Blatant hypocrisy: libs changing laws when it suits them

Onceler said:
Damn them! Damn them all to hell!

Yurt, if I wanted to do your hypocrisy police thing, I could do it in my town alone, practically every day, for both Democrats and Republicans.

Hypocrisy is as old and common as politics. Does it bother me? Sometimes, but there are much bigger fish to fry in America right now than hypocritical politicians.
Click to expand...

lmao.....all you do in many threads lately is police my alleged hypocrisy....you're so blind you don't even realize that you're being hypocritical.....it is ok for YOU to call others out for their supposed hypocrisy, but it is not ok for anyone else to do so.....

get real onceler....

changing laws that are specifically designed to keep one party in power longer than they should be is a serious issue.....and i don't get people like you who think that this so called small stuff should be ignored.....as if people are not capable of thinking about more than one thing at a time.....well.....perhaps it is you that is projecting here
 
Liberals thrive on hypocrisy. If they can change a law to suit their immediate political need for more power than they will. That's why I like to see them dead, like Ted.
 
maineman said:
and if they can change the law again for political reasons, more power to them. that's how the game is played.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Norman Paperman said:
Bullshit, it's every one's business. These people make the laws that govern the entire nation. Now, if we were talking state senators, I would agree that it is no one's except for the residents of the state.
Click to expand...

our senators represent us, (mass) not you. you have no standing.
 
It's a perfectly reasonable compromise. They need someone in the seat in the interim, and they don't want the gov to have the ability to appoint someone outside of the electoral system. So they'll allow someone who promises not to run in the election fill the seat until a special election can be organized.

All of this is lost on Yurt.
 
ib1yysguy said:
It's a perfectly reasonable compromise. They need someone in the seat in the interim, and they don't want the gov to have the ability to appoint someone outside of the electoral system. So they'll allow someone who promises not to run in the election fill the seat until a special election can be organized.

All of this is lost on Yurt.
Click to expand...

Translation: Politics is an ugly business, unless you're a Democrat, then its a simple matter of logic.

I don't ever want to hear you bitch about filthy politics again. You don't even realize what a silly pawn you are in this game. Mindless. Totally mindless.
 
€ r ı π ∂;508243 said:
our senators represent us, (mass) not you. you have no standing.
Click to expand...

Technically they really only represent the people that voted for them. I'd never say Gene Taylor represents me. That would be embarrassing. Barney Frank represents me much more than Gene Taylor.
 
Waaa waaa waaaa,

Listen guys the reason they did that is Romney would have appointed someone who was the antithisis of what the People had voted for in the Kerry election.

He would have appointed someone who was going to anti represent the people.

The people of the state voted for overwhelmingly for a democrat , why would some fucker appoint a republican AGIANST the peoples wishes?

Because he did not care about what the people wanted.

The people should be represented with someone who will vote the way they want him to vote.
 
evince said:
Waaa waaa waaaa,

Listen guys the reason they did that is Romney would have appointed someone who was the antithisis of what the People had voted for in the Kerry election.

He would have appointed someone who was going to anti represent the people.

The people of the state voted for overwhelmingly for a democrat , why would some fucker appoint a republican AGIANST the peoples wishes?

Because he did not care about what the people wanted.

The people should be represented with someone who will vote the way they want him to vote.
Click to expand...

There is a clear and obvious objective difference there.

The legislature changed the law to prevent Romeny from appointing someone the people didn't want. Now they should change it back so that Patrick can appoint the people Mass wants.
 
I bet spome con is going to arrgue the people picked romney so he would pick a congressman to replace Kerry when he ran for president that would vote against their wishes.

The important thing is having the peopel represented in the fashion they chose.

What a fucking surprize the cons see that as a BAD thing.
 
911America4EVER said:
Temporary insanity.

Plus obv a legislator is different from an executive. A legislator has to fall in line, to some degree, with his party.
Click to expand...

so elections only have consequences when the dems want them to have consequences, but if the PEOPLE temporarily insanely elect a republican, well there should be limitations to those consequences....

hypocrisy is the word.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top