Reply With Quote
I agree that the Dems should have to play by the rules and wait for the special election.
In 2004, Massachusetts and senator Kennedy got the state to change the law so that governor Romney wouldn't be able to appoint a republican if senator Kerry won the election. Times have changed. Now the Kennedy (8/20) and the democrats want to change the law back. Now that there's a democrat as governor, they want to manipulate the law again to insure a democrat senator!
these anti-American authoritarians.
Kennedy wants law changed in Massachusetts … again
Mass. governor seeks demand on Kennedy succession
I agree that the Dems should have to play by the rules and wait for the special election.
yeah, I was reading about this somewhere, and I was thinking WTF is it with these guys
The end justifies the means. They don't give a damn about ethics.
i'd keep my boot on your neck, too.
And conservatives and Repugs give a damn about ethics?
I think this is the first honest thing I've heard an obamatron say.
I say go for it. this mad lust for power is going to come back and bite them in the ass say in 2010.
"mad lust for power"
like the scorched-earth destructive politicking that was supposed to produce a "permanent Repug majority" ?
these dead enders suffer from amnesia."mad lust for power"
like the scorched-earth destructive politicking that was supposed to produce a "permanent Repug majority" ?
If they want to change the laws I think its within their authority to do it. Its not their fault, its the people who keep voting them into office thats to blame.
There should have been a good faith agreement with Romney. Then this would have never come up. If the dude leaving is a R he should replaced with an R. If the dude leaving is a D he should be replaced with a D.
If the dude is white, do you replace him with another white?
Who ing cares?
The point is that if this cir stance comes up, an effort should be made to place a person in the office who is as close ideologically to the original office holder. After all that's most likely what the people would want.
No need for games or trying to sneak in your bff.
The point is, you make laws for what is best. Not for political power.
Sorry, but anyone supporting the democrats on the law changes to suit the needs of the party, are no better than Nazi's. You guys hold the party ideals above freedom of choice.
you all who are that way.
Ted Kennedy, playing the politics game all the way to the second he dies.
That's pretty sad lulz
lulz? dude that's so cool. I absolutely love internet lingo.
*high five*
You get to be the guy who makes comments like that ^
In a country where our officials are supposed to be elected...then why should it be lawful to have that representative appointed?
Hold a special election so the people can vote who replaces Kennedy.
[quote=wild coma]i've been programmed to insert the term "Nazi" in this thread.
He couldn't exactly compare anyone directly to Hitler, so the broader brush was really his only play.
The idea of changing the law in Massachusetts to fit this cir stance is unreasonable. Until Senator Kennedy's successor has been determined under the current law, there shouldn't be a change in that law.
[QUOTE=clambake;3661851]Not at all. I simply see the same values in democrats that the Nazi party was comprised of.
Looks like "party first" to me over what is right. In 1930's and 1940's Germany, if you didn't belong to "the party," you didn't matter. Isn't that how the democrats treat everyone?
Agreed. The current law should play out, and not be changed just for partisan politics. When the party is more important than people, how can people not compare them to Nazi's?
hitler!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
