LIVE CHAT: Congressional Candidate Richard Tisei

Join in and chat with Tisei about the congressional issues that are important to you.

Welcome to our Live Chat with congressional candidate Richard Tisei. Tisei served in the state legislature for more than 25 years and was Senate Minority Leader before leaving his seat to run for lieutenent governor. Tisei is now challenging Congressman John Tierney for the Massacusetts.

Richard Gindes June 13, 2012 at 10:38 PM
@Gene Despite Republicans' being outnumbered 35-5 in the Senate – the most lopsided party division in the nation – Richard has used his position as Minority Leader to become an effective spokesman for the Republican Party, calling attention to a wide range of issues, most notably those related to wasteful spending. He has been at the forefront of efforts to eliminate government waste and inefficiencies, reduce the tax burden on Massachusetts residents, and promote policies that will help small businesses create jobs and remain competitive.
Richard Gindes June 13, 2012 at 10:42 PM
Gene, no doubt, also supports Elizabeth Warren because, like John Teirney she has no ethical standards...
Steph June 15, 2012 at 03:59 PM
Not true. Only fundamentalist Mormons do so, and if they are caught by the main church, they are promptly excommunicated. The prophet had a revelation from G-d when it became clear that the US would not accept Utah as a state while polygamy was still practiced. Hence some families going to Mexico and Canada, to continue to practice multiple marriages. Seriously, Anne, do you read any books at all? Or just your Bible? Your grasp of basic science, history, civics and ecomonics seem almost at a middle school level.
RunningGreen June 15, 2012 at 04:04 PM
Anne, two things. One, I believe the reason some of your posts aren't showing is because most news websites will hold the posting of comments by someone who has posted multiple times in a short span of time. It's used to block and protect against spammers. I don't work for or with the Patch, but I doubt that it is an editorial decision. And, involving your last comment, I just have to make one historical correction. Alexander Hamiltion was a Federalist, meaning that he was for a stronger central government. He actually pushed for the national government to hold most of the power. I think Samuel Adams or Patrick Henry would be a better example with your post. Nothing against you, just wanted to point that out.
RunningGreen June 15, 2012 at 04:11 PM
Anne, I fail to comprehend your last example. When you are robbed, you receive nothing in return. When you pay taxes, though, you pay for police, fire department, education, etc. To say that paying taxes is the equivalent of robbery isn't valid, at least in my personal opinion. Whether there should be a balanced budget or increased oversight, I can't say. But, you can't deny that you do receive something in return for taxes.
Melissa Gleaton June 15, 2012 at 05:10 PM
I don't understand your comment. What did I say "to the contrary" about Mormons and polygamy? I didn't say anything about mormons, or polygamy. The point I'm making (and the stance I take) and the response to you saying "marriage" is a "religious institution", is that if that's the case, it should remain a religious institution - separate from the legal aspect, which is governed by the government. Why should any religious institution be given the authority to grant legal status or protection? That is the role of the government. And I'm not sure where you get your information from, but you CANNOT "LEGALLY" marry more than one person in Utah (or anywhere else in the country, for that matter). Have you "borne witness" to this WATCHING "Sister Wives"? I don't think so, because it has been made BLATANTLY clear that the husband is only LEGALLY married to one person - the first wife. The others are "spiritual unions". Again, I propose that all church weddings (marriages) be considered "spiritual unions" and if you want the legal status/protection, you go and you sign the contract (a civil union) with the State.
Melissa Gleaton June 15, 2012 at 05:16 PM
Real way to foster intelligent debate. No one will listen to the message of someone who rambles on and one and is rude to boot. Way to get people to "come to your side". Unreal. You are no better than the liberals who are out there calling us all dumb neanderthals. You don't represent me as a conservative or a Republican.
Melissa Gleaton June 15, 2012 at 05:18 PM
Now you're getting somewhere... unfortunately your rambling about your freedom of speech being squashed (while your post was being held pending), and subsequent trash talk has negated it.
Melissa Gleaton June 15, 2012 at 05:24 PM
Not only that, but you already live in a world (state/country) where these already exist. In case you didn't notice.
RunningGreen June 15, 2012 at 05:54 PM
So, if I understand you correctly, you want to privatize police and fire. I disagree. If someone is suffering from a medical emergency, his or her house is on fire, or is being robbed, the officer/firefighter should demand payment for services before the fact? Medicine and public safety should not be treated simply as any common business. Lives are at stake. Personally, I disagree with most of your argument. How does name-calling and ridiculing your opponents solve any problems? I don't think society is at a low-point. If it was to be, though, I would imagine it would have to do with the fact that we are constantly arguing with each other and not solving problems. For instance, you called residents of the North Shore "delusional, inept, and powerless." That does nothing except alienate and ridicule those who disagree with you. We should spend more time thoughtfully debating the issues and trying to reach common ground as opposed to yelling at each other and decrying the end of civilization. You blame others for the degradation of our society while, by your remarks, have contributed to the very problem yourself. Nothing meant personally; I just felt the need to express my opinions.
A+ Schools June 15, 2012 at 06:38 PM
To Anne Sweeney: You state," I have yet to see good schools, good fire departments, or good policing". I don't quite know how to respond civilly. Here goes. Since you seem educated, you probably attended public school or know someone that did. Since you are alive, at one point in your life, or someone's life, you/they needed the police to assist you. Assuming you live/have lived in a house/apartment, etc., or know someone that has, you or they probably needed the fire department at some point. Did anyone ask for a credit card or cash at the door? If you or someone you know has been involved in a car accident, did the First Responders ask for money or a check made out to their jurisdiction? I look forward to your highly educated response.
Richard Gindes June 15, 2012 at 06:56 PM
Anne, If Richard Tisei is not conservative enough for you, even on fiscal issues, vote for Teirney, let me know how that works out for you fruitcacke!
Wellington West June 16, 2012 at 02:50 AM
Tierney must be thrilled by your support. You sound like a lunatic! You must be incredibly unhappy with your life to be so angry with everyone else's. What is so fragile in your marriage that it can be threatened by anyone else's?
Joe Veno June 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM
Anne you really need to wake up and see what is going on around you.
gene June 16, 2012 at 12:10 PM
sounds to me he's more qualified to be a traffic reporter than a Congressman. It's easy to throw personal attacks out there, but its clear Tisei lacks substance when he can't propose anything positive. what a hack!
gene June 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM
when beaten by facts resort to name calling. At least the Tisei campaign is consistant
E June 16, 2012 at 01:02 PM
May we all just admit that Anne just might be a homophobe? There is little else to explain the dichotomies in her views. It is always the far right and far left issues that muddy the waters and they tend to be social in nature. Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Hamilton et al didn't worry about such things. Despite their poitical differences they each went to church on Sunday morning and were grounded in christian morality and feared the wrath of god. E
Richard Gindes June 16, 2012 at 02:38 PM
The president shamelessly uses his executive power to subvert Congress because he is inept and powerless at building coalitions to work within the legislative branch to accomplish ANYTHING, which is evidenced by the fact that during his entire administration the Congress has not accomplished its primary mission which is to pass an operating budget for the country!! If he really cared he would have had legislation introduced to accomplish these immigration goals as his executive order can be reversed in January by the next Chief Executive. He panders to ANY voting block that might yield a few more votes and you call this an improvement to out immigration policies? NOT! Furthermore, in 14 years John Tierney has not written ONE piece of meaningful legislation that has become law! Now that is progress, liberal style!
RunningGreen June 16, 2012 at 04:48 PM
His executive over could also be viewed as a proper use of his power to act on an issue which Congress has so far refused to review and handle. I have very little faith in Congress being able to act on any issue, especially during an election year. I would rather see the President take action to try and find a temporary solution rather than wait until after the election for Congress take it up. Also need to clarify one thing, since the order allows for a two-year delay in immigration proceedings, the next Chief Executive would not be able to deport the young people that this order involves until 2014. That is according to the Secretary of Homeland of Security.
Brisa Del Mar June 16, 2012 at 05:15 PM
A diary entry by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, whom I wish would have moved to Mass instead of Louisiana I suspect that many in the Obama Administration don't really believe in private enterprise. At best, they see business as something to be endured so that it can provide tax money for government programs. Indeed, the President had to quickly retract his recent comment that the private sector was doing fine, despite lagging economic growth, stagnant wages and continued record high unemployment rates. The problem is that the private sector is so foreign to our President that he would need a passport to go there and a translator to understand what is happening. We scoff at the notion of redistribution of wealth as if it is a nutty and discredited socialist notion. But that's not the way they see it. They see "redistribution of wealth" as a pejorative term for exactly what they believe in. They of course don't call it "redistribution of wealth," they call it "taking care of people," they call it "progress," they call it "government." While the liberalism of the Obama Administration is widely understood, the incompetence of it remains a bit of an untold story. A few weeks back, I made the comment that prior to being President, Obama had never run anything, that in fact he had never even run a lemonade stand. That's a fun line, and folks were entertained by it. But, here's the problem: it's not a joke, it's the truth.
Brisa Del Mar June 16, 2012 at 05:15 PM
pt 2 We put a guy in the White House who has no experience running anything. In that sense, the joke's on us. But again, it's not a joke. America simply cannot afford another four years of on-the-job training. There may have been times in our country's history where having an untested leader in the White House would have been fine, but this is certainly not one of those times. Yes, President Obama needs to go because his liberal policies are wrong and bad for America. But it's worse than that; it's basic incompetence. He is also the most incompetent president since Jimmy Carter. Politicians are like the boy who cried wolf; they always say the sky is falling, a wolf is coming, the end is near, etc. It's been said so much that people don't believe it. But the truth is that America is the proverbial frog in the pot, it's coming to a boil, but we think it's cozy and relaxing. This time, however, the sky IS falling, and the wolf of debt and bankruptcy really IS at the door. We simply have to win this election.
Ron Powell June 16, 2012 at 08:58 PM
With all due respect, Anne, this sounds like a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It's not that I am disagreeing with or disrespecting your values; it's that we are all adults, and for the most part, we act rationally and in our enlightened self interests. I know nothing about you other than what you post here, but I trust that you are better able to determine who you love more wisely than a State that is incapable of balancing its checkbook to the nearest trillion dollars. I also trust two people who have pledged to care and provide for one another will do so more effectively than that same government.
Richard Gindes June 17, 2012 at 07:37 PM
The state should not be in the "marriage" business at all! Civil unions should be the only instrument the state recognizes. If you want to be married within a particular church that is between the couple and their respective Chruch. Another issue created by the state, meddling in business it has no rightful place in.
Wellington West June 18, 2012 at 01:12 AM
You presume many things about me, not the least of which is that I share your 'us' and 'they' attitude. I think civil rights were meant to apply to every citizen. And, NO, civil union is not enough. Not sure who told you that everyone was ok with civil unions. I do agree with you on one point, let's just call it marriage, not gay marriage.
Joe Bill June 18, 2012 at 12:40 PM
I think you are mentally ill. Many of the things you have stated or have taken a stance on are in conflict with one another. Ranting irrationally an angrily on a public forum is no way to gain credibility.
Nancy Gilberg June 18, 2012 at 01:38 PM
Patch editors, I'm curious - is there a limit to the number of posts one individual may contribute per story? I grew up around the corner from Mr. Tisei and recall him to be a quiet and studious young man. We are so fortunate to live in a time where people can live openly and respectfully despite their differences. Please disregard the small minority who feel otherwise. Best of luck in your campaign!
Bill Gilman (Editor) June 18, 2012 at 01:56 PM
Nancy. No there is not.
Melissa Gleaton June 18, 2012 at 02:18 PM
Anne, what is being "taken away?" Can you no longer marry someone you choose in your church? Actually churches have the right to NOT marry you, if they feel you or your future spouse haven't met the requirements for the rite. The church need not have any power to make their rites into legal contracts. I actually was pretty shocked that a baptismal certificate can be used as a legal document. Every certificate issued by the government for the purpose of legalizing a union for tax and other benefits is a CONTRACT that should be able to be entered into by any two consenting adults who wish to sign the contract. If you are seeking a COVENANT, blessed by the church, then go to the church and have it sanctified. Nobody is taking your right to enter into a religious covenant away. Nobody is forcing religious institutions to bless unions. However, I see it heading that way unless the Church gets out of the legally binding business.
Melissa Gleaton June 18, 2012 at 02:21 PM
And the fact that we (conservatives) fight over social issues when there are bigger fish to fry, that REALLY EFFECT us, is disconcerting. People choosing not to vote based on ONE social issue? Come on!
E June 18, 2012 at 02:44 PM
Right on Melissa!!!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something