Blatant hypocrisy: libs changing laws when it suits them

Yurt said:
its funny to watch the same dems who complained about texas now say this is ok....

that is the hypocrisy i am talking about....

cypress: i wasn't posting on messageboards in 2003 and the point of this thread is not about the right or wrong of what is taking place in mass.....it is the hypocrisy of the democratic party....so your ramblings about me are irrelevent and nothing but a deflection
Click to expand...

1. was it legal?

2. was it trying to disenfranchise voters?

when you apply these questions to the two incidents you will have your answer.
 
In the Tom Delay case they were.

In the Kerry election they were not.

Now you have your answer as to way they are completely differnet
 
evince said:
In the Tom Delay case they were.

In the Kerry election they were not.

Now you have your answer as to way they are completely differnet
Click to expand...

So when things occur to have a Democrat in office no one is disenfranchised but when the situation puts Republicans in power all of a sudden its disenfranchisement. If you can say that with a straight face you should be in sales because you would be rich.
 
evince said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Texas_redistricting#Justice_Department_involvement

Yet one more reason the DOJ was politized by Bush


In December 2005, the Washington Post reported, "Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo" uncovered by the newspaper. [7] The document, endorsed by six Justice Department attorneys, said "the redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts."

"The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a discriminatory effect," the memo noted. The article also stated that Justice Department lawyers "found that Republican lawmakers and state officials who helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of being ruled discriminatory compared with other options." Nonetheless, Texas legislators proceeded with the new plan "because it would maximize the number of Republican federal lawmakers in the state," the Post said about the document.
Click to expand...

Lets remember the facts folks
 
evince said:
Yeah what an asshole for trying to live long enough to see his life long dream to fruition
Click to expand...

How much time did he spend on the Hill this year?

How does resigning his position deny him the opportunity "to live long enough to see his life long dream to fruition?" Answer: It doesn't. The only thing that denied him this was his illness. An illness he knew would kill him, sooner rather than later. He knew the laws of his state and rather than allow for the time to elect a new senator, his pride refused to allow him to resign.

I reiterate: But for the hubris of one man, none of us would be having this discussion.
 
Norman Paperman said:
Bottom line:

Kennedy knew his prognosis in plenty of time to resign at the end of 2008. This would have allowed an election for his seat to be part of the regular November election last year. Massachusetts would have had a new Senator as of early January 2009 but for the hubris of one man.
Click to expand...
He knew his death would yield significant sympathy vote for the next asshole Kennedy in the line to be a shoe-in. My guess is he/ she will run basically unopposed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top