That’s my intention. We’ll have a chance, in 2 years.
In the meantime, the assumption that she won’t be effective, given Patterson’s apparent intention to appoint her, serves no purpose. I don’t like the choice, but I also don’t agree with the pissing and moaning about her after one interview. I’m willing to see how she does in a few more appearances.
So just because she is a Kennedy she should get the job. I have seen more qualified names come up for the position, but hey its only 2 years, who cares right? Just put pictures on a wall and throw a dart at them.
Oh wait, Hillary had the same experience, a name. Oh she slept with Bill so she can say that she has political experience. And look at how much she has done for WNY. (crickets)
Carolyn probably doesn’t know that Buffalo exists other than the fact we have chicken wings are named after us.
Did you actually read what I typed? Patterson’s going to do it regardless, and while I don’t agree with the selection, petulant whining about one interview serves no purpose.
Regardless of what patterson does or doesn’t do it’s great to see much of NY being so negative toward her. If we all just roll over and accept it she’s pretty much guaranteed to get to keep the seat when the voters finally do get their say.
Yes I did. And I replied. I agree with Jay S’s post.
My point is that she has NO experience and it’s putting someone with a name in the position who probably won’t do anything for WNY. More of the political bullshit NYS is known for.
Your point?
Last time I checked, we are allowed to whine and bitch. Unless Patterson decides to tax or take that away from us.
Sure, we’re allowed, it’s just not constructive and it’s not based on anything substantive. I’ve said the same thing in this thread now 4 times, and you’re still asking what my point was.
I typed it out for the third time, and your response was “So just because she’s a Kennedy, she gets the job.”
I asked if you read my post because in your response (and again, in this response), you’ve displayed a complete lack of comprehension for what I’m saying, and gone off on a tangent. I’m not saying she’s the best for the job. Only that there’s nothing we can do about it for 2 years, and holding 1 45-second interview clip against her isn’t going to do anything but prove that we only have the attention span to notice snarky little clips that sad little men like Bill O’Reilly point out for us.
Why don’t you wait to see who Paterson actually picks before you start the right wing shit-slinging…
Joe, you said it much more clearly and concisely than I did. Thanks.
Oh yea, forgot, he still might pick Byron Brown. Now thats just funny, I don’t care who you are.
There’s a better chance of him picking George Bush than Byron Brown. If it was anyone from this area, it would be Higgins, you know, the guy thats actually qualified for the job.
The problem with picking someone from WNY is that they have to get re-elected in 2 years. Peter King, a Republican from the NYC area, has already said hes running. Stupid NYC will just vote for him if the Democrat is a guy theyve never heard of.
To be perfectly honest the definition of an assault weapon should be changed because I know it include weapons that only fire one shot at a time.
I’m more against anyone owning a military grade automatic rifle or similar weapon that has the capabilities of firing more than one round and a time.
x2 on that point but I still don’t want her.
What is one round at a time? more than one round with a pull of a trigger is a machine gun, those are already limited. So do you mean capable of reloading itself? does that include pump actions?
You do realize that your definition pretty much bans 90 percent of all weapons in existance. See we have this pesky Bill of Rights thing, that kinda gets the way of your utopia. The same one that allows you to say what every you want without being tossed in jail.
Yeah, except that’s not what the Second Amendment says, and any interpretation that ignores the first clause is faulty.
Holy shit I didn’t think I had to spell it out but ok.
When you pull and hold down the trigger the firearm continues to shoot bullets. We should not be allowed to purchase those ourselves they serve no purpose in either home defense or hunting.
They should be reserved or law enforcement and the military end of story.
PS: There are limits to what you can say in this country.
Seriously. The argument that we need AKs and M-16s to defend ourselves from government tyranny died with Abrams tanks, Predator drones, the MOAB, and the H-Bomb. Waco proved that, and it wasn’t even a military operation.
/offtopic
It is estimated that there are over 200mm guns in private ownership in the US. You can’t compare a well armed populace to a small band of nuts in Texas.
Our political system is about checks and balances. I admit that we as Americans haven’t been exercising our ability to keep our government in check lately, but at least we retain the ability to do so.
And how would you go about keeping them in check with a machine gun?
The second amendment does not exist so people can have guns to defend ourselves from the government. If that were the case then their wouldn’t be a reason to have it in the Bill of Rights because if the government gets to the point where they become a credible threat to the populace then the constitution wouldn’t mean anything at that point.
Allow me to defend my views and travel off topic a bit further…
Moruitelda and those against assault weapons: Do you know what makes a weapon an “assault weapon?” Obviously not. The expired weapons ban that Kennedy supported outlawed the production of magazines that held more than 10 rounds, and guns that had bayonet lugs or mounts for grenade launchers. “Assault weapons” are used in about .20% of all violent crimes and about 1% in gun crimes. Semiautomatic “assault rifles” were used in 20 of the 2,394 murders in New York State in 1992 (before the ban). Between 1992 and 1996 less than 4% of mass murders, committed with guns, involved “assault weapons.” Your argument “Allowing assault weapons to remain legal makes it possible for the criminally insane to go on horrifically effective shooting sprees; what good does it do?” is bullshit. “Criminally insane” people have historically not used assault weapons to go on “horrific shooting sprees.”
I own an AR-15 that was post-pan back in the day. Except for the bayonet lugs, it is EXACTLY the same as a pre-ban AR-15. They shoot the same ammunition. The “assault weapons ban” Kennedy supports is ineffective and her support of the ban shows how disconnected from reality.
Second, as far as abortion goes, I don’t need some internet link or site to help me make moral decisions. Those are made more with the heart than the brain. I said that I don’t like Kennedy because she supports abortion not that you should not support abortion. The reason I have spent the last 12 years in the military is so that you have the right to feel and speak the way that you want to.
Lastly, as far as the war in Iraq goes, I’m going to try to be brief. I have been there (Iraq and Afghanistan) and I have seen the intelligence. The decision to invade Iraq was made using intelligence from England, Germany, Iraqi defectants, US, France, and Russia. If it was “fabricated” that would be one hell of a conspiracy! The war in Iraq is anything but a “little crusade”. Even without WMD’s the war is anything but wasteful and unnecessary. The Iraqi people now have the freedoms that you and I enjoy everyday. Using your position, I could argue that welfare in the US is wasteful. Why should I help out someone else? Try to better their lives?
But yeah, I guess how much we spend on gasoline is more important than hundreds of thousands of innocent Kurds being mass murdered by Saddam, as long as we don’t have to see it on CNN.
I would argue that our rights are not given to us by the Constitution, rather they are protected against the government by the Constitution.
As one person, even if I had a machine gun, I wouldn’t be much of a threat to a despotic government, but as I said before an armed populace is.
Don’t get me wrong, I support stricter gun control. I just don’t support taking the right away entirely, or even in part. Those that choose to own a firearm should be trained in its safe operation and handling. I don’t feel that even the NYSPP course meets the most basic requirements in this.