Hold power at all costs.... [Archive] - Debate Policy

Silver

09-23-2009, 07:37 PM

Hypocrite, democrat, fascist bastards, change the law again to allow a Dem. to be appointed to replace Kennedy....

I guess no one is really surprised by this....we all know the Democrats are hypocrites and are filthy enough as politicians to do anything it takes to retain power.....pimping their own mothers and daughters wouldn't be below them.....

gabosaurus

09-23-2009, 07:40 PM

blah, blah, blah, blah...

Silver

09-23-2009, 07:43 PM

Thats about as intelligent a post as we've ever had from you....:cheers2:

Noir

09-23-2009, 07:50 PM

I assume that the standard process is a re-ellection? But it is being altered to a party apointment?
If so the Dems should be ashamed.

maineman

09-23-2009, 07:58 PM

it's an interim appointment only. Patrick will extract a promise from the nominee that he/she will not run for the seat in the special election.

There is a MAJOR piece of legislation coming before the congress in the next month or so. It would be a punishment to the citizens of Massachusetts to only have 50% of their voices heard in the US Senate during that debate.

Clearly, the republitards could give a shit about that, because most of the citizens of Massachusetts vote democratic.

Silver

09-23-2009, 08:00 PM

I assume that the standard process is a re-ellection? But it is being altered to a party apointment?
If so the Dems should be ashamed.

When the Governor was a Republican, the Democrats changed the law from appointment to election....

Now the Governor is a Democrat, so the Democrats changed the law from election to appointment....

And they are not ashamed one iota.....they are what they are...hypocrites to the core....

Silver

09-23-2009, 08:03 PM

Kathianne

09-23-2009, 08:36 PM

maineman

09-23-2009, 08:42 PM

Yeah...fuck the law... only Republicans need follow existing law.......we don't like it, we'll change it....

almost worked in the 2000 election too, until the SC stopped it....

true to form. the citizens of massachusetts don't deserve representation during the biggest social program debate in 40 years....

cuz they're democrats.

hack.

maineman

09-23-2009, 08:43 PM

I hate to agree, but seems an 'interim' appointee will serve until the 'special election' in January. Nothing to do here.

thank you

maineman

09-23-2009, 08:44 PM

When the Governor was a Republican, the Democrats changed the law from appointment to election....

Now the Governor is a Democrat, so the Democrats changed the law from election to appointment....

And they are not ashamed one iota.....they are what they are...hypocrites to the core....

wrong... they are only changing the law to make an INTERIM appoinment so that the state has equal representation during critical debates in the US Senate.

theHawk

09-23-2009, 08:53 PM

wrong... they are only changing the law to make an INTERIM appoinment so that the state has equal representation during critical debates in the US Senate.

Normally I would agree that its ok to do that, but they changed the law just so Romney couldn't appoint an interim one.

It is hypocritical, no matter how much you try to spin it.

Silver

09-23-2009, 08:56 PM

Normally I would agree that its ok to do that, but they changed the law just so Romney couldn't appoint an interim one.

It is hypocritical, no matter how much you try to spin it.

And Thank You

maineman

09-23-2009, 09:16 PM

Normally I would agree that its ok to do that, but they changed the law just so Romney couldn't appoint an interim one.

It is hypocritical, no matter how much you try to spin it.
except Romney would not have appointed an INTERIM.

big difference

Silver

09-23-2009, 10:08 PM

except Romney would not have appointed an INTERIM.

big difference

Like the man said....It is hypocritical, no matter how much you try to spin it.

But in this case you're WRONG TOO!

Either you're a liar or not too smart....probably both....

In July 2004, optimistic about John Kerry's chances of being elected President but fearful of how Gov. Mitt Romney would fill the ensuing Senate vacancy, Massachusetts legislators stripped Romney of his temporary appointment power, overriding his veto and requiring that any Senate vacancy remain unfilled until a special election would be held between 145 and 160 days after the vacancy was created.

maineman

09-23-2009, 10:13 PM

Like the man said....It is hypocritical, no matter how much you try to spin it.

But in this case you're WRONG TOO!

Either you're a liar or not too smart....probably both....

In July 2004, optimistic about John Kerry's chances of being elected President but fearful of how Gov. Mitt Romney would fill the ensuing Senate vacancy, Massachusetts legislators stripped Romney of his temporary appointment power, overriding his veto and requiring that any Senate vacancy remain unfilled until a special election would be held between 145 and 160 days after the vacancy was created.

no. They stripped him of his power to appoint a replacement senator that would serve until the next REGULAR election. In the present case, Patrick's apppointment will only serve until the next SPECIAL election. Regular election...special election.... I take it that you are unaware of the difference?

red states rule

09-23-2009, 10:50 PM

Silver

09-23-2009, 10:54 PM

except Romney would not have appointed an INTERIM.

big difference

Interim = temporary

Romney was not allowed to appoint a temporary replacement to serve until the next election, regardless of when that next election took place....

Dems run the show. If some legislation is so important, they have the power to delay it until after this 'special election'.....

Like the man said....It is hypocritical, no matter how much you try to spin it.

Dems just change laws rather than obey them....any changes like this should not be applicable until after the following regular election...that would prevent the hypocrites from acting like hypocrites...like pay raises take effect after the next election, etc...

Insein

09-24-2009, 08:15 AM

no. They stripped him of his power to appoint a replacement senator that would serve until the next REGULAR election. In the present case, Patrick's apppointment will only serve until the next SPECIAL election. Regular election...special election.... I take it that you are unaware of the difference?

The fact that you even TRY to spin this says all I need to know about it.

theHawk

09-24-2009, 08:20 AM

no. They stripped him of his power to appoint a replacement senator that would serve until the next REGULAR election. In the present case, Patrick's apppointment will only serve until the next SPECIAL election. Regular election...special election.... I take it that you are unaware of the difference?

It doesn't matter if the appointee serves until the next regular election or the next special election, its still an INTERIM appointment. Meaning the person will serve until the NEXT election.

maineman

09-24-2009, 09:12 AM

It doesn't matter if the appointee serves until the next regular election or the next special election, its still an INTERIM appointment. Meaning the person will serve until the NEXT election.

in the current case, however, that period of time is extremely truncated and Patrick has stated that he will extract a promise from whoever he appoints to not run for the seat in the SPECIAL election. Unlike in Maine, for example, where the governor appoints until the next REGULAR election and the appointed senator can run as the incumbent, in this case, the appointment is ONLY for less four months and ONLY serves to ensure that Massachusetts is indeed fully represented in the US Senate during this upcoming critical debate on health care. I can't understand why anyone would WHINE about allowing citizens of one state to have the same representation as citizens of every other state.

Insein

09-24-2009, 12:01 PM

in the current case, however, that period of time is extremely truncated and Patrick has stated that he will extract a promise from whoever he appoints to not run for the seat in the SPECIAL election. Unlike in Maine, for example, where the governor appoints until the next REGULAR election and the appointed senator can run as the incumbent, in this case, the appointment is ONLY for less four months and ONLY serves to ensure that Massachusetts is indeed fully represented in the US Senate during this upcoming critical debate on health care. I can't understand why anyone would WHINE about allowing citizens of one state to have the same representation as citizens of every other state.

That summarizes your answer right there. When Romney had the power to appoint a replacement as the law stated and it was a possibility that he would appoint a Republican for even the temporary period of time, they took that away from him because it didn't fit their needs. Now that they need votes on the healthcare plan in order to further their agenda, they change the law again in their favor to fit their needs.

Notice the common theme. Its not about whats best for Mass. Its about whats best for the political agenda of the democratic party. If you would just be honest and say thats what they are doing instead of pretending that we are ignorant children, we would have a little more respect for you.

theHawk

09-24-2009, 01:04 PM

in the current case, however, that period of time is extremely truncated and Patrick has stated that he will extract a promise from whoever he appoints to not run for the seat in the SPECIAL election. Unlike in Maine, for example, where the governor appoints until the next REGULAR election and the appointed senator can run as the incumbent, in this case, the appointment is ONLY for less four months and ONLY serves to ensure that Massachusetts is indeed fully represented in the US Senate during this upcoming critical debate on health care. I can't understand why anyone would WHINE about allowing citizens of one state to have the same representation as citizens of every other state.

I'm not crying about the citizens of Mass being able to have representation in the Senate. We're saying that its hypocritical of the Democrats to change laws to fit their agenda.

Do you think they'd be passing this law right now if they had a REPUBLICAN governor right now? I can't wait for this answer.

Silver

09-24-2009, 01:19 PM

in the current case, however, that period of time is extremely truncated and Patrick has stated that he will extract a promise from whoever he appoints to not run for the seat in the SPECIAL election. Unlike in Maine, for example, where the governor appoints until the next REGULAR election and the appointed senator can run as the incumbent, in this case, the appointment is ONLY for less four months and ONLY serves to ensure that Massachusetts is indeed fully represented in the US Senate during this upcoming critical debate on health care. I can't understand why anyone would WHINE about allowing citizens of one state to have the same representation as citizens of every other state.

And I can't understand why a person would defend any party in power that re-writes law (after the fact) because the existing law might not work to their advantage....in this case, twice....
Re-writing laws after an event in order to promote a conclusion to your liking is the act of fascistic hypocrite and an abuse of power.......

Like the man said....It is hypocritical, no matter how much you try to spin it.

maineman

09-24-2009, 03:53 PM

And I can't understand why a person would defend any party in power that re-writes law (after the fact) because the existing law might not work to their advantage....in this case, twice....
Re-writing laws after an event in order to promote a conclusion to your liking is the act of fascistic hypocrite and an abuse of power.......

Like the man said....It is hypocritical, no matter how much you try to spin it.

the law merely provides the ability for Massachusetts to have full representation in the US Senate for the next three plus months before the special election. WHy would you want to deny citizens of this nation equal representation in the Senate when major policy changes are being debated?

maineman

09-24-2009, 03:54 PM

I'm not crying about the citizens of Mass being able to have representation in the Senate. We're saying that its hypocritical of the Democrats to change laws to fit their agenda.

Do you think they'd be passing this law right now if they had a REPUBLICAN governor right now? I can't wait for this answer.

Do you think that the republicans in the Massachusetts legislature would be proposing this bill if there was a republican governor right now?

maineman

09-24-2009, 03:56 PM

That summarizes your answer right there. When Romney had the power to appoint a replacement as the law stated and it was a possibility that he would appoint a Republican for even the temporary period of time, they took that away from him because it didn't fit their needs. Now that they need votes on the healthcare plan in order to further their agenda, they change the law again in their favor to fit their needs.

Notice the common theme. Its not about whats best for Mass. Its about whats best for the political agenda of the democratic party. If you would just be honest and say thats what they are doing instead of pretending that we are ignorant children, we would have a little more respect for you.

again...the significance of the difference between the time between passage of this law and the SPECIAL electon versus the time between passage of this law and the next REGULAR election seems to be lost on you.

jimnyc

09-24-2009, 04:19 PM

WHy would you want to deny citizens of this nation equal representation in the Senate when major policy changes are being debated?

I would ask the same of the '04 Dems...

Silver

09-24-2009, 05:50 PM

Do you think that the republicans in the Massachusetts legislature would be proposing this bill if there was a republican governor right now?

The answer is, NO THEY WOULDN'T.....
They would not try to change the existing law to affect changes already in progress....
Any changes in the law SHOULD NOT have any effect on active issues...but can certainly can be new law affecting the future..

Your side pulled this shit in the election of 2000 and it took the SC to put an end to it, only because it affected a federal election.....now its local (state) and your form of filthy gutter politics can't be stopped by a higher power....
so enjoy, and remember, what goes around, comes around....

maineman

09-24-2009, 06:06 PM

I would ask the same of the '04 Dems...

that would be a good question... certainly, they seem to have the better interests of the citizenry of their state THIS year than they did then.

maineman

09-24-2009, 06:07 PM

The answer is, NO THEY WOULDN'T.....
They would not try to change the existing law to affect changes already in progress....

bullshit. you don't know that.

Silver

09-24-2009, 06:13 PM

bullshit. you don't know that.

You asked what I think, I told you...pinhead

Don't ask such a stupid question if you don't want a truthful answer.....just go with your own simple minded bigoted beliefs.....

maineman

09-24-2009, 06:16 PM

You asked what I think, I told you...pinhead

Don't ask such a stupid question if you don't want a truthful answer.....just go with your own simple minded bigoted beliefs.....

like YOUR belief that black americans are willing to take a bribe and sell their votes to the democrats?

racist asshole

Silver

09-24-2009, 06:35 PM

like YOUR belief that black americans are willing to take a bribe and sell their votes to the democrats?

racist asshole

Just as predicted....:fu::lol:

Have a problem with that conclusion? Contact Ehimwenma E. Aimiuwu....

maineman

09-24-2009, 06:41 PM

Just as predicted....:fu::lol:

Have a problem with that conclusion? Contact Ehimwenma E. Aimiuwu....

I don't have a problem with it at all. I hope you USE it in your quest to get black folks to vote for the GOP. I think you should TELL them that they need to start being responsible citizens and stop being criminals and taking bribes from democrats.

Really.

Give it a try....

Hell, worst case... it can't be much LESS effective than anything else your lameass party has tried in the past 40 years.:poke:

Missileman

09-24-2009, 06:42 PM

the law merely provides the ability for Massachusetts to have full representation in the US Senate for the next three plus months before the special election. WHy would you want to deny citizens of this nation equal representation in the Senate when major policy changes are being debated?

And yet the Massachusetts state legislature saw no problem denying their constituents federal representation when Romney was governor, so you claiming such a noble motive for them now seems to be YOUR normal partisan hackery.

maineman

09-24-2009, 06:45 PM

And yet the Massachusetts state legislature saw no problem denying their constituents federal representation when Romney was governor, so you claiming such a noble motive for them now seems to be YOUR normal partisan hackery.

I think that what they did in 2004 was wrong. I think what they have done in 2009 is right.

Missileman

09-24-2009, 06:48 PM

I think that what they did in 2004 was wrong. I think what they have done in 2009 is right.

Wanna buy a bridge?

Silver

09-24-2009, 06:49 PM

I don't have a problem with it at all. I hope you USE it in your quest to get black folks to vote for the GOP. I think you should TELL them that they need to start being responsible citizens and stop being criminals and taking bribes from democrats.

Really.

Give it a try....

Hell, worst case... it can't be much LESS effective than anything else your lameass party has tried in the past 40 years.:poke:

Held the White House all but 12 or the last 40 years...?:beer:

We have no quest to "buy or bribe" any groups support....for the time being, its a free country...

maineman

09-24-2009, 06:54 PM

Held the White House all but 12 or the last 40 years...?

We have no quest to "buy or bribe" any groups support....for the time being, its a free country...

fine...so you are completely happy with getting 15% of the non-white demographic, even though it is growing faster than the whites?

good for you.

If you want to crow about the past, maybe debatehistory.com might be a more appropriate forum.:beer:

maineman

09-24-2009, 06:55 PM

Wanna buy a bridge?

nah... a filibuster-proof senate just in time to vote on health care reform will be just fine, thank you.

Missileman

09-24-2009, 07:00 PM

nah... a filibuster-proof senate just in time to vote on health care reform will be just fine, thank you.

They've got no shot at 60 votes. It's why they have to threaten the nuclear option.

maineman

09-24-2009, 08:02 PM

They've got no shot at 60 votes. It's why they have to threaten the nuclear option.

this interim from Mass will bring them one vote closer, and if they can't get 60, reconciliation will work just fine.

Missileman

09-24-2009, 08:06 PM

this interim from Mass will bring them one vote closer, and if they can't get 60, reconciliation will work just fine.

Political suicide if they do it...and enough of the dems are smart enough to know it.

maineman

09-24-2009, 08:35 PM

Political suicide if they do it...and enough of the dems are smart enough to know it.

my guess is: if Harry wants to pull the trigger, he'll get 51.

SassyLady

09-24-2009, 08:44 PM

my guess is: if Harry wants to pull the trigger, he'll get 51.

Possibly - but those 51 will be committing political suicide for the 2010 elections.

The new mantra will be "no vote for incumbents"!!

And the new Congress will answer to the people and will enact new legislative to correct the BS that this Congress creates.

Missileman

09-24-2009, 08:45 PM

my guess is: if Harry wants to pull the trigger, he'll get 51.

Since there is time to overturn this bullshit bill before any real damage is done, I certainly hope they do...there won't be enough ACORN bought votes to get them elected to student council.

maineman

09-24-2009, 08:53 PM

Since there is time to overturn this bullshit bill before any real damage is done, I certainly hope they do...there won't be enough ACORN bought votes to get them elected to student council.

thanks for your prognostication.

MtnBiker

09-24-2009, 09:28 PM

Once the nuclear option is used, the Senate as it has been for more than 200 years will cease to be. The filibuster has had the salutary effect of encouraging compromise, but without it the majority would have no incentive to consult the minority.

What's more, a precedent would be set under which the Senate could change the rules to suit its needs. The Senate would become permanently trapped in a vicious cycle of payback. Even if **** were to deny the unanimous consent required since 1846 to schedule floor business, **** could do away with those rules too.

The major problem with the nuclear option is that it is a cynical exercise of raw power and not based on constitutional principle or precedent. The deployment of the nuclear option would transform the Senate into a rubber stamp. .

red states rule

09-25-2009, 07:03 AM

Oops! Mass. Governor Names New Senator, Three Days After CNBC Pundit Said ‘No Way’

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdkUkU4z4z" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdkUkU4z4z" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

theHawk

09-25-2009, 07:05 AM

Do you think that the republicans in the Massachusetts legislature would be proposing this bill if there was a republican governor right now?

Figures you wouldn't answer my question. :laugh2:
If Republicans were in charge they wouldn't had changed the laws in the first place.

theHawk

09-25-2009, 01:35 PM

Looks like the Repubs are striking back. If Dems want to play ugly politics, the gloves are coming off!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_go_co/us_kennedy_successor_gop

BOSTON – The Massachusetts Republican Party is seeking to block the interim appointment of Paul Kirk to the Senate seat that was held by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

The GOP has filed an injunction in Suffolk Superior Court that will be heard Friday morning.

Lawmakers this week passed legislation giving Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick the power to appoint an interim replacement, but laws approved in Massachusetts usually take 90 days to go into effect. Patrick signed an emergency letter that he says allows the law to become effective immediately.

Republicans allege in their court filing that Patrick did not have the constitutional authority to do that.

Kirk, the former head of the Democratic National Committee, is scheduled to be sworn Friday.

theHawk

09-25-2009, 02:29 PM

The lib judge denied the injunction of course:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_kennedy_successor_gop

Legislative Republicans, as well as a host of Democrats, objected to the change, and after it was approved, they defeated a separate request to attach an emergency preamble to the bill. Patrick added the emergency preamble to the bill just moments before he named Kirk, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, to succeed Kennedy.

"The governor's power to declare an emergency is not absolute," attorney James O'Brien argued on behalf of the Republicans. "By granting the governor the power to appoint by way of an unconstitutional maneuver, this establishes a dangerous precedent."

Of course, constitutions have never stopped liberals before. Certainly not Massachusetts ones. :laugh:

Insein

09-25-2009, 03:15 PM

...At All Costs

Jagger

10-03-2009, 08:39 AM

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."----Norman Thomas

That's a bogus quote, dude. Those words came out of Ronald Reagan's mouth, not Norman Thomas'.