Deep Thought: Sweeney Edition

He so good at multitasking too.... (0.00 / 0)

heck, the guy has 3 jobs, you would think he could walk and chew gum.  

---

by: Matthew Jordan @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 17:45:55 PM UTC

Not very productive (0.00 / 0)

Instead of attacking Sweene ywhy don't you get Sarlo and Codey to post the Bill and then get 21 votes.

Stop complaining and start working!

---

by: firstamend07 @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 21:17:57 PM UTC

It's Because Sweeney's the one making the stupid statements (0.00 / 0)

If Sweeney would keep his mouth shut and stop making reactionary statements, he wouldn't be attacked.

Yes, Codey and Sarlo should post the bill.  But it's much harder when you've got incoming Pres. Sweeney telling you not to.

---

by: princetonblue @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 21:43:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's really not productive (0.00 / 0)

is the constant and ridiculous need people seem to have to lash out when someone doesn't mention every aspect of an issue exactly to taste.  

And the condescension in the "start working" comment is a load of shit.  I wrote a headline, three keywords and a sentence.  What makes you think that in the other 23 hours, 58 minutes and 19 seconds of the day I wasn't working on this?  Or that I didn't talk to Sarlo and Codey directly about this the last time I said it?

Hell, you wrote more sentences exhorting me to STFU than I did in the original post!  Maybe you should stop being the content fucking police and start working yourself?

The fact that I didn't mention Sarlo and Codey is because I was commenting on a specific comment made by a specific person.  

So, I apologize for not mentioning Joe Lieberman, the Iraq War, handguns, the attack on abortion in the health bills, and any other subject anyone out there thinks I should have mentioned.

---

by: vmars @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 23:17:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am helping ,read this about Weinberg and Sweeney (0.00 / 0)

From tonights Star Ledger:

"We have the ability in the Legislature to talk about this bill and address the economic crisis at the same time," she said.

Today, Sweeney agreed, saying his original comments were misconstrued.

"This is a priority, and we can do more than one thing in lame duck," he said of the legislative session that starts Monday. "This is an important social issue that should have its day, and it could be now. If not today, tomorrow or in the future, it should be discussed."

John Munson/The Star-LedgerN.J. Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) with Gov. Jon Corzine in this July file photo. Weinberg is the prime sponsor of the gay marriage bill.Weinberg was similarly conciliatory.

"I believe we had a miscommunication" she said before acknowledging a political reality.

"It's up to the current Senate president, Dick Codey. He's got the responsibility to move the bill along," she said. "And Senator Sweeney has told me that he will not impede that in any way, shape or form."

---

by: firstamend07 @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 23:54:27 PM UTC

You are Not Helping Anyone Here (0.00 / 0)

How are you helping here?  When Sweeney's comments were first posted, you wrote that we shouldn't be trying to do both issues right now.   Now that Sweeney has changed his tune, you're claiming to have had the "new opinion" all the time, and to have worked for it?

Your opinions (and for what you're working for) seem to depend on the wind and Sweeney's latest public statement.

---

by: princetonblue @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 14:24:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Conciliatory? (0.00 / 0)

Do you know what the heck you are talking about?  Loretta Weinberg is more committed than ever to passing Marriage Equality.  

What is your beef with Loretta?  Were you a Ferriero guy or something??

If there is anyone in the Legislature afraid to take a stand on this one, it ISN'T Senator Weinberg.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 23:03:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]