• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Massachusetts names Kirk to fill Kennedy Senate seat

If Republicans tried to pull a blatant politically partisan act like this, I would be joining Democrats denouncing it.

LOL, I'll believe that when, or if I ever, see that. So far, TD, you've been remarkably consistent in your exclusive denunciation of Dems and liberals. It's not like the GOPers have been behaving like church choirboys all this time.
 
LOL, I'll believe that when, or if I ever, see that. So far, TD, you've been remarkably consistent in your exclusive denunciation of Dems and liberals. It's not like the GOPers have been behaving like church choirboys all this time.
"The GOP does it too" is not a defense for Dem actions.
 
Would love to see dragondad address my post on pg.4.
 
LOL, I'll believe that when, or if I ever, see that. So far, TD, you've been remarkably consistent in your exclusive denunciation of Dems and liberals. It's not like the GOPers have been behaving like church choirboys all this time.

I am unsure where anyone on any side of the aisle has made that claim about the GOP; the thread topic was the naked partisan hypocrisy of Democrats in Massachusetts who have now set a new low standard in partisan politics.

So in all your efforts to make the topic something else, what say you on this issue? Are you okay with it? :cool:
 
"The GOP does it too" is not a defense for Dem actions.

Although I get your point; the FACT is, as far as I know, the GOP has not done anything like this to date.

BUT, now that Democrats have set the bar to this new low despicable standard, the question becomes; can they now complain if Republicans engage in this type of obvious partisan hypocrisy?

The same question occurs in close elections; would it be wrong for Republicans to attempt to disenfranchise voters by divining votes from hanging chads?
 
Would love to see dragondad address my post on pg.4.

You might as well just put this in your sig line, because it's going to come up in every thread. :thumbs:
 
Would love to see dragondad address my post on pg.4.

Your post was a victim of your reading skills.

I said what issues "should" the left and right come together on.

This implies and that I am speaking of the present, not the 1950's.

But if you were making another point about the past..then fine I agree. That was great and I hope one day Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are not the defacto leaders of your party and we can all sit down and reason with one another.
 
I think we should just repeal the 17th amendment that changed the way State Senate representation was determined. Prior to the 17th amendment, the state legislature appointed the state senators. This provided a form of checks and balances in the US Congress that guaranteed that the states were properly represented in the US Congress.

As it is now, we get Senators that are more concerned with the direction of their parties than they are about representing their states in the states best interest. They know that the average Joe does not and cannot follow the everyday details of the legislative process. All they have to do is bring home some "bacon" every now and then and pass it off as a feather in their cap. Either that or pure name recognition is enough to maintain their seats. They know that if the state legislature was in charge of their seat, they would have to abandon party principles and vote in the best interest of their state.

If we did this, things like this so-called healthcare bill (aka government takeover of your healthcare), cap and trade, the stimulus bill and a host of other liberal boondoggles would have never seen the light of day.
 
Your post was a victim of your reading skills.

Oh really ?

I always ask them what IS this big issue that the right and left should just come together in a spirit of harmony and solve? Give me an example of what this final product would look like?

What I provided was several examples of what it would look like.

I said what issues "should" the left and right come together on.

This implies and that I am speaking of the present, not the 1950's.

I showed 50's and 60's and 70's and 2005.

But if you were making another point about the past..then fine I agree.

Your time travelling is bogus. You wanted to know what a true bi-partisan project looks like, and I showed you. It is something in our NATIONAL interest, and not a project that is in the interest of this section or that section. Hoover Dam was good for AMERICA, the Apollo program was good for AMERICA. the interstate system was good for AMERICA These kind of national endeavors benefit the nation, not play one sector off against another.

Your party's penchant for wealth distribution ?
No clearer case of trying to set one sector against another.
Robin Hoods theft is a deal breaker, and as I already told you, you're never going to talk the robbed into agreeing with it, so stop proposing robbing.

Speaking of playing one sector off against another . . .

That was great and I hope one day Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are not the defacto leaders of your party and we can all sit down and reason with one another.

Beats the hell out of Kieth Olbermann and Janine Garafalo runnin yours :roll:
 
The same question occurs in close elections; would it be wrong for Republicans to attempt to disenfranchise voters by divining votes from hanging chads?
According to the Gore lawyers, when a court changes the basic terms of law, its not a change in the law, its an 'interpretaton'.

KENNEDY: Without contravening the section which says that there should be no new law for the safe harbor? Could the Florida Supreme Court have done what the legislature -- could the Florida legislature have done what the Supreme Court did?

BOIES: I think that it would be unusual. I haven't really thought about that question. I think they probably could not, because I think...

KENNEDY: Consistently -- because that would be a new law under Section 5?

BOIES: Yes, because it would be a legislative enactment, as opposed to a judicial interpretation of an existing law. Remember...
American Rhetoric: Bush v. Gore - U.S Supreme Court Oral Arguments
 
"The GOP does it too" is not a defense for Dem actions.

I didn't say it was. I was pointing out the selective outrage of a certain poster, who is not shy about bashing Dems for wrongdoing but is strangely silent over GOP malfeasance.

:roll:
 
I didn't say it was. I was pointing out the selective outrage of a certain poster, who is not shy about bashing Dems for wrongdoing but is strangely silent over GOP malfeasance.
As someone else said:

But at this point in time, being anything but calculating towards the radicalized Democratic Party is counter productive.
 
As someone else said:

But at this point in time, being anything but calculating towards the radicalized Democratic Party is counter productive.

I'd say the same thing holds for parts of the fringe element in the GOP and in conservative circles.
 
I'd say the same thing holds for parts of the fringe element in the GOP and in conservative circles.
I figured you would -- and, oddly enough, that's -exactly- what the person I stole the line from said:

Folks when your are dealing with radicals (and the GOP today has been taken over by radicals) there is NOTHING wrong with partisan politics.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ill-kennedy-senate-seat-4.html#post1058270697

But at this point in time, being anything but calculating towards the radicalized GOP is counter productive.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ill-kennedy-senate-seat-5.html#post1058270743

And so, if, as you agree, it is OK for the liberals/Dems to be partisan in their attacks, then it is just as OK fo rthe Republicans/copnservatives to do the same.

Thus, your "selective outrage of a certain poster" comment falls flat on its face.
 
I figured you would -- and, oddly enough, that's -exactly- what the person I stole the line from said:


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ill-kennedy-senate-seat-4.html#post1058270697


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ill-kennedy-senate-seat-5.html#post1058270743

And so, if, as you agree, it is OK for the liberals/Dems to be partisan in their attacks, then it is just as OK fo rthe Republicans/copnservatives to do the same.

Thus, your "selective outrage of a certain poster" comment falls flat on its face.


Actually, in my system of values, it's NOT OK for either side to engage in such antics.

Unfortunately, the poster I was referring to has been quite vocal about bashing the Dems, but has not once said an unkind word about GOP bad boys. What's so flat on its face about that?
 
Actually, in my system of values, it's NOT OK for either side to engage in such antics.
Oh, I see. Changed your mind, eh?
So, you disagree with dragondad. Noted.
Please respond to his posts and express your displeasure.

Unfortunately, the poster I was referring to has been quite vocal about bashing the Dems, but has not once said an unkind word about GOP bad boys. What's so flat on its face about that?
Until you specifically disagree with dragondad on the relevant point, you'll have to agree that the 'selective outrage' label you apply to that poster applies to you as well.
 
Oh, I see. Changed your mind, eh?
So, you disagree with dragondad. Noted.
Please respond to his posts and express your displeasure.


Until you specifically disagree with dragondad on the relevant point, you'll have to agree that the 'selective outrage' label you apply to that poster applies to you as well.

I was expressing my displeasure over "Truth Detector's" (LOL) double standard and selective outrage. Sheesh.

And if you're going to lecture me and give TD a free pass, then you'd have to agree that the "selective outrage" label also applies to you.
 
Last edited:
I was expressing my displeasure over "Truth Detector's" (LOL) double standard and selective outrage. Sheesh.
Yes... and that 'outrage' is apparently selective as well.
How ironic.

And if you're going to lecture me and give TD a free pass, then you'd have to agree that the "selective outrage" label also applies to you.
I dont recall taking a position way or the other.
 
Yes... and that 'outrage' is apparently selective as well.
How ironic.


I dont recall taking a position way or the other.

You've displayed a clear double standard by lecturing me and giving TD a free pass. Like it or not, you HAVE taken a position - one that selectively criticizes one poster but not another, apparently based on ideology.
 
You've displayed a clear double standard by lecturing me and giving TD a free pass. Like it or not, you HAVE taken a position - one that selectively criticizes one poster but not another, apparently based on ideology.
I'm sorry -- YOU brought up selective outrage, not me. As such, I only need address the person that initiated the topic.

Now, will you admit to engaging in selective outrage, or not?
 
I'm sorry -- YOU brought up selective outrage, not me. As such, I only need address the person that initiated the topic.

Now, will you admit to engaging in selective outrage, or not?

Bulls***. You're using logical fallacies to try to justify your accusing me of doing the very thing you're doing. If you're going to beat on me while giving another poster a free pass, then you have to admit that you are guilty of the same thing.
 
Massachusetts names Kirk to fill Kennedy Senate seat - Yahoo! News



While I appreciate the reasons why he was appointed, I have to oppose the way it was done. Changing rules every time it is convenient is silly. Either allow the governor to pick a replacement, or don't, but don't change back and forth depending on the governor.

Actually, the rules were not changed. The appointment is only temporary, until the special election, which will be early next year. They WERE going to change the rules, but took so much heat over it that they decided to compromise, which was the smart thing to do. After all, it was THEY who took away the governor's power to appoint, when Romney was governor.
 
Last edited:
While I appreciate the reasons why he was appointed, I have to oppose the way it was done. Changing rules every time it is convenient is silly. Either allow the governor to pick a replacement, or don't, but don't change back and forth depending on the governor.

If they can get away with it they're going to do it. You think the voters of Massachusetts are going to hold them accountable?
 
Back
Top Bottom