Another Ed Markey moment

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:18 PM
Instead of calling out the TSA for their pointless and ineffective security measures, Ed Markey wanted a guy pointing out said deficiencies to be arrested.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/27/fake_boarding_pass_g.html

What an idiot. I swear if he'd spend a little time trying to fix real problems and not chase down critics of real problems, maybe he'd get something done.

+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:47 PM
Soghoian said: "I don't want bad guys to board airplanes but I don't think the system we have right now works and I think it is giving us a false sense of security."

Don't take away our false sense of security...it's the ONLY thing left that makes us feel safe! :)

Seriously, though, if NOT for people who are willing to truly, RIGOROUSLY, test the system for efectiveness, how WOULD we know which measures work and which ones don't? Sadly, the answer to that is...upon (a potentially catastrophic) system failure....because ONLY the foxes seem to have the keys to the henhouse these days...scary!

+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 1:19 PM
The feds have been telling us we're at risk now for five years, without telling us what the risk is. Don't you know it's un-American to question that! You Florida people can't even vote right. Duh! :)

(Says the guy living outside Cuyahoga County, Ohio.)

+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 1:49 PM
Is Markey up for re-election this year? Maybe since he has no major coaster catastrophe to rail about, he has to find something new to crusade against. Gotta get the name out there, you know. Don't you feel safer knowing Ed Markey is protecting our airways AND our midways? :)
+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 2:07 PM
Seriously, I don't understand what happened to the Democratic party. They've got a couple of whack jobs screaming about stupid stuff like this.

Not all of them, just a select few. Unfortunately, like coaster-fans, a few bad apples opening their big fat mouths can ruin it for them all.


*** Edited 10/31/2006 7:10:41 PM UTC by Raven-Phile***

+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 2:30 PM
Yes, as much as I'm not fond of many Republicans, "we're against what the Republicans do" is not a platform. It's like no one on either side of the aisle remembers that there are issues at stake.
+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 2:37 PM
^ That's exactly how I feel anymore. I honestly don't know what or who I'm going to vote for next week, because neither party really has much to say for themselves except for "the other guy sucks."

Also, I had the TV on in the cabin this weekend and I was bombarded with political ads that made me want to puke.

+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 3:11 PM
Despite my anti-smoking sentiment, I'm voting against both measures (especially the state constitutional amendment) because that's a choice I think businesses should make. Voting against the slot casino deal too because you don't write into the constitution who gets to do business (way too good ol' boy for me).

I'll vote for Sherrod Brown for Senate because the guy used to work downstairs from me, and he's the real thing. For governor I'm not voting for Strickland as much as I'm voting against Blackwell. I hate that it's so hard to vote for anyone based on what their actual stance on issues is.

+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 3:24 PM
Hard enough just trying to FIND their stances on issues....

"Issue" is defined as something to talk about when the quota of mud has already been slung...or avoid talking about. Doesn't anyone have any *vision*? Or would those people have been previously eliminated by the self-serving political process?

^Ignore the last two questions, they were rhetorical in nature... :)

I'd love to have even ONE candidate that I really WANT to elect...instead of simply voting against those who can readily be identified as "not to be trusted". Can't I just write in "Stephen Colbert" for every office? LOL!

+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 3:56 PM
Why not, it worked for naming a bridge.

Here's what I know -- come next Tuesday I will gleefully press the button that helps vote Mr. Frothy Mix (warning: contents may not be suitable for work) out of office. I'll press that button with certainty, and I'll triple-check my selection to make sure the machine didn't misread it. (Fortunately PA isn't using Diebold machines; unfortunately they're not using any kind of hard copy auditing, either)

As if Halloween wasn't scary enough...

+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:09 PM

rollergator said:
Hard enough just trying to FIND their stances on issues....

You mean your still trying?

Everyone knows that Big Business runs this country and makes policy. The two parties are there to distract you from that fact. "We're for it" and "We're against it" serves to polarize the people. If we were united, we could affect real change, and that would be bad for big business.

You still think we walked on the moon too, I bet! C'mon 'gator, catch up... ;) ;)

+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:21 PM
^ At least the Dems TRY to convince us that they're not *waist-deep* in the deep pockets of the "corpoculture"... they fail, miserably, but ya gotta appreciate the effort... :~P

Military-Industrial Complex sounds soooo 1950s/Joe McCarthyish... ;)

+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:27 PM

Jeff said:
Despite my anti-smoking sentiment, I'm voting against both measures (especially the state constitutional amendment) because that's a choice I think businesses should make.

Agreed 100%. As much as I love eating in a "smoke-free" restaurant, going to see a band, playing a show or going to a club without the smoke just doesn't feel right.

I'm not one to force anything on anyone, as long as it's not hurting me. I can understand the 2nd hand arguments, but I'm not around it enough to make a big impact on my health.

Both issue 4 and 5 are so badly worded that they can't be good for the general population either way. When you really dig into it, one of them is being majorly touted by Stand and Truth, and the other one makes the big tobbacco companies happy. I'm saying NO to both of those issues.

As for the casino issue - That gets a thumbs down, too. Way to mislead the public about your plans, etc.. and everything you said, too.

-Josh

+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:47 PM

Jeff said:
Despite my anti-smoking sentiment, I'm voting against both measures (especially the state constitutional amendment) because that's a choice I think businesses should make.

Completely agree and oddly enough for the same (similar?) reasons. It has nothing to do with being a smoker or hating smokers or whatever - it's screwed up that things are put in place that force businesses to do business a certain way.

Let the individual decide. The owners of these businesses can go smoking, non-smoking or both and the patron can decide which kind of establishment they'd like to visit.

Don't force everyone's hand.

(I do suspect the hand is forced because if we were given a choice, we'd all see that the smoking thing isn't nearly the issue for many people that we're being told it is...but that's just my sick world view. :) )

+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 5:38 PM
Yep I'm voting no on issues 4 and 5 for the same reasons. The fact that there are people who are voting yes on these issues scare me. Why? You are basically telling the government that it is okay to tell you what you can do regardless if it is healthy for you or not. And these issues are based on studies that someone else did.

***Stupid hypothetical situation:

What if a study came out saying that non-Intamin rollercoasters are dangerous to our health (because we already know that Intamin coasters are ;)). And there was a base out there that hated those who rode roller coasters. Would you be okay having somebody else tell you that you cannot ride roller coasters any more and then pass a law banning you from doing so?

If people want to smoke, they should be able to. If business owners want to have a business where they can allow their clients to smoke, they should be able to. Same goes the other way around. It has nothing to do with the fact that I may or may not like smoke, its not what our country was founded on.

As for voting for the senator for Ohio and the governor, its tough for me. I'm more conservative but I think Sherrod Brown is a good guy, however it's known to me that he's a pompous Democrat that will not work with anybody else from the Republican party. Mike Dewine, also a good guy, but the stuff he's voting for during this past term has irritated the heck out of me. Quick freaking spending our tax dollars on idiotic stuff!! Our guys running for governor are not leaders by any means and I really hope whoever wins that election will step up and be the leader that Ohio needs right now.

As for Ed Markey, he's a politician guys. This is what he does. He's the same type of politician as Dennis Kucinich. He is trying to get his name on everything out there.

~Rob Willi

+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 5:46 PM
Kucinich might be a nut, but he's not the same as Markey. Kucinich actually believes in the things he says, and manages to get elected anyway. I'm not his biggest fan, but in terms of pure intentions as a politicians, he's well above most.
+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 6:24 PM
Well since there is this brief moment of 'electionbuzz' I'll put in my two cents. I actually like my congressman Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA). Aside from his grandstanding "Baseball Inquisition", he seems to be mostly level headed. He's actually one of the few congressmen who has advocated for House voting rights in the District of Columbia (although with the quid pro quo of an extra congressional district being formed in Utah. Andrew Hurst (D), his opponent, I've never heard of, could barely pick him out of a lineup, and dont really know what he stands for, but I'm going to vote for him anyway.

I'm no swamp-dwelling, tree-hugging hippie (no offense to those who are ;)), but *this* Republican Party has screwed things up so bad, that I cant understand why *anyone* would vote for them...ESPECIALLY conservatives. The supposed party of "limited government" has mortgaged our future (and China holds the note), invited Big Brother into our bedrooms, and, most egregiously, violated one of the most base tenents of our 'freedoms': "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". I'd consider being sent off to Gitmo with no right to a trial an "unreasonable seizure".

As for our esteemed junior Senator Allen, he's just a know nothing sheep who I've been waiting two years to get out of office, but never thought it could really happen. It still likely wont, but even the *hope* makes me a little happy :). I cant understand why *he* was a front runner for 2008. Are we doomed to have an idiot for president in perpetuity?

As for a candidate that I wish I could vote for: Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN). That guy has some sense. Too bad rednecks scared of 'nigras sleeping wit white women' are going to do him in. (Maybe Hilarly will put him in her cabinet)

Okay, I may have gone too far. Umm...coasters rule!
lata, jeremy
--who is just as apprehensive of *another* Clinton administration

+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 6:32 PM
For the love of god, no Hillary in 2008.

Let's get friggin' McCain in there - he's should've been the nomination 7 years ago. (and I loved him then too :) )

The worst part is that the nasty Bush aftertaste will probably dick him out of it again. (Holy innuendo, Batman! ;) )

+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:06 PM
I *was* a huge McCain supporter. But he's sold his soul to the devil...or maybe the "anti-devil" (?) Jerry Fawell. He's buddied up to Bush even after the nasty smear campaign they ran against him in South Carolina. But the worst was when he said that he was against a Bush budget measure, but still voted for it anyway. I thought the boy had stones, but that was gutless. He made a whole speech on why the bill was bad on the Senate floor, then voted for it anyway. What a punk-bytch.
lata, jeremy
--and yes, that's what I really feel
+0
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:25 PM
I have to agree with you, Jeremy. I REALLY liked McCain, and would have probably voted for him if he'd gotten the nomination instead of that Shrub joker.

If you guys want to be REALLY scared of "government interfering with business", consider this: New York City is considering a citywide ban on transfats. Now, a lot of restaurants are switching away from transfats ANYWAY, for smart business reasons -- informed consumers are avoiding them (even KFC is moving away from them) But, for the city to step in and say you can't use them at all is just going too damn far...

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...