This time there was, and whether you were party to it or not, the drive in terms of coordinated rhetoric and party offensives were going strong in 2005. Granted, maybe you missed it...
"...the examples you cited were senators, who weren't up for re-election in the next election after the quotes you cite. "
So... obviously they didn't really have in interest in the people who were running... ? It wouldn't mean anything to them to have a majority in Congress or someone sitting in the White House from their party?
So John Kerry speaks only for John Kerry, and when Hillary is out stumping, she's only stumping for herself, and not her party? How are you making these goofy arguments...
"i would define "the run up to the election" as the several months preceding it."
Well, unfortunately, if you watch the news, or watched it last election, or the one before that, the rest of the world starts way ahead of you. It's going right now. Again, maybe you haven't noticed but people are already campaigning...
Bonus Rating: Trolling Insightful
#15 by drmiler
Sat, January 13, 2007 00:20 AM
would define "the run up to the election" as the several months preceding it. in this cycle, maybe from around july thru nov. you could be a lil more generous if the situation merits it, but an extra year +? try again....
Well then.....maybe you'd better "try again"! Check the link
Link
#16 by Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1
Tue, January 16, 2007 09:45 AM
dr,,,what the hell does this have to do with my article?
is john edwards in the senate? is he on the foreign relations committee?
my article was about REPUBLICANS primarily who lambasted the secretary and the president's policy ...
it wasn't about things said 3 or 5 years ago by democrats. it has nothing to do with john edward's view.
and i could really care less how someone felt about this war years ago. what is important is that republicans are finally waking up and smelling the coffee.
as far as the democrats that have changed their position, i say it's about time. telling me that someone had a different view years ago really doesn't matter to me. my goal is that people stand up against this war today, and tomorrow. because it is wrong. and slowly but surely, i have watched since 2002 as people have come around to realizing that. arguing that someone had a different view on this war years ago means nothing to me. bringing john edwards into an article about how the republicans on the foreign relations committee broke with the administration in a very vocal way is non germaine.
Bonus Rating: Trolling Insightful
#17 by drmiler
Tue, January 16, 2007 3:27 PM
dr,,,what the hell does this have to do with my article?
is john edwards in the senate? is he on the foreign relations committee?
my article was about REPUBLICANS primarily who lambasted the secretary and the president's policy ...
Then "why" did you post this comment?
would define "the run up to the election" as the several months preceding it. in this cycle, maybe from around july thru nov. you could be a lil more generous if the situation merits it, but an extra year +? try again....
And since you obviously did not bother to even read the article, let me help....
The article was NOT from 3 to 5 years ago! It was from 2006. And according to the article, he plans on running for president! So my comment goes right to your reply about election run-up.
#18 by Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1
Tue, January 16, 2007 3:41 PM
The article was NOT from 3 to 5 years ago! It was from 2006. And according to the article, he plans on running for president! So my comment goes right to your reply about election run-up.
i would hardly consider now to be the "run up to the election." if you want to use that misguided and innacurate terminlogy, fine...but google "run up to the election" and see if the pages found talk about events weeks / months before an election, or years. the term itself "run" (as in sprint) "up to" (to the day of) "the election" (self explanatory) tells you that the term means the events right before an election...not 2 years!!! i am being generous in saying several months, but in actuality, the term really means the last few weeks.
so yes, the edwards article is non germaine and irrelevant.
"3 to 5" years ago refferred to the democratic comments made in 2003 and 2005. for accuracy sake, i should have said 2 to 4 years ago...oops...but the point is the same, and it is still correct. none of those democrats made those statements in "the run up to the election" since they made them in years that had no congressional elections. nor is edwards statements, whatever they may be, being made "in a run up to an election."
by ya'll's logic, every single moment is a "run up to an election" ..which is ridiculous nonsense, just political hackery and shameless spin.
Bonus Rating: Trolling Insightful
#19 by drmiler
Tue, January 16, 2007 3:45 PM
i would hardly consider now to be the "run up to the election." if you want to use that misguided and innacurate terminlogy, fine...but google "run up to the election" and see if the pages found talk about events weeks / months before an election, or years. the term itself "run" (as in sprint) "up to" (to the day of) "the election" (self explanatory) tells you that the term means the events right before an election...not 2 years!!! i am being generous in saying several months, but in actuality, the term really means the last few weeks.
That tells me nothing. Got any hard evidence?
#20 by Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1
Tue, January 16, 2007 3:46 PM
in fact, your article is from december 29th...6 weeks after the congressional elections and virtually 2 years from the next. over a year before the 1st primary...
thus proving the point....
by ya'll's logic, every single moment is a "run up to an election" ..which is ridiculous nonsense, just political hackery and shameless spin.
which was repeating an earlier comment...
by that logic,,,we are always in a "run up to the election" (your term) then as the house is up every 2 years. but unfortunately, the examples you cited were senators, who weren't up for re-election in the next election after the quotes you cite.
bring something relevant to the table or go "buh-bye."
Bonus Rating: Trolling Insightful
#21 by Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1
Tue, January 16, 2007 3:50 PM
That tells me nothing. Got any hard evidence?
again, google the term.
Bonus Rating: Trolling Insightful
#22 by drmiler
Tue, January 16, 2007 3:55 PM
n fact, your article is from december 29th...6 weeks after the congressional elections and virtually 2 years from the next. over a year before the 1st primary...
thus proving the point....
Proves nothing. If you had bothered to read it you would have seen it had absolutely nothing to do with congressional elections. And yeah it was from Dec 29th...but the year was 2006. He states he's going to run for "president". Now how does that tie to anything even remotely about congressional elections?
#23 by Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1
Tue, January 16, 2007 4:08 PM
you are a joke miler.
it proves that he said nothing in a "run up to any election" which was what was being debated....you just don't get it and i have run out of time and patience where you are concerned...buh-bye!