[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
You said "Kennedy, as usual, was grandstanding and interjecting his socialistic viewpoint into a setting where it was unwarranted and frankly in poor taste". your refernence was to "socialistic" when that wan't the case.

In your opinion. In my opinion, he was interjecting his socialistic viewpoint and talking about things that had nothing to do with the confirmation proceedings, primarily because he likes to hear himself talk. I don't know if you've watched any of the confirmation proceedings, but apparently a lot of the senators like to hear themselves talk. In fact, they talk a LOT more frequently than Roberts does, which is unfortunate and a waste of taxpayer dollars -- not that that's anything new in Washington.

so all the programs that aid the education of lower income children so they can acheive upward class mobility are "socialistic"? bullcrap.

I guess I should have been more precise, knowing that I was talking to you. I really didn't reference education, but if you want to talk about that, I don't think that the federal government has any business getting involved in education. That's a matter that should be left to the States.

If by closing the gap between rich and poor you mean an "opportunity" gap, then there are probably instances where I'd agree with you. But that's not what I was talking about.

I certainly didn't read anything about that income redistribution in Kennedy's or Leahy's speeches.

I have a question. Why were Kennedy and Leahy giving speeches in Roberts' confirmation proceedings. Oh wait, I know the answer.

Anyway, perhaps I read something into their comments that wasn't there, but I think any comment from Kennedy has to be taken in the context of his well-known political views, and in that context I think my understanding of his comments is right on target.

I agree, and nothing in either of the speeches conflicts with that premise.

But Kennedy's ideology DOES conflict with that premise. But perhaps we're getting a bit far afield of what this thread was initiall intended to discuss.

Either way, it's nice to see that we agree on something.

yeah, sure he did (not!)

Okay, man, that's pretty lame. I haven't had anybody use the phrase "not!" on me since about 1987.

But yeah, he did. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

yes, I read them and they don't have any instances of "corruption and incompetence", only this tidbit:"at least 200 New Orleans police officers have walked away from their jobs and two have committed suicide". so much for "corruption".

They talk about police stealing. That's not corrupt?

gee, I don't know, maybe the news about SUICIDE! that's a pretty strong sign of psychological distress....

Okay, so that might be true of a couple of police officers individually, but I thought we were talking about corruption of the police department.