• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Specter hints Kemp died of GOP agenda

Perhaps in the future you should actually CITE YOUR SOURCES when you quote people than if its not using the same source that was already quoted in the article. Am I supposed to be some sort of mind reader, able to bore into the Mind of the illustrious WillRockWell to know that the quote he posted, with absolutely no link citing where he got it from, was not taken from the article being discussed and actually linked in here.

My apologizes, how about in the future clean up your sloppy debating and posting etiquette or be a bit understanding when people misunderstand you because of your inability to follow common protocol.

Now having seen the full version, I sit somewhere between the original implication which appears to be faulty reporting (Funny, you seem to be attacking the poor reporting here while just a week ago you were drooling and frothing over information posted from a "liberal" rag without question) that, again, shows how poor our media is and the one presented by you.

It seems, in the context, he is implying that through his shift to being a democrat he now has a better possability to push for funding of medical research than he had for republicans and if the push he has been wanting actually been done in the past decades that the senator would be alive today.

I do think its a slight shot at the republicans, however I think its a far less over the top and questionable comment than it was initially made out to be. He's making an opinion, one that I think its a bit faulty as I believe cancer research has been one of the most heavily focused on and funded research in both the private and public sector when looking at the entirety of the field, and one that I think his personal interest in it clouds his view, but one that I don't see as being as questionable in character as originally posted.

I think it was a political dig, but an extremely mild one all things considered.

I apologize, it did not occur to me that all transcripts would not be complete transcripts, and that the rightwing media, which fills your Favorites, would edit the interview to obtain the most damning result. I understand the confusion, it was not your fault.
 
He committed all of these....as the quote you provided clearly and emphatically demonstrates. Your proof substantiates my position. Thank you.

Please demonstrate, using Specter's actual words, how he committed these offenses.
 
And not to be nitpicky here, but it's...

Specter, not Spector.

Geez people!

:mrgreen:

This is not the Wall of Sound guy?

spector.jpg
 
Last edited:
Please demonstrate, using Specter's actual words, how he committed these offenses.
Look, the son of a bitch used a poor choice of words whether he was really blaming Republicans for Kemp's death or not. Don't praise that old bastard for switching parties, how do you know he won't let you down too? :roll:
 
Look, the son of a bitch used a poor choice of words whether he was really blaming Republicans for Kemp's death or not. Don't praise that old bastard for switching parties, how do you know he won't let you down too? :roll:

I don't remember praising Specter, I don't even particularly like him. But I would defend even YOU if you were being misquoted
 
Specter was routinely criticized by the right, including on this forum. There wasn't a lot of noise about him the past two years because the Dem's had a majority and it didn't matter as much. If you think back to the "Gang of 14" thing, he was ridiculed a lot. Anytime "RINO'S" were brought up there was a good chance Specter was mentioned. There was a thread ressurected from a couple months ago criticizing him once the news came out he moved to the new party.

Quite frankly, Specter hasn't been loved by Republicans for some time. The ONLy real "conservative" bedrock stance I've found him to be strong on was the 2nd amendment. In every other issue he is either about as moderate as you can come (having a mix of positions or just no strong real feeling), liberal, or conservative in the meekest least outspoken way possible.

Specter rarely made the news because he was strongly pushing for a fiscal budget, or to push for tax cuts, or for calls of needing to shrink the size of government, or to strengthen our borders, or to other things. He was generally only in the news when he was pushing strongly for the "amnesty" bill, was blocking conservative judicial nominations, or was one of 4 to 7 republicans that would jump over and side with Democrats to break fillibusters or sway a big item.

I think if Specter had been at the forefront of a conservative issue or two he'd have had a lot less vitriol shown to him; likely more on par with McCain, who gets insulted but also praised, than with someone like Olympia Snow who I've never seen a good thing said about. But he wasn't, he was a meek quite person on almost all conservative issues unless he was jumping ship to the other side in which case suddenly he was loud and prone to lectures.

His cache had just gone down in recent years becuase there was less of a need for a token republican to drag over to make something "bipartisan" in hopes of getting it to pass or put onto the floor.

I've just never seen anything on this forum about him, that's all. I understand why Republicans don't care for him, but that didn't stop them from nominating and backing McCain for President...who is very much akin to Specter. So is it fair to say he was loathed by mostly conservative Republicans, but not all Republicans?
 
I've just never seen anything on this forum about him, that's all. I understand why Republicans don't care for him, but that didn't stop them from nominating and backing McCain for President...who is very much akin to Specter. So is it fair to say he was loathed by mostly conservative Republicans, but not all Republicans?
Despised by all but the phonies.
 
Look, the son of a bitch used a poor choice of words whether he was really blaming Republicans for Kemp's death or not. Don't praise that old bastard for switching parties, how do you know he won't let you down too? :roll:

Well if he wins as a Dem and Franken is eventually put in the Senate then Specter has given the Dems 60. That's a gift you know.
 
Well if he wins as a Dem and Franken is eventually put in the Senate then Specter has given the Dems 60. That's a gift you know.
Yeah I know, and I'm not happy about it. But now you have the weasel.
 
Yeah I know, and I'm not happy about it. But now you have the weasel.

Given the fact that our government is rife with weasels, one more won't hurt, and in this case...will only help.
 
Despised by all but the phonies.

Right, because moderate Republicans aren't real Republicans. I can almost hear your fingernails digging into the keyboard now. :rofl
 
Given the fact that our government is rife with weasels, one more won't hurt, and in this case...will only help.

Help how? He has admitted he changed parties only to get re-elected, and would not change the way he voted. So how is he going to help the democrats? If anything, I think his joining the democrats just makes us look bad.
 
Right, because moderate Republicans aren't real Republicans. I can almost hear your fingernails digging into the keyboard now. :rofl
Sure they are, but phoneys like Specter, uh Spector :lol: are not. He's right where he should be, with the other left wing weasels. :rofl
 
I apologize, it did not occur to me that all transcripts would not be complete transcripts, and that the rightwing media, which fills your Favorites, would edit the interview to obtain the most damning result. I understand the confusion, it was not your fault.

First, really...The "Washington Times" is the "right wing media"?

Second, yes, you got me pegged. Its exactly what it is. I saw it in my favorites. Yep yep yep. That makes perfect sense if you're so useless as to not even bother reading my post where I make specific reference that I used the only link actually posted in this thread, assuming that you weren't just some ignorant poster that throws around direct quotes without getting it from the currently discussed source OR by supplying your own source. Silly me, thinking you'd be a reasonable understandable poster that would read someone's words, actually comprehend them instead of just create whatever scenario fits your little world view in your head, and then respond accordingly.

You posted a quote and then got all pissy and emo because someone responded to what you actually typed because YOU failed to actually site anything other than what was being discussed. Not my fault you want to rage out because you failed to do common debate etiquette instead of think "Hey, you know, I was too damn lazy to post a link to the thing I'm quoting so that's probably why he was using the actual posted article as his reference".

:roll:
 
Help how? He has admitted he changed parties only to get re-elected, and would not change the way he voted. So how is he going to help the democrats? If anything, I think his joining the democrats just makes us look bad.

Because if Franken ever gets the nod the Dems will be at 60 in the Senate. That's how. Looking good or bad went out the window decades ago. Now it's about getting things done. Should it work out, Specter's defection gives the Dems a very hefty dose of political power on the Hill.

And seriously, how does this make us look "bad?" He joined the Dems, big deal. Both sides have jerks. Specter does nothing to detract from the Democratic party.
 
Last edited:
Because if Franken ever gets the nod the Dems will be at 60 in the Senate. That's how. Looking good or bad went out the window decades ago. Now it's about getting things done. Should it work out, Specter's defection gives the Dems a very hefty dose of political power on the Hill.

And seriously, how does this make us look "bad?" He joined the Dems, big deal. Both sides have jerks. Specter does nothing to detract from the Democratic party.

Remember now, he has stated he is not going to change how he votes, so this changes the democratic vote total in the senate by nothing. No power gain, period, if he votes the same way as always, as he claims. If he votes the same way, the "D" next to his name is as meaningless as the "R" would be.

The reason I say it looks bad is that being a democrat should mean you believe certain things(cue our right wing friends with a few snide comments about what those beliefs are), that you hold certain ideas. Being a democrat should not mean this is the party that you have to be to win an election, so that is what you will be. He says he has issues with the republican party, and his voting record does kinda reflect that, but he voted with republicans 67.1 % of the time based on best numbers I can find(source. What does it say of a party that we would welcome some one who says he will continue to vote against us more than for us? it just makes us look foolish.
 
Back
Top Bottom