Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 92

Thread: Massachusetts names Kirk to fill Kennedy Senate seat

  1. #71
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Massachusetts names Kirk to fill Kennedy Senate seat

    Quote Originally Posted by Birdzeye View Post
    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?

  2. #72
    Advisor Birdzeye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    East Coast - mid Atlantic
    Last Seen
    12-10-16 @ 09:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    341

    Re: Massachusetts names Kirk to fill Kennedy Senate seat

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    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.

  3. #73
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,763

    Re: Massachusetts names Kirk to fill Kennedy Senate seat

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    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 by danarhea; 09-24-09 at 11:04 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  4. #74
    Advisor Don't Tase Me Bro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-22-09 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    446

    Re: Massachusetts names Kirk to fill Kennedy Senate seat

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    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?

  5. #75
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Massachusetts names Kirk to fill Kennedy Senate seat

    Judge To Rule Before Noon Today On Massachusetts Senate Appointment | TPMDC


    The GOP is seeking to nullify the appt, on the grounds that Gov Patrick didn't have the authority to declare an emergency, in order to make the appt.

  6. #76
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Massachusetts names Kirk to fill Kennedy Senate seat

    Quote Originally Posted by OxymoronP View Post
    James T Kirk?


    I - am - Kirok!!!!!!
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #77
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Massachusetts names Kirk to fill Kennedy Senate seat

    Quote Originally Posted by Birdzeye View Post
    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.
    Hardly.
    YOU were critical of TD for something that you, yourself, are doing.
    That, and that alone, is the issue here.

  8. #78
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Massachusetts names Kirk to fill Kennedy Senate seat

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    Judge To Rule Before Noon Today On Massachusetts Senate Appointment | TPMDC




    The GOP is seeking to nullify the appt, on the grounds that Gov Patrick didn't have the authority to declare an emergency, in order to make the appt.


    Judge Rules In Favor Of Kirk Senate Appointment, Against Massachusetts GOP Challenge | TPMDC

    So, I guess Kirk will be sworn in then? I wonder if he already has been sworn in...

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Massachusetts names Kirk to fill Kennedy Senate seat

    Quote Originally Posted by Birdzeye View Post
    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.
    I am curious, why is your selective outrage at my "double" standard required in a thread that is about the outrageous partisan efforts of the Massachusetts legislature?

    Why would your "selective" outrage with your perceived notions about my "double" standards have anything to do with this thread debate?

    If you have issues with me over your "perceptions" about my presumed “double standards,” you are more than welcome to take your selective outrage to the basement and PROVE that I apply a double standard to any of my values instead of blathering the thread with such nonsense?

    The bottom line here is that you haven't made any coherent arguments countering the FACTS and REALITY of the debate and instead filled the thread with your emotional hysterics about your PERCEPTIONS of a "double standard" which even you would be hard pressed to prove.

    So please spare us your disingenuous attempts to be the arbiter of double standards when you so obviously ignore those of your fellow Liberals and those within the Democrat party as has been exposed on this thread.

    Here’s a pertinent question for you as you play the arbiter of the “double standard”; do you think it is a double standard to change an existing law to NOT allow a Republican Governor to have the opportunity to appoint a vacant senate seat and then when a Democrat is in power, rescind that law enabling the Democrat to appoint a Senator?

    Carry on.

  10. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Massachusetts names Kirk to fill Kennedy Senate seat

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    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.
    So could Romney have appointed a Senator to a vacant seat under the State rules prior to this change?

    I am fascinated how anyone can claim the Legislature did not CHANGE the rules when that is precisely what they did.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •