Blatant hypocrisy: libs changing laws when it suits them

evince said:
Here you go ,

Do you really think the people of that state elected Romney for the reason of replacing their congresscritters with the opposite views they voted in?

I bet not one fucking voter in that state though about Kerry even running let alone that Romney would get to replace him.


You are backing the idea that romney should get to anti represent the people by picking someone they abhore into office.

Like usual you dont care about democracy you care about youir team.

You can bet those people will not likely vote in another R gov.
Click to expand...

so you disagree with the whole 'elections have consequences' thing then, right?
 
The consiquences of an election should not result in Americans having people who are supposed to represent them do the opposite of what they want.

What the dems did was perfectly legal and changing it back will be perfectly legal.

Romney could have appointed a Republican and that would have been perfectly legal before the law change.

The whole differance is that these American people whould have had some scumbag voting against their interests the whole time he was in office.


You fail to see what that RIGHT position is here but hey whos surprized you cant figure it out.
 
I'm sure Desh was completely behind Tom Delay doing what he did in 2003 with the Texas redistricting.
 
evince said:
The consiquences of an election should not result in Americans having people who are supposed to represent them do the opposite of what they want.

What the dems did was perfectly legal and changing it back will be perfectly legal.

Romney could have appointed a Republican and that would have been perfectly legal before the law change.

The whole differance is that these American people whould have had some scumbag voting against their interests the whole time he was in office.


You fail to see what that RIGHT position is here but hey whos surprized you cant figure it out.
Click to expand...
so your opinion is that the RIGHT position is elections DO have consequences, just so long as its democrats that control the consequences. got it, you're a political hack. now all you have left to do is admit it and you can start your 12 step program to become a real American again.
 
Beefy said:
You were the biggest crybaby on this board during the Republican years. Bitching all the way. Preaching your moral standards.

But when an equally corrupt mafia organizations does it, one that you proudly proclaim that you would vote for if a yellow dog were on the ticket, does the same thing, you're moral high ground goes flying out the window.

Partisanship is going to be the death of this country.

Put a (D) by his name and you let him get away with murder.

Pathetic.
Click to expand...
You summed up this hypocritical asshole nicely.
 
Yurt said:
Massachusetts governor backs naming Kennedy successor

....

The current state law was enacted in 2004 in a effort by state Democrats to prevent then-Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, from naming a successor if Democratic Senator John Kerry won his bid for the U.S. presidency. Kerry went on to lose the 2004 election to President George W. Bush.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090831/pl_nm/us_kennedy_election

the dems are sinking their own ship....
Click to expand...


I don't have time to read your article, but I'm willing to accept the premise that political opportunity and hypocrisy is probably in play.

But, I'd bet a month's salary you didn't complain once, when Delay did it in Texas.

so you have ZERO standing to be commenting on this.


The bottom line is this. You cheered on Delay, to get more republicans in the congress so you could have an illegal, bloody and unnecessary war in the middle east. So, that you could feed your blood lust. And so that republicans could try to privitize social security, deregulate wall street, and turn public services into profit-making schemes.

As far as I'm concerned, keeping another Democrat in the senate is about at least about healthcare for all americans, about addressing issues of social justice and environment.


So, I can't get that upset about it. The moral equivalency isn't even in the same ball park. Repukes play dirty for eight years, and you have no standing to whine.
 
Delay did it to keep the people from being represented by someone who believed like they do.

This whole thing happened because the Dems were trying to keep the R gov from anti representing the people og the state.

Having someone work to vote against the constituency is worse than having the office vacant.

Having someone who is in line with what the constituecny voted for in the first place is the next best thing than having the person they voted for there.


Which of these positions is more in line with the intent of the voter?
 
not much we can do about it when its a one party rule here but definitely wont forget it when I hear dems bitching about something similar like gerrymandering in texas.
 
The gerrymandering in texas was created to blunt the black vote there.

Do you really not see the differance people?
 
What delay did was illegal and was harming democracy.

What the dems did was legal and helped the people be represented like thay chose to be represnted.

You can pretend all you want that these things are the same but you just look like buttheads
 
evince said:
The gerrymandering in texas was created to blunt the black vote there.

Do you really not see the differance people?
Click to expand...

same category as far as im concerned. changing rules with you power to help you party win category. I dont see a difference in category at all.
 
evince said:
What delay did was illegal and was harming democracy.

What the dems did was legal and helped the people be represented like thay chose to be represnted.

You can pretend all you want that these things are the same but you just look like buttheads
Click to expand...

LMAO! You are too good to be true.
 
evince said:
The gerrymandering in texas was created to blunt the black vote there.

Do you really not see the differance people?
Click to expand...

bullshit. stop spouting off about shit you don't know about. gerrymandering in TX wasn't about racial lines at all. It was pure political posturing which got the republican dominated state legislature here cursed and bitched at by alot of people.
 
1.Was it an illegal action?

2. was it designed to twart the will of the voter?

take these two situations and then answer the questions respectfully.

You are the hack dweeb
 
if you think about it this is just another horrible move thats going to wind up costing the dem party more then the benefit of doing it. I knew about this story back in 2004 but the nation didnt know. They were also talking about it last year after kennedy found out he had cancer.

Now everyone is hearing about it and its going to bite them in the ass especially for a seat they would win anyways without changing the rules/laws.

And for what? My only guess is to have the extra vote for the HealthCare bill this fall but what your giving up is ammo for the pubs to do whatever they want and point to this situation and cry hypocrisy. Bad bad move.
 
wonder if Romney will go for the seat. he gave old teddy a run for his money back in the 90's
 
evince said:
Delay did it to keep the people from being represented by someone who believed like they do.

This whole thing happened because the Dems were trying to keep the R gov from anti representing the people og the state.

Having someone work to vote against the constituency is worse than having the office vacant.

Having someone who is in line with what the constituecny voted for in the first place is the next best thing than having the person they voted for there.


Which of these positions is more in line with the intent of the voter?
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... so the people who ELECTED the Rep Governor did not trust the Gov to act in their best interests? Is that why they elected him Desh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top