Speaking of Sock Puppets, has anyone taken time to absorb Charlie Copeland’s wavering stance on open government in the morning NJ? Did Thurman threaten to take away some ripe money committee? It’s pretty clear who’s pulling Charlie’s string.
Copeland only wants to play Open Government when there’s no chance of it happening and he can use it as a campaign issue. I’m so sick of all this faulty logic coming out of Republicans’. Facts just bounce off them. Reality has no role in their lives. Except, Bonini is right this morning. I guess he didn’t get the memo.
Jason
Somewhere in previous comments you mentioned where you found the cool online app that let’s you create these posters. I can’t find the comment now. Not that you’d want to turn lose any crazed Libertarians, but can you repeat the URL?
“Copeland only wants to play Open Government when there’s no chance of it happening and he can use it as a campaign issue. I’m so sick of all this faulty logic coming out of Republicans’. Facts just bounce off them. Reality has no role in their lives. Except, Bonini is right this morning. I guess he didn’t get the memo.”
SB 4 is fatally flawed. It’s unenforceable on future General Assemblies. So why petition out a bill that’s probably not going to pass anyway, and if it does, it’s irrelevant in 3 months.
That’s the reality. I know that you D’s are only interested in showboating, but why do it on a meaningless piece of legislation?
I know that you D’s are only interested in showboating, but why do it on a meaningless piece of legislation?
Probably the same reason that the R’s do it (cf, the showboating insurance and open records bills). So let’s not have too much of this pot calling the kettle stuff.
Fatally flawed in what way? Did he just figure that out? He and all of his cronies campaigned on saying they would ALL sign on suring the last election cycle and now that it’s getting closer, they’re getting cold feet. YOU ARE SO FULL OF BULL&$#@!
Legislation passed by one General Assembly can not be enforced upon another General Assembly without a constitutional amendment. And yes, there was a recent discovery of a legal opinion that changed the situation.
No, you just need to speak in sentences, asshole. But, what I really think is fatally flawed is you and your republican bs. How about you post this legal opinion for all of us to consider? That might validate you….but I doubt it.
“SB 4 is fatally flawed. It’s unenforceable on future General Assemblies.”
Funny how Charlie found that out now, after six years as a co-sponsor on the bill. Not to mention it would only be found unconstitutional if someone found it necessary to sue over access. It’s a BS argument, and if you don’t know it now, you will by tomorrow.
“So why petition out a bill that’s probably not going to pass anyway, and if it does, it’s irrelevant in 3 months.”
To live up to your word.
“That’s the reality. I know that you D’s are only interested in showboating, but why do it on a meaningless piece of legislation?”
If this is the best you can do, you’re in for a sound drubbing.
“Not to mention it would only be found unconstitutional if someone found it necessary to sue over access.”
Right, so if Thurman decided to deny all access starting January 09, because a new GA had started, someone would have to sue for access, and the court would rule that access denied.
“A Republican form of government is against secrecy of every kind….” John F. Kennedy.
It is in the Delaware constitution that Delaware must maintain a republican form of government. It logically follows that government business should be open to the public as a matter for and consequence of maintaining a republican form of government.
If a constitutional amendment is needed, why not have the b$$ls to propose it?
The realization that the bill’s worthless on July 1st is a pretty significant detail.
Sorry, Dave. The court case was decades ago. The “realization” came just in time to save the Republicans from having to take any action. How convenient.
I didn’t know about it until recently. If you knew about it, why haven’t you said something?
“save the Republicans from having to take any action”
Action is being taken. Just not the Karen Peterson stunt version.
And it’s kind of funny how KP and her Dem buddies voted against the motion to consider Colin Bonini’s HB 4 alternative, and took no flak at all. But just the talk of not signing Peterson’s petition is blasphemy.
If you think Karen Peterson’s original bill was a stunt in any way, Dave, then I’m afraid you don’t get out much. You can spin it all you want, but Peterson has been the sole reason for open government’s popularity these last few years. Karen Peterson has made the whole issue a “sexy” one in which ordinary residents have taken up the fight and demanded accountability from their legislators. You and your R’s are just piggybacking on the work she’s already done.
“Karen Peterson has made the whole issue a “sexy” one in which ordinary residents have taken up the fight and demanded accountability from their legislators.”
Which ordinary residents? People don’t care about this. I learned that the hard way.
“You and your R’s are just piggybacking on the work she’s already done.”
I disagree, but it’s not worth the time to argue it here.
“And it’s kind of funny how KP and her Dem buddies voted against the motion to consider Colin Bonini’s HB 4 alternative, and took no flak at all. But just the talk of not signing Peterson’s petition is blasphemy.”
There you go again, Dave. Talking about things you know nothing about. Unlike some of your repuke friends, Sen Peterson has been consistent with her actions.
The Republicans have been railing against the practice of bringing legislation to the floor of the Senate under the suspension of rules. That didn’t stop them from voting to suspend the rules for Bonini’s HB4 alternative. Actually, Peterson was the only one who stuck to her convictions on this issue. She did the same thing the following day when she opposed the Democrats who brought a bill to the floor under the suspension of rules. The R’s, by the way, all voted in favor of suspending the rules for that vote, too. So much for THEIR convictions.
NO, it’s never worth the time, is it, Dave? Because you’ve been so thoroughly called out and backed into a corner you’d rather pull out one of your old standbys:
“It’s not worth the time here.”
“I know more than you do, so I don’t want to say anymore.”
Face it, Dave. You’re playing this from your angle based on your partisan-political objectives. It’s OK, Dave. The first step to recovery is admitting the problem.
Speaking of Sock Puppets, has anyone taken time to absorb Charlie Copeland’s wavering stance on open government in the morning NJ? Did Thurman threaten to take away some ripe money committee? It’s pretty clear who’s pulling Charlie’s string.
Copeland only wants to play Open Government when there’s no chance of it happening and he can use it as a campaign issue. I’m so sick of all this faulty logic coming out of Republicans’. Facts just bounce off them. Reality has no role in their lives. Except, Bonini is right this morning. I guess he didn’t get the memo.
Jason
Somewhere in previous comments you mentioned where you found the cool online app that let’s you create these posters. I can’t find the comment now. Not that you’d want to turn lose any crazed Libertarians, but can you repeat the URL?
Steve!!!?
How are you?
“Copeland only wants to play Open Government when there’s no chance of it happening and he can use it as a campaign issue. I’m so sick of all this faulty logic coming out of Republicans’. Facts just bounce off them. Reality has no role in their lives. Except, Bonini is right this morning. I guess he didn’t get the memo.”
SB 4 is fatally flawed. It’s unenforceable on future General Assemblies. So why petition out a bill that’s probably not going to pass anyway, and if it does, it’s irrelevant in 3 months.
That’s the reality. I know that you D’s are only interested in showboating, but why do it on a meaningless piece of legislation?
I know that you D’s are only interested in showboating, but why do it on a meaningless piece of legislation?
Probably the same reason that the R’s do it (cf, the showboating insurance and open records bills). So let’s not have too much of this pot calling the kettle stuff.
Fatally flawed in what way? Did he just figure that out? He and all of his cronies campaigned on saying they would ALL sign on suring the last election cycle and now that it’s getting closer, they’re getting cold feet. YOU ARE SO FULL OF BULL&$#@!
“Fatally flawed in what way?”
Do I need to use smaller words?
Legislation passed by one General Assembly can not be enforced upon another General Assembly without a constitutional amendment. And yes, there was a recent discovery of a legal opinion that changed the situation.
No, you just need to speak in sentences, asshole. But, what I really think is fatally flawed is you and your republican bs. How about you post this legal opinion for all of us to consider? That might validate you….but I doubt it.
Just give me the name of the opinion so I can look it up online myself.
“SB 4 is fatally flawed. It’s unenforceable on future General Assemblies.”
Funny how Charlie found that out now, after six years as a co-sponsor on the bill. Not to mention it would only be found unconstitutional if someone found it necessary to sue over access. It’s a BS argument, and if you don’t know it now, you will by tomorrow.
“So why petition out a bill that’s probably not going to pass anyway, and if it does, it’s irrelevant in 3 months.”
To live up to your word.
“That’s the reality. I know that you D’s are only interested in showboating, but why do it on a meaningless piece of legislation?”
If this is the best you can do, you’re in for a sound drubbing.
“Not to mention it would only be found unconstitutional if someone found it necessary to sue over access.”
Right, so if Thurman decided to deny all access starting January 09, because a new GA had started, someone would have to sue for access, and the court would rule that access denied.
Why go through all of that on a flawed bill?
“To live up to your word.”
So, even though the facts have dramatically changed, the R’s are supposed to just “stay the course?”
Very Bushian of you, Al.
Dave, why not just sight your source? Can’t do it, I guess.
I’ll post it as soon as I get it in digital form.
How have the facts “dramatically changed”? These facts have been in place for more than 20 years. Where’s the “change”?
“A Republican form of government is against secrecy of every kind….” John F. Kennedy.
It is in the Delaware constitution that Delaware must maintain a republican form of government. It logically follows that government business should be open to the public as a matter for and consequence of maintaining a republican form of government.
If a constitutional amendment is needed, why not have the b$$ls to propose it?
Either that or do all business in the open as it was framed and intended in the state constitution?
Why is it that all of the Rethug’s SockPuppets are always found hiding under the bed; old, dusty and crusty?
Eeeuuuwww!!!
kind of like your sock you keep under your bed?
“Where’s the “change”?”
The realization that the bill’s worthless on July 1st is a pretty significant detail.
Why were you under my bed, DV?
Looking for a little PPV action?
J – Instead of “Sockpuppetry – I have a compter,” how about, “Sockpuppetry – Stealing Wireless From Your Driveway?”
Yeah, it’s a little long, but so beautiful.
“Where’s the “change”?”
The realization that the bill’s worthless on July 1st is a pretty significant detail.
Sorry, Dave. The court case was decades ago. The “realization” came just in time to save the Republicans from having to take any action. How convenient.
“The court case was decades ago.”
I didn’t know about it until recently. If you knew about it, why haven’t you said something?
“save the Republicans from having to take any action”
Action is being taken. Just not the Karen Peterson stunt version.
And it’s kind of funny how KP and her Dem buddies voted against the motion to consider Colin Bonini’s HB 4 alternative, and took no flak at all. But just the talk of not signing Peterson’s petition is blasphemy.
If you think Karen Peterson’s original bill was a stunt in any way, Dave, then I’m afraid you don’t get out much. You can spin it all you want, but Peterson has been the sole reason for open government’s popularity these last few years. Karen Peterson has made the whole issue a “sexy” one in which ordinary residents have taken up the fight and demanded accountability from their legislators. You and your R’s are just piggybacking on the work she’s already done.
The bill is not a stunt. The petition is a stunt.
“Karen Peterson has made the whole issue a “sexy” one in which ordinary residents have taken up the fight and demanded accountability from their legislators.”
Which ordinary residents? People don’t care about this. I learned that the hard way.
“You and your R’s are just piggybacking on the work she’s already done.”
I disagree, but it’s not worth the time to argue it here.
“And it’s kind of funny how KP and her Dem buddies voted against the motion to consider Colin Bonini’s HB 4 alternative, and took no flak at all. But just the talk of not signing Peterson’s petition is blasphemy.”
There you go again, Dave. Talking about things you know nothing about. Unlike some of your repuke friends, Sen Peterson has been consistent with her actions.
The Republicans have been railing against the practice of bringing legislation to the floor of the Senate under the suspension of rules. That didn’t stop them from voting to suspend the rules for Bonini’s HB4 alternative. Actually, Peterson was the only one who stuck to her convictions on this issue. She did the same thing the following day when she opposed the Democrats who brought a bill to the floor under the suspension of rules. The R’s, by the way, all voted in favor of suspending the rules for that vote, too. So much for THEIR convictions.
“I disagree, but it’s not worth the time to argue it here.”
Good, it looks like he’s taking his toys and leaving.
NO, it’s never worth the time, is it, Dave? Because you’ve been so thoroughly called out and backed into a corner you’d rather pull out one of your old standbys:
“It’s not worth the time here.”
“I know more than you do, so I don’t want to say anymore.”
Face it, Dave. You’re playing this from your angle based on your partisan-political objectives. It’s OK, Dave. The first step to recovery is admitting the problem.
I didn’t say it wasn’t worth arguing. It’s just not worth arguing here.
And PI, Peterson voted no on suspending the rules twice, and the R’s voted yes twice and Peterson’s the consistent one? Please.
And the R’s aren’t railing against bills coming to the floor under suspension, they’re railing against bills not coming up AT ALL.