• 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

Birdzeye said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hardly.
YOU were critical of TD for something that you, yourself, are doing.
That, and that alone, is the issue here.
 
Birdzeye said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :rofl
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :rofl
 
Truth Detector said:
I love the farcical argument that this was an "emergency." :rofl
Click to expand...


Truth Detector said:
Another new low precedent set; a Governor can declare political expediency as a State constitutional emergency. :rofl

The Alice in Wonderland world we now live in just gets curioser and curioser. :cool:
Click to expand...



"Former Republican governor Mitt Romney used the emergency provision 14 times, Galvin added, including to increase the boating speed limit in Charlton and to change the office of town moderator in Milton."

Judge rejects GOP bid to block Senate appointment - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe



ho hum
 
Last edited:
jackalope said:
"Former Republican governor Mitt Romney used the emergency provision 14 times, Galvin added, including to increase the boating speed limit in Charlton and to change the office of town moderator in Milton."

Judge rejects GOP bid to block Senate appointment - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe

ho hum
Click to expand...

I see that you continue showing a propensity for the absurd in trying to equate partisanship hackery with actual emergency declarations by Governors.

Rather than just cutting and pasting statements from a blog site, why don’t you provide the actual language contained in those “alleged” emergency declarations and illustrate how they are purely partisan in nature and have NOTHING to do with an actual emergency.

Then, if Romney did indeed engage in using the declarations for purely partisan purposes, shouldn't he be denounced just as this Democrat is? You are free to coherently defend the argument you are attempting to foist that because a Republican did it, it is okay for Democrats to do it; that is your argument right?

You truly are a caricature of the reasons morons like Obama can get elected. :rofl
 
Truth Detector said:
I love the farcical argument that this was an "emergency." :rofl
Click to expand...

Truth Detector said:
I see that you continue showing a propensity for the absurd in trying to equate partisanship hackery with actual emergency declarations by Governors.

Rather than just cutting and pasting statements from a blog site, why don’t you provide the actual language contained in those “alleged” emergency declarations and illustrate how they are purely partisan in nature and have NOTHING to do with an actual emergency.

Then, if Romney did indeed engage in using the declarations for purely partisan purposes, shouldn't he be denounced just as this Democrat is? You are free to coherently defend the argument you are attempting to foist that because a Republican did it, it is okay for Democrats to do it; that is your argument right?

You truly are a caricature of the reasons morons like Obama can get elected. :rofl
Click to expand...


:lamo Really? The Boston Globe is a blog site? And changing the office of town moderator, or lifting the boating speed limit are both emergencies, but an empty Senate seat when major legislation that will affect state residents is being voted on is not?


oooooo, ur rich.



The state GOP had no legal basis for their argument, according to the linked articles.
 
jackalope said:
:lamo Really? The Boston Globe is a blog site?
Click to expand...

Boston.com and the story you linked was more of an editorial than a story which also contains a section for viewer’s comments; just click the comment section if you want to see what a "blog" site is or look up the definition.

No surprise here that you seldom bring any facts to the debate nor can you support the copy and paste you used without any factual links to the "emergency" provisions Romney invoked to prove your desperate claim that they constitute the purely partisan efforts by these Democrats.

The notion that appointing a Senate seat constituting a State emergency is beyond farcical; but that is indeed the new low standard being set by Democrats.

jackalope said:
And changing the office of town moderator, or lifting the boating speed limit are both emergencies, but an empty Senate seat when major legislation that will affect state residents is being voted on is not?
Click to expand...

How trite that you think reading an opinion column on a blog page of the Boston Globe constitutes facts.

Like I said earlier, find the emergency declarations themselves and then prove they were purely political; then if they were, illustrate how it is a coherent argument to suggest that hyper partisanship by one group is justified by another groups hyper partisan actions.

Again, I don't expect any honest answers or efforts from you; that is not your forte'.

jackalope;1058272516oooooo said:
What is rich are your desperate efforts to support the despicable purely partisan efforts of a State House which does nothing to raise the standard of political debate in this country.

Not to mention the profound hypocrisy and irony coming from a party that promised the American people more honesty, transparency and fiscal responsibility if they are elected.

jackalope said:
The state GOP had no legal basis for their argument, according to the linked articles.
Click to expand...

Wrong again; a judge determined that they did not show precedent to support their argument. That in itself is hysterical in that it is highly unlikely that prior to this naked partisan hypocrisy, any Governor in the past declared the appointment of a Senator a State emergency in order to ensure a filibuster proof margin to pass universal Government managed healthcare.

But hey, you go on drinking that partisan kool-aid dude; don't let me stop you.

:rofl
Click to expand...
 
Truth Detector said:
Boston.com and the story you linked was more of an editorial than a story which also contains a section for viewer’s comments; just click the comment section if you want to see what a "blog" site is or look up the definition.

No surprise here that you seldom bring any facts to the debate nor can you support the copy and paste you used without any factual links to the "emergency" provisions Romney invoked to prove your desperate claim that they constitute the purely partisan efforts by these Democrats.

The notion that appointing a Senate seat constituting a State emergency is beyond farcical; but that is indeed the new low standard being set by Democrats.



How trite that you think reading an opinion column on a blog page of the Boston Globe constitutes facts.

Like I said earlier, find the emergency declarations themselves and then prove they were purely political; then if they were, illustrate how it is a coherent argument to suggest that hyper partisanship by one group is justified by another groups hyper partisan actions.

Again, I don't expect any honest answers or efforts from you; that is not your forte'.



What is rich are your desperate efforts to support the despicable purely partisan efforts of a State House which does nothing to raise the standard of political debate in this country.

Not to mention the profound hypocrisy and irony coming from a party that promised the American people more honesty, transparency and fiscal responsibility if they are elected.



Wrong again; a judge determined that they did not show precedent to support their argument. That in itself is hysterical in that it is highly unlikely that prior to this naked partisan hypocrisy, any Governor in the past declared the appointment of a Senator a State emergency in order to ensure a filibuster proof margin to pass universal Government managed healthcare.

But hey, you go on drinking that partisan kool-aid dude; don't let me stop you.

:rofl
Click to expand...


It's a breaking news article on the Boston Globe's website. Boston.com IS the Boston Globe's website. It is not an editorial, it is a news article.

Further, the judge did indeed say the state GOP did not offer a legal basis for their argument. From the article:

Judge Thomas Connolly ruled that the Republicans' claim was legally inadequate, noting in his four-page decision that, "the Party does not cite any case law in support of its argument."


You really shouldn't just make crap up. Particularly when slinging the words desperate, trite, and hypocritical around.
 
Let's get this straight.

The elected representatives of the State voted to change the law.

The majority of voters in the State approved of changing the law.

The Supreme Court in the State said it was all legal.


And still the right wingers cry and whine like little babies!
 
Moderator's Warning:
Everyone needs to stop the personal attacks or thread bans will occur.
 
Don't like the rules, make up new ones. Standard Democrat tactics, I see no reason for alarm. Now...had this been long standing Repub and we tried to change the rules from a minority status in Congress...think the situation would be handled in a likewise fashion?

With their ciritcal 60th vote, something had to be done. Change rules, whatever, any means to an end.

At least they're up front, the Dems being quite transparent. Makng it very clear that the stakes are high....the Repubs need to wake up.

Their desperation clear, let's cheat if we have to as well. Any means to an end works in both camps, yes?
 
dragondad said:
Let's get this straight.

The elected representatives of the State voted to change the law.

The majority of voters in the State approved of changing the law.

The Supreme Court in the State said it was all legal.


And still the right wingers cry and whine like little babies!
Click to expand...

No the majority in the State of Mass didn't approve the change as a matter of fact it never went to a vote. get your facts straight next time.

And since you have decide to bring in the Partisian Hackery question why did Sen. Kennedy want it changed in the first place huh mmmmm think about that before you go accussing the folks on the Right for being hacks. Ted Kennedy was nothing more then a Political Hack who was a drunk,muderer and a life time supporter of Terrorist (IRA). He should have been removed from office whe the Queen decide to give him that little Knight Hood which is total violation of Article I Section 9 but who care he is a ****ing Kennedy.
 
Last edited:
And to show how much an Political Hack Ted Kennedy and the Deocrat are being shall we see how Teddy Boy got elected in the first place,

Upon his victory in the general election, John vacated his Massachusetts Senate seat. Ted would not be eligible to fill the vacancy until February 22, 1962, when he would turn thirty. Ted initially wanted to stay out West and do something other than run for office right away; he said, "The disadvantage of my position is being constantly compared with two brothers of such superior ability."[20] His brothers were also not in favor of his running immediately, but Ted desired the Senate seat as an accomplishment to match his brothers', and their father overruled them.[10] Thus, the President-elect asked Massachusetts Governor Foster Furcolo to name Kennedy family friend Ben Smith to fill out John's term, which he did in December 1960.[23] This kept the seat open for Ted.[10] Meanwhile, Ted began work in February 1961 as an assistant district attorney for Suffolk County, Massachusetts (for which he took a nominal $1 salary), where he first developed a hard-nosed attitude towards crime.[24] He also took many overseas tours[24] and began speaking to local political clubs and organizations.[20]


First Senate campaign, 1962In the 1962 U.S. Senate special election in Massachusetts, Kennedy first faced a Democratic Party primary challenge from Edward J. McCormack, Jr., the state Attorney General. Kennedy's slogan was "He can do more for Massachusetts", the same one John had used in his first campaign for the seat ten years earlier.[25] McCormack had the support of many liberals and intellectuals, who thought Kennedy inexperienced and knew of his suspension from Harvard, a fact which subsequently became public during the race.[20] Kennedy also faced the notion that with one brother President and another U.S. Attorney General, "Don't you think that Teddy is one Kennedy too many?"[10] But Kennedy proved to be an effective street-level campaigner.[10] In a televised debate, McCormack said "The office of United States senator should be merited, and not inherited," and said that if his opponent's name was Edward Moore rather than Edward Moore Kennedy, his candidacy "would be a joke."[20] Voters thought McCormack's performance overbearing; combined with the family political machine's finally getting fully behind him, Kennedy won the September 1962 primary by a two-to-one margin.[10] In the November special election, Kennedy defeated Republican George Cabot Lodge II, product of another noted Massachusetts political family, gaining 55 percent of the vote

From here,[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy]Ted Kennedy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Please noted he was elected after a Special Election to fill his Brother's Seat. Hmmm isn't that the origianl law that was changed by Ted and the Deomcrat in Massahole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom