Guest Trump Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 Today on WNBF's mid-day news break they revealed that Maurice Hinchey, congressman-extraordinare, and Democratic super delegate is pledged to Hillary Clinton. That's no big surprise, after all, both represent New York in congress. However, as soon as I heard this, I thought back to a Spring 2007 interview when Hinchey said he wasn't impressed with any of the Democratic candidates. That would include Senator Clinton who was one of the first Democrats to announce her bid. What's the deal with Hinchey? And what's the deal with local media? With super delegate news being at the top of every newscast, wouldn't you think a local media outlet could get a word with our congressman about his role as a super delegate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 Today on WNBF's mid-day news break they revealed that Maurice Hinchey, congressman-extraordinare, and Democratic super delegate is pledged to Hillary Clinton. That's no big surprise, after all, both represent New York in congress. However, as soon as I heard this, I thought back to a Spring 2007 interview when Hinchey said he wasn't impressed with any of the Democratic candidates. That would include Senator Clinton who was one of the first Democrats to announce her bid. What's the deal with Hinchey? And what's the deal with local media? With super delegate news being at the top of every newscast, wouldn't you think a local media outlet could get a word with our congressman about his role as a super delegate? He is such a self centered puke. Who cares about him. He's as worthless as she is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Voter Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 He is such a self centered puke. Who cares about him. He's as worthless as she is. AGREED!!!!!!!!!!! I think he is exactly the reason term limits should be made what a SUPER SLUG!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 Today on WNBF's mid-day news break they revealed that Maurice Hinchey, congressman-extraordinare, and Democratic super delegate is pledged to Hillary Clinton. That's no big surprise, after all, both represent New York in congress. However, as soon as I heard this, I thought back to a Spring 2007 interview when Hinchey said he wasn't impressed with any of the Democratic candidates. That would include Senator Clinton who was one of the first Democrats to announce her bid. What's the deal with Hinchey? And what's the deal with local media? With super delegate news being at the top of every newscast, wouldn't you think a local media outlet could get a word with our congressman about his role as a super delegate? Of course you remember that bit of breaking news at the time was reported by none other than Jon from Binghamton who grilled Hinchey about his opinion of the Democratic presidential candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continuity Czar Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 I have been debating most of today whether or not to make an issue of this and depending on response here to my comment, I may submit it as a Guest Viewpoint to all of the newspapers in the district. So, make no mistake that it will be posted HERE first and then elsewhere. Maurice Hinchey Endorses Potential Illegal Action Congressman Maurice Hinchey has announced that he is a Super-Delegate for Sen. Hillary Clinton and I question his support of a presidential candidate who has vigorously attempted to manipulate agreements and contracts made with her own national party. Speaking as a citizen of New York State and the 22nd Congressional District of NY, I find it very disturbing that our congressman would endorse such illegal and immoral activity and this brings question to his ability to continue in his current position. In 2007, the Democratic National Committee decided that if the states of Michigan and Florida wanted to move-up their primaries, they would have to sacrifice their delegates and disenfranchise their citizens. All of the presidential candidates, at the time, agreed to this and these two states then proceeded to implement earlier primaries. While I am in complete disagreement with this whole premise, as a Republican from New York it was none of my business. However, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama did agree to this situation and of the major candidates at the time, only Senator Clinton appeared on the ballots. Now that it is coming down to the wire, Senator Clinton has decided to go against her previous promise and is petitioning to have the delegates from these two states allowed in the Democratic National Convention this summer. This is not only completely unfair; it is a breach of contract, which of course is a criminal act. Therefore, as I see it, our Senator, Hillary Clinton, is attempting to publically commit a criminal act and Congressman Maurice Hinchey is both endorsing and abetting this activity. As the Constitution Party of New York, and potential Republican, candidate for the 22nd Congressional District of New York, I call for a review and investigation of these two potential saboteurs of political freedom. I hope that I can count on my fellow New Yorkers, especially those in this district, to back me in the removal and replacement of Congressman Maurice Hinchey this fall. Respectfully yours, David Robert Grate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 I like Maurice and I think he does a great job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continuity Czar Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 I like Maurice and I think he does a great job. How is he doing a "great job" as CONGRESSMAN? I am not calling for his impeachment because he isn't a nice guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FREE?? Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 I like Maurice and I think he does a great job. THANK YOU MR. MAURICE get off the free doll of the lobbists NOW GET BACK TO WORK!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 I have been debating most of today whether or not to make an issue of this and depending on response here to my comment, I may submit it as a Guest Viewpoint to all of the newspapers in the district. So, make no mistake that it will be posted HERE first and then elsewhere. Maurice Hinchey Endorses Potential Illegal Action Congressman Maurice Hinchey has announced that he is a Super-Delegate for Sen. Hillary Clinton and I question his support of a presidential candidate who has vigorously attempted to manipulate agreements and contracts made with her own national party. Speaking as a citizen of New York State and the 22nd Congressional District of NY, I find it very disturbing that our congressman would endorse such illegal and immoral activity and this brings question to his ability to continue in his current position. In 2007, the Democratic National Committee decided that if the states of Michigan and Florida wanted to move-up their primaries, they would have to sacrifice their delegates and disenfranchise their citizens. All of the presidential candidates, at the time, agreed to this and these two states then proceeded to implement earlier primaries. While I am in complete disagreement with this whole premise, as a Republican from New York it was none of my business. However, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama did agree to this situation and of the major candidates at the time, only Senator Clinton appeared on the ballots. Now that it is coming down to the wire, Senator Clinton has decided to go against her previous promise and is petitioning to have the delegates from these two states allowed in the Democratic National Convention this summer. This is not only completely unfair; it is a breach of contract, which of course is a criminal act. Therefore, as I see it, our Senator, Hillary Clinton, is attempting to publically commit a criminal act and Congressman Maurice Hinchey is both endorsing and abetting this activity. As the Constitution Party of New York, and potential Republican, candidate for the 22nd Congressional District of New York, I call for a review and investigation of these two potential saboteurs of political freedom. I hope that I can count on my fellow New Yorkers, especially those in this district, to back me in the removal and replacement of Congressman Maurice Hinchey this fall. Respectfully yours, David Robert Grate I think you should submit it. I think what Hillary Clinton is trying to do is underhanded. I also think it is unethical. Clinton is not to be trusted. She panders and flip flops at any given moment. And that is why she has lost my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 I think you should submit it. I think what Hillary Clinton is trying to do is underhanded. I also think it is unethical. Clinton is not to be trusted. She panders and flip flops at any given moment. And that is why she has lost my vote. Check this out!!!! http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continuity Czar Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 I think you should submit it. I think what Hillary Clinton is trying to do is underhanded. I also think it is unethical. Clinton is not to be trusted. She panders and flip flops at any given moment. And that is why she has lost my vote. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continuity Czar Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 Check this out!!!! http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633 Very interesting. I didn't take the time to read the entire blog, but I will later. Thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marius Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 i can't even believe there is such a thing as "super delegates". it is just more proof that dems want total control over the people and their will means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 How is he doing a "great job" as CONGRESSMAN? I am not calling for his impeachment because he isn't a nice guy. I think her represents his contituents well and so do most of them. You and I simply disagree. Most people in his district agree with me, not you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 Thank you. You don't stand a chance David. And if you think campaigning on here is the way to victory - well then look at Naimas campaign and drazens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continuity Czar Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 You don't stand a chance David. And if you think campaigning on here is the way to victory - well then look at Naimas campaign and drazens. I was asking about opinions regarding Hinchey's impeachable actions. Do you agree with them or not? As for any comments regarding own my campaign, I will not respond to anyone who is not logged in and is unwilling to identify himself or herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NY Patriot Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 I like Maurice and I think he does a great job. Yeah Hinchey is well liked. So well liked in fact he feels the need to carry a pistol everywhere he goes. That's why he was caught trying to sneak a handgun onto a airline. What ever happened to those charges? Isn't that a federal felony offense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphoristically Moderate Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 I like Maurice and I think he does a great job. Almost every time a Hinchey thread comes up, there is an anonymous poster who says, 'I like Hinchey, I will continue to vote for him.' There is no specificity to this. This person must either be a Trial Lawyer, on some government entitlement, or an illegal alien because that's who Hinchey represents best. http://www.issues2000.org/NY/Maurice_Hinch...meland_Security Maurice Hinchey has a terrible record when it comes to representing the average 22nd district citizen. He has voted NO on the grizzly practice of partial birth abortion. He has voted NO on making it a crime to harm an unborn baby, while committing another crime. He has voted NO on forbidding human cloning. He has a 100% approval from NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League. He has voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. He has voted NO on an Amendment protecting the American Flag from desecration. He has voted NO for more prosecutions of more juvenile crime. He has supported the concept of "Hate Crimes" where punishments are allocated based on thoughts. He has voted NO on more funding for Border Patrols to battle drugs and terrorism. He has voted NO on prohibiting needle exchanges. He has voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. He has voted NO on permitting new oil refinery permits. He has voted NO on new oil refinery construction. He has voted YES on maintaining a moratorium on new offshore drilling. He has voted NO on drilling in ANWAR. He has voted YES on removing oil and gas exploration subsidies. He believes in more government control of electricity and gas prices. He has voted YES on declaring OPEC a criminal organization. He has voted YES on forbidding using the Yucca mountains for nuclear waste. He has voted NO on reducing the Marriage Tax. He has voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. He has voted NO on restricting funding the United Nations. He has voted NO on withholding $244 million to the UN until the US seat is restored. He voted YES on giving the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, $156 million for third world debt reduction. He has voted NO on free trade agreements with Peru, Central America, Australia, Singapore and Chile. He has voted NO on requiring voter ID when voting in federal elections. He has voted NO when restricting Trial Lawyer fees in class action lawsuits. He has voted NO on restricting frivolous lawsuits. He voted NO on prohibiting obesity lawsuits against food providers. He voted NO on prohibiting misuse lawsuits against gun manufacturers. He voted yes to expanding the SCHIP program, including to illegal aliens. He has voted NO on limiting malpractice lawsuits. He voted NO to allow small business associations to buy health insurance. He voted NO on allowing tax-exempt medical savings accounts. He voted NO on setting time limits on medical lawsuits. He voted NO on military recruitment on college campuses. He voted NO on establishing a Border Fence between the US and Mexico. He voted NO on tipping off illegal aliens about the Minuteman Project. He voted NO about reporting illegal aliens who receive medical treatment. He voted NO for more immigrant visas for SKILLED workers. He voted NO for offshore tax breaks and to promote small businesses. He voted NO on raising 401K limits and for making pension plans more portable. He voted NO on reducing taxes on Social Security benefits. He voted NO on lower tax rates for dividends and capital gains. He voted NO on making permanent the increase in the Child Tax Credit. He voted NO on permanently eliminating the Marriage Penalty. He voted NO on the Bush tax cuts and on making them permanent. He voted NO for tax cuts for small businesses. He is rated 25% by the National Taxpayers Union, indicating that he is a big spender on tax votes. He voted YES on a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq within 90 days, last May. He has voted NO for treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. He voted NO for promoting the concept of "work" and "marriage" for TANF recipients. (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) Scott Ssaund9084@aol.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphoristically Moderate Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 Sorry, on the very first entry... He voted NO on PROHIBITING the grizzly practice of partial birth abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continuity Czar Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 Sorry, on the very first entry... He voted NO on PROHIBITING the grizzly practice of partial birth abortion. I couldn't have come up with a list like you did regarding Hinchey's record. It is time for him to be unemployed. Unfortunetely, even if he is voted out, he will still receive around a hundred grand a year in pension. That's why i want him impeached - if he is, he might not be elligable for the pension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 Sorry, on the very first entry... He voted NO on PROHIBITING the grizzly practice of partial birth abortion. Scott, he also tried to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in an effort to silence people who disagree with him. Isn't that something Hitler did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Trump Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 I have been debating most of today whether or not to make an issue of this and depending on response here to my comment, I may submit it as a Guest Viewpoint to all of the newspapers in the district. So, make no mistake that it will be posted HERE first and then elsewhere. Maurice Hinchey Endorses Potential Illegal Action Congressman Maurice Hinchey has announced that he is a Super-Delegate for Sen. Hillary Clinton and I question his support of a presidential candidate who has vigorously attempted to manipulate agreements and contracts made with her own national party. Speaking as a citizen of New York State and the 22nd Congressional District of NY, I find it very disturbing that our congressman would endorse such illegal and immoral activity and this brings question to his ability to continue in his current position. In 2007, the Democratic National Committee decided that if the states of Michigan and Florida wanted to move-up their primaries, they would have to sacrifice their delegates and disenfranchise their citizens. All of the presidential candidates, at the time, agreed to this and these two states then proceeded to implement earlier primaries. While I am in complete disagreement with this whole premise, as a Republican from New York it was none of my business. However, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama did agree to this situation and of the major candidates at the time, only Senator Clinton appeared on the ballots. Now that it is coming down to the wire, Senator Clinton has decided to go against her previous promise and is petitioning to have the delegates from these two states allowed in the Democratic National Convention this summer. This is not only completely unfair; it is a breach of contract, which of course is a criminal act. Therefore, as I see it, our Senator, Hillary Clinton, is attempting to publically commit a criminal act and Congressman Maurice Hinchey is both endorsing and abetting this activity. As the Constitution Party of New York, and potential Republican, candidate for the 22nd Congressional District of New York, I call for a review and investigation of these two potential saboteurs of political freedom. I hope that I can count on my fellow New Yorkers, especially those in this district, to back me in the removal and replacement of Congressman Maurice Hinchey this fall. Respectfully yours, David Robert Grate David, I think your post is well thought out, and very well written. I hope you do submit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tax&Spend Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 . . . . it is a breach of contract, which of course is a criminal act. . . . Respectfully yours, David Robert Grate 'Tain't so. Contracts are civil matters, not criminal. Mr. Grate, I think you'd be better off letting the Democrats sort out their nomination mess for themselves. I don't think it will serve you well to try to make yourself "look taller" by pulling others "down" to your level. It's OK to point out differences in positions with your opponent, but tell us in a positive way the reasons why we'd be better off if you are elected. What initiatives do you support? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphoristically Moderate Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 Scott, he also tried to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in an effort to silence people who disagree with him. Isn't that something Hitler did? Yes, well media control is something used all over the world. You have to be careful when you use the word Hitler in a comparison. What Hinchey has talked about is the Media Ownership Reform Act. It seeks to limit what percentage of media outlets that a company can own. http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml It might sound okay at first. People are suspicious of monopolies. It is the underlying doctrine that Hinchey is really after. Fortunately for Hinchey, most of his support comes from people who don't want to hear more than the 1st sentence. The exact wording Hinchey even uses in his own web site says, "Our airwaves are a precious and limited commodity that belong to the general public. As such, they are regulated by the government. From 1949 to 1987, a keystone of this regulation was the Fairness Doctrine, an assurance that the American audience would be guaranteed sufficiently robust debate on controversial and pressing issues. Despite numerous instances of support from the U.S. Supreme Court, President Reagan's FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and a subsequent bill passed by Congress to place the doctrine into federal law was then vetoed by Reagan." "MORA would amend the 1934 Communications Act to restore the Fairness Doctrine and explicitly require broadcast licensees to provide a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance." By the way, the airwaves don't belong to the public. They belong to the radio, television, or cell phone companies who pay for them to make a profit. However, this is something George Soros and Moveon.org activist types would love to get their hands on. It's so open ended. Who is to determine what is "sufficiently robust" and "reasonable" debate??? An activist individual with money to spend could put a radio station out of business just dragging this through court. When the founding fathers wrote the 1st Amendment, they were thinking about political speech. Where is Hinchey's respect for the 1st Amendment anywhere in this? By the way, again, for research on Hinchey's actual vote, google Hinchey + the "Pence Amendment." It had to deal with de-funding the Fairness Doctrine last year. I've blogged about it here before, but I have to go to work right now. Scott Ssaund9084@aol.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 "I couldn't have come up with a list like you did regarding Hinchey's record. It is time for him to be unemployed. Unfortunetely, even if he is voted out, he will still receive around a hundred grand a year in pension. That's why i want him impeached - if he is, he might not be elligable for the pension. " If you're running for congress, please learn how to spell "eligible." Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.