Jump to content

The Kings of Hypocrisy


Guest 2smart4u
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest 2smart4u

5 years ago the Dems changed the law about the Governor appointing a replacement Senator in Mass. They were afraid Gov. Romney would appoint a Republican if Kerry won the election.

Before Ted Kennedy died he tried to get the law changed back to now allow the Dem. Governor to appoint a replacement Senator in the event of Kennedy's death.

The Dem. Congress may still do it, they really have no shame, hypocrisy is just a part of doing business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 years ago the Dems changed the law about the Governor appointing a replacement Senator in Mass. They were afraid Gov. Romney would appoint a Republican if Kerry won the election.

Before Ted Kennedy died he tried to get the law changed back to now allow the Dem. Governor to appoint a replacement Senator in the event of Kennedy's death.

The Dem. Congress may still do it, they really have no shame, hypocrisy is just a part of doing business.

Get real!

The TRUE KINGS of hypocrisy are you NeoConfused who think it fine and dandy to spend untold billions of $$$ to allegedly improve the lives of people half way round the world while the mere mention of the government possibly buying a BandAid for an American sends you into paroxysms of terror screaming SOCIALISM!

PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR BUTT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 years ago the Dems changed the law about the Governor appointing a replacement Senator in Mass. They were afraid Gov. Romney would appoint a Republican if Kerry won the election.

Before Ted Kennedy died he tried to get the law changed back to now allow the Dem. Governor to appoint a replacement Senator in the event of Kennedy's death.

The Dem. Congress may still do it, they really have no shame, hypocrisy is just a part of doing business.

Of course, it's perfectly OK with you that Ted Kennedy is dead and the Democrats have only 59 Senators instead of the 60 who were elected.

The Democrats are in the majority in Massachusetts. You lost the election. Stop whining about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, it's perfectly OK with you that Ted Kennedy is dead and the Democrats have only 59 Senators instead of the 60 who were elected.

The Democrats are in the majority in Massachusetts. You lost the election. Stop whining about it.

No, the fact is there is a law regarding the order of succession; IIRC it involves a special election. The Democrats want to skip this step to fast track an appointment by the governor; thus ensuring one more vote in favor of government run health scare.

I find it highly unlikely that Massachusetts would vote in a Republican to replace Kennedy. I mean, if you can overlook a character flaw that lead to a young girls death, there isn't a whole lot of faith to be placed in the MA electorate anyway. So, what could they be afraid of??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the fact is there is a law regarding the order of succession; IIRC it involves a special election. The Democrats want to skip this step to fast track an appointment by the governor; thus ensuring one more vote in favor of government run health scare.

I find it highly unlikely that Massachusetts would vote in a Republican to replace Kennedy. I mean, if you can overlook a character flaw that lead to a young girls death, there isn't a whole lot of faith to be placed in the MA electorate anyway. So, what could they be afraid of??

The people of Massachusetts elected Ted Kennedy to represent them in the Senate since 1962. Whether you like it or not, that was the choice of the people. Your arrogance about the people of Massachusetts is disgusting. Ted Kennedy, for all his faults, never lied us into a war.

The best solution, considering the importance of the pending health care legislation, is for the legislature to allow the appointment of an interim Senator, who could not be elected to the empty seat. That would assure the people of Massachusetts their representation in the Senate without giving any candidate an advantage in the special election that is required to be held.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people of Massachusetts elected Ted Kennedy to represent them in the Senate since 1962. Whether you like it or not, that was the choice of the people. Your arrogance about the people of Massachusetts is disgusting. Ted Kennedy, for all his faults, never lied us into a war.

The best solution, considering the importance of the pending health care legislation, is for the legislature to allow the appointment of an interim Senator, who could not be elected to the empty seat. That would assure the people of Massachusetts their representation in the Senate without giving any candidate an advantage in the special election that is required to be held.

It the Governor of MA was a Republican, I promise you would be SCREAMING for the special election.

I don't live in MA, and don't care how they replace their officials, but when the Dems change the law five years ago for fear of Romney replacing Kerry with another Republican, then that law should apply equally and impartially to all.

Just one set of rules, they can make them, I just think they should abide by them once THEY make them. Sorry if the logic is lost on you. I tried to keep it simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
The people of Massachusetts elected Ted Kennedy to represent them in the Senate since 1962. Whether you like it or not, that was the choice of the people. Your arrogance about the people of Massachusetts is disgusting. Ted Kennedy, for all his faults, never lied us into a war.

The best solution, considering the importance of the pending health care legislation, is for the legislature to allow the appointment of an interim Senator, who could not be elected to the empty seat. That would assure the people of Massachusetts their representation in the Senate without giving any candidate an advantage in the special election that is required to be held.

I don't know of anyone that lied us into a war, but I do know someone who drove off a bridge while drunk, abandoned his young female passenger to drown, went home to sober up before reporting the incident the next morning. Instead of going to jail for, at minimum, manslaughter, the wonderful, thoughtful and compassionate citizens of Mass. rewarded him with a Senator position.

This is what you get with the loony left, no responsibility, no accountability, lots of hypocrisy.

I would have liked to hear Mary Jo's parents or family members speak at yesterday's funeral mass, somehow I don't think it would have been as glowing and wonderful as Teddy Boy was portrayed by all the hypocrits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know of anyone that lied us into a war, but I do know someone who drove off a bridge while drunk, abandoned his young female passenger to drown, went home to sober up before reporting the incident the next morning. Instead of going to jail for, at minimum, manslaughter, the wonderful, thoughtful and compassionate citizens of Mass. rewarded him with a Senator position.

This is what you get with the loony left, no responsibility, no accountability, lots of hypocrisy.

I would have liked to hear Mary Jo's parents or family members speak at yesterday's funeral mass, somehow I don't think it would have been as glowing and wonderful as Teddy Boy was portrayed by all the hypocrits.

But in fact you do know who lied us into a war: Bush and Cheney. You know it's true, you just won't admit it.

As for Senator Kennedy, he was a flawed man. Not only did he drive off that bridge and then not report it for many hours; he was expelled from Harvard for cheating on a Spanish exam. He had a friend take it for him.

On the other hand, for all his faults, he became one of the greatest Senators in US history. Orin Hatch, who is no liberal, became tearful speaking about his friend at the service at the JFK library on Friday evening. Ted Kennedy authored 300 significant laws, perhaps more than anyone else. Though he was a liberal, he passed many laws by working with Republican colleagues. The conservative columnist David Brooks praised Kennedy in his Op-Ed piece in The New York Times on Friday. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/opinion/28brooks.html?_r=1 You should read it. This is a column from a conservative who has high praise for Senator Kennedy.

I don't know who you are, but I think it's safe to say that nearly everyone here is sick to death of your constant attitude of demeaning arrogance, your sneering contempt for everyone who doesn't agree with you, your consistent distortions and outright lies, and your complete unwillingness to engage in even a single reasoned discussion. What you are doing is not citizenship but the exact opposite of it. Please examine your conscience and reconsider your behavior - not that I expect you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 years ago the Dems changed the law about the Governor appointing a replacement Senator in Mass. They were afraid Gov. Romney would appoint a Republican if Kerry won the election.

Before Ted Kennedy died he tried to get the law changed back to now allow the Dem. Governor to appoint a replacement Senator in the event of Kennedy's death.

The Dem. Congress may still do it, they really have no shame, hypocrisy is just a part of doing business.

O god another useless conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
But in fact you do know who lied us into a war: Bush and Cheney. You know it's true, you just won't admit it.

As for Senator Kennedy, he was a flawed man. Not only did he drive off that bridge and then not report it for many hours; he was expelled from Harvard for cheating on a Spanish exam. He had a friend take it for him.

On the other hand, for all his faults, he became one of the greatest Senators in US history. Orin Hatch, who is no liberal, became tearful speaking about his friend at the service at the JFK library on Friday evening. Ted Kennedy authored 300 significant laws, perhaps more than anyone else. Though he was a liberal, he passed many laws by working with Republican colleagues. The conservative columnist David Brooks praised Kennedy in his Op-Ed piece in The New York Times on Friday. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/opinion/28brooks.html?_r=1 You should read it. This is a column from a conservative who has high praise for Senator Kennedy.

I don't know who you are, but I think it's safe to say that nearly everyone here is sick to death of your constant attitude of demeaning arrogance, your sneering contempt for everyone who doesn't agree with you, your consistent distortions and outright lies, and your complete unwillingness to engage in even a single reasoned discussion. What you are doing is not citizenship but the exact opposite of it. Please examine your conscience and reconsider your behavior - not that I expect you will.

Wrong again, Paulie. Bush and Chaney did not lie, they followed the intelligence reports as did the members of Congress who read them and agreed with them.

I never said Kennedy didn't manage to get important legislation through Congress. I said he should have been charged with vehicular manslaughter at very least along with drunken driving, leaving the scene, etc. etc. The Kennedy name and Kennedy money got him off the hook and the loony left voters of Mass. rewarded him with his Senate position.

You're so typical of the far left; no personal responsibility, no accountibility for a fellow leftist.

Where's that forgiving nature of yours when it comes to conservatives? More of that leftist hypocrisy, right Paul?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in fact you do know who lied us into a war: Bush and Cheney. You know it's true, you just won't admit it.

As for Senator Kennedy, he was a flawed man. Not only did he drive off that bridge and then not report it for many hours; he was expelled from Harvard for cheating on a Spanish exam. He had a friend take it for him.

On the other hand, for all his faults, he became one of the greatest Senators in US history. Orin Hatch, who is no liberal, became tearful speaking about his friend at the service at the JFK library on Friday evening. Ted Kennedy authored 300 significant laws, perhaps more than anyone else. Though he was a liberal, he passed many laws by working with Republican colleagues. The conservative columnist David Brooks praised Kennedy in his Op-Ed piece in The New York Times on Friday. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/opinion/28brooks.html?_r=1 You should read it. This is a column from a conservative who has high praise for Senator Kennedy.

I don't know who you are, but I think it's safe to say that nearly everyone here is sick to death of your constant attitude of demeaning arrogance, your sneering contempt for everyone who doesn't agree with you, your consistent distortions and outright lies, and your complete unwillingness to engage in even a single reasoned discussion. What you are doing is not citizenship but the exact opposite of it. Please examine your conscience and reconsider your behavior - not that I expect you will.

"he became one of the greatest Senators in US history"

I'm not sure even that makes up for his "flaws" and "faults".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lincoln Logger
But in fact you do know who lied us into a war: Bush and Cheney. You know it's true, you just won't admit it.

As for Senator Kennedy, he was a flawed man. Not only did he drive off that bridge and then not report it for many hours; he was expelled from Harvard for cheating on a Spanish exam. He had a friend take it for him.

On the other hand, for all his faults, he became one of the greatest Senators in US history. Orin Hatch, who is no liberal, became tearful speaking about his friend at the service at the JFK library on Friday evening. Ted Kennedy authored 300 significant laws, perhaps more than anyone else. Though he was a liberal, he passed many laws by working with Republican colleagues. The conservative columnist David Brooks praised Kennedy in his Op-Ed piece in The New York Times on Friday. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/opinion/28brooks.html?_r=1 You should read it. This is a column from a conservative who has high praise for Senator Kennedy.

I don't know who you are, but I think it's safe to say that nearly everyone here is sick to death of your constant attitude of demeaning arrogance, your sneering contempt for everyone who doesn't agree with you, your consistent distortions and outright lies, and your complete unwillingness to engage in even a single reasoned discussion. What you are doing is not citizenship but the exact opposite of it. Please examine your conscience and reconsider your behavior - not that I expect you will.

It sounds like you really had nothing to do yesterday with all your negative posts. In reading your comment and let me again requote it "I don't know who you are, but I think it's safe to say that nearly everyone here is sick to death of your constant attitude of demeaning arrogance, your sneering contempt for everyone who doesn't agree with you, your consistent distortions and outright lies, and your complete unwillingness to engage in even a single reasoned discussion. What you are doing is not citizenship but the exact opposite of it. Please examine your conscience and reconsider your behavior - not that I expect you will." it sounds strangly famaliar on how many feel to your constant bellowing here. You appear to be the first person to want a referee here but then go on attacking people here. When is enough enough for you. Don't you feel the people of Kearny are tired hearing you? Try talking about something that this web was meant to talk about - Kearny for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"he became one of the greatest Senators in US history"

I'm not sure even that makes up for his "flaws" and "faults".

My conception of Humanism, which is my religion, is that there is no point in rendering a final, all-encompassing judgment on each other. The idea of "making up" for someone's flaws and faults doesn't enter the equation, especially after he's dead.

The point is that he was a flawed human being and a great Senator. We can draw lessons from both.

I just ask you: what is the point of asking whether the one makes up for the other? I think that if you really think that question through, you'll come up empty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong again, Paulie. Bush and Chaney did not lie, they followed the intelligence reports as did the members of Congress who read them and agreed with them.

I never said Kennedy didn't manage to get important legislation through Congress. I said he should have been charged with vehicular manslaughter at very least along with drunken driving, leaving the scene, etc. etc. The Kennedy name and Kennedy money got him off the hook and the loony left voters of Mass. rewarded him with his Senate position.

You're so typical of the far left; no personal responsibility, no accountibility for a fellow leftist.

Where's that forgiving nature of yours when it comes to conservatives? More of that leftist hypocrisy, right Paul?

If you had bothered to ask me instead of heading straight toward partisan hyperventilating, you might have found out that I agree with you that Ted Kennedy should have been charged with leaving the scene. In fact, I believe he was, and I think he was convicted. You can check it but that's my memory. I was 15 at the time. Vehicular manslaughter does not apply to driving off a bridge unless perhaps he was drunk. Do you have evidence that he was intoxicated? I'll listen if you do.

But either way, once he was re-elected, he had the demonstrated trust of the people. As he continued to win election after election, old history becomes less and less relevant. It remained very relevant to his run for the presidency, which he lost in part because of Chappaquiddick. The American people had every right not to trust him as their president with that skeleton in his closet. But he did serve long and honorably as a Senator. The people of Massachusetts were not loony for re-electing him when he was doing such an excellent job for such a long time. I don't think I'm the one guilty of blind partisanship here.

As to Bush and Cheney, the evidence says that they lied. They came into office intent on going into Iraq, and then used 9/11 as an excuse to do it. They selected the intelligence, based on a pre-conceived agenda, to pay attention to and to ignore; and they told the American people and Congress things that weren't true. They knew perfectly well that the only source they had about so-called WMDs was not reliable. That's lying, and it has resulted in one of the worst foreign policy disasters in our history, with thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, and the region destabilized with a freshly empowered Iran. If a left-leaning president had done that, I would say the same thing. If anything like that ever happens under a liberal president and I don't call him or her on it, then you can call me on it. Until then, basic principles of civil decency require you to take me at my word. Not that basic principles of civil decency seem to matter to you.

Come on, this is my country and your country. We're in this together. Start acting like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong again, Paulie. Bush and Chaney did not lie, they followed the intelligence reports as did the members of Congress who read them and agreed with them.

I never said Kennedy didn't manage to get important legislation through Congress. I said he should have been charged with vehicular manslaughter at very least along with drunken driving, leaving the scene, etc. etc. The Kennedy name and Kennedy money got him off the hook and the loony left voters of Mass. rewarded him with his Senate position.

You're so typical of the far left; no personal responsibility, no accountibility for a fellow leftist.

Where's that forgiving nature of yours when it comes to conservatives? More of that leftist hypocrisy, right Paul?

Hypocrisy runs in the blood of Democrats, their selective outrage is almost comical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My conception of Humanism, which is my religion, is that there is no point in rendering a final, all-encompassing judgment on each other. The idea of "making up" for someone's flaws and faults doesn't enter the equation, especially after he's dead.

The point is that he was a flawed human being and a great Senator. We can draw lessons from both.

I just ask you: what is the point of asking whether the one makes up for the other? I think that if you really think that question through, you'll come up empty.

My view of Humanism tells me that leaving another person to die, not doing anything about it, and then covering it up so that you can get away without serious punishment is more than a fault or flaw.

You spend your life trying to get judgements against people and companies that you and your clients feel have done wrong. Why punish them? Why not just forgive them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

If you had bothered to ask me instead of heading straight toward partisan hyperventilating, you might have found out that I agree with you that Ted Kennedy should have been charged with leaving the scene. In fact, I believe he was, and I think he was convicted. You can check it but that's my memory. I was 15 at the time. Vehicular manslaughter does not apply to driving off a bridge unless perhaps he was drunk. Do you have evidence that he was intoxicated? I'll listen if you do.

But either way, once he was re-elected, he had the demonstrated trust of the people. As he continued to win election after election, old history becomes less and less relevant. It remained very relevant to his run for the presidency, which he lost in part because of Chappaquiddick. The American people had every right not to trust him as their president with that skeleton in his closet. But he did serve long and honorably as a Senator. The people of Massachusetts were not loony for re-electing him when he was doing such an excellent job for such a long time. I don't think I'm the one guilty of blind partisanship here.

As to Bush and Cheney, the evidence says that they lied. They came into office intent on going into Iraq, and then used 9/11 as an excuse to do it. They selected the intelligence, based on a pre-conceived agenda, to pay attention to and to ignore; and they told the American people and Congress things that weren't true. They knew perfectly well that the only source they had about so-called WMDs was not reliable. That's lying, and it has resulted in one of the worst foreign policy disasters in our history, with thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, and the region destabilized with a freshly empowered Iran. If a left-leaning president had done that, I would say the same thing. If anything like that ever happens under a liberal president and I don't call him or her on it, then you can call me on it. Until then, basic principles of civil decency require you to take me at my word. Not that basic principles of civil decency seem to matter to you.

Ironic you bring up partisan hyperventilating. Your BDS is still persistant as ever. You're apparently convinced that if you say Bush lied enough times, you'll begin to believe it yourself. I'd bet you're one of the loonies that believe 9/11 was planned by Bush and Chaney as a ruse to attack Iraq.

BTW, does your "basic principles of civil decency" conflict with your accusations against Bush, Chaney, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Colter, Limbaugh, etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view of Humanism tells me that leaving another person to die, not doing anything about it, and then covering it up so that you can get away without serious punishment is more than a fault or flaw.

You spend your life trying to get judgements against people and companies that you and your clients feel have done wrong. Why punish them? Why not just forgive them?

The mark of a poorly educated person is that you change the subject when you don't have an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had bothered to ask me instead of heading straight toward partisan hyperventilating, you might have found out that I agree with you that Ted Kennedy should have been charged with leaving the scene. In fact, I believe he was, and I think he was convicted. You can check it but that's my memory. I was 15 at the time. Vehicular manslaughter does not apply to driving off a bridge unless perhaps he was drunk. Do you have evidence that he was intoxicated? I'll listen if you do.

But either way, once he was re-elected, he had the demonstrated trust of the people. As he continued to win election after election, old history becomes less and less relevant. It remained very relevant to his run for the presidency, which he lost in part because of Chappaquiddick. The American people had every right not to trust him as their president with that skeleton in his closet. But he did serve long and honorably as a Senator. The people of Massachusetts were not loony for re-electing him when he was doing such an excellent job for such a long time. I don't think I'm the one guilty of blind partisanship here.

As to Bush and Cheney, the evidence says that they lied. They came into office intent on going into Iraq, and then used 9/11 as an excuse to do it. They selected the intelligence, based on a pre-conceived agenda, to pay attention to and to ignore; and they told the American people and Congress things that weren't true. They knew perfectly well that the only source they had about so-called WMDs was not reliable. That's lying, and it has resulted in one of the worst foreign policy disasters in our history, with thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, and the region destabilized with a freshly empowered Iran. If a left-leaning president had done that, I would say the same thing. If anything like that ever happens under a liberal president and I don't call him or her on it, then you can call me on it. Until then, basic principles of civil decency require you to take me at my word. Not that basic principles of civil decency seem to matter to you.

Ironic you bring up partisan hyperventilating. Your BDS is still persistant as ever. You're apparently convinced that if you say Bush lied enough times, you'll begin to believe it yourself. I'd bet you're one of the loonies that believe 9/11 was planned by Bush and Chaney as a ruse to attack Iraq.

BTW, does your "basic principles of civil decency" conflict with your accusations against Bush, Chaney, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Colter, Limbaugh, etc.?

When accusations are true, there's no apology to be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view of Humanism tells me that leaving another person to die, not doing anything about it, and then covering it up so that you can get away without serious punishment is more than a fault or flaw.

You spend your life trying to get judgements against people and companies that you and your clients feel have done wrong. Why punish them? Why not just forgive them?

Because there are innocent people who need recompense. It's not punitive. It's compensatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironic you bring up partisan hyperventilating. Your BDS is still persistant as ever. You're apparently convinced that if you say Bush lied enough times, you'll begin to believe it yourself. I'd bet you're one of the loonies that believe 9/11 was planned by Bush and Chaney as a ruse to attack Iraq.

BTW, does your "basic principles of civil decency" conflict with your accusations against Bush, Chaney, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Colter, Limbaugh, etc.?

No, there's no conflict. The accusations against Bush, Cheney, et. al., are based on fact and they don't involve a moral judgment of the whole person. They are directed to the harm being done and the present danger we face as a nation and as a culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
No, there's no conflict. The accusations against Bush, Cheney, et. al., are based on fact and they don't involve a moral judgment of the whole person. They are directed to the harm being done and the present danger we face as a nation and as a culture.

I'm amused at the way you throw the word "fact" around. It appears if you've read something on huffington or heard it on MSNBC, it's a fact. But if it's something O'Reilly or others on the right has said, it's a lie.

I'm sure you don't see any bias in the way your brain processes information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amused at the way you throw the word "fact" around. It appears if you've read something on huffington or heard it on MSNBC, it's a fact. But if it's something O'Reilly or others on the right has said, it's a lie.

I'm sure you don't see any bias in the way your brain processes information.

Tell ya what. How's about you google "FOX news lies" and then google "MSNBC lies and tell us what you come up with. I know the answer but would love to hear your take on it. P.S. Don't lie about it either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amused at the way you throw the word "fact" around. It appears if you've read something on huffington or heard it on MSNBC, it's a fact. But if it's something O'Reilly or others on the right has said, it's a lie.

I'm sure you don't see any bias in the way your brain processes information.

You're a fat, friendless loser and you know it. Just **** yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...