If Republicans tried to pull a blatant politically partisan act like this, I would be joining Democrats denouncing it.
"The GOP does it too" is not a defense for Dem actions.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.
Would love to see dragondad address my post on pg.4.
"The GOP does it too" is not a defense for Dem actions.
Would love to see dragondad address my post on pg.4.
Would love to see dragondad address my post on pg.4.
Your post was a victim of your reading skills.
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?
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.
According to the Gore lawyers, when a court changes the basic terms of law, its not a change in the law, its an 'interpretaton'.The same question occurs in close elections; would it be wrong for Republicans to attempt to disenfranchise voters by divining votes from hanging chads?
American Rhetoric: Bush v. Gore - U.S Supreme Court Oral ArgumentsKENNEDY: 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...
"The GOP does it too" is not a defense for Dem actions.
As someone else said: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.
I figured you would -- and, oddly enough, that's -exactly- what the person I stole the line from said:I'd say the same thing holds for parts of the fringe element in the GOP and in conservative circles.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ill-kennedy-senate-seat-4.html#post1058270697Folks 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-5.html#post1058270743But at this point in time, being anything but calculating towards the radicalized GOP is counter productive.
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.
Oh, I see. Changed your mind, eh?Actually, in my system of values, it's NOT OK for either side to engage in such antics.
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.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?
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.
Yes... and that 'outrage' is apparently selective as well.I was expressing my displeasure over "Truth Detector's" (LOL) double standard and selective outrage. Sheesh.
I dont recall taking a position way or the other.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.
Yes... and that 'outrage' is apparently selective as well.
How ironic.
I dont recall taking a position way or the other.
I'm sorry -- YOU brought up selective outrage, not me. As such, I only need address the person that initiated the topic.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?
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?