SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- A Democrat in the California legislature has been kicked out of her Capitol office for not supporting the party's state budget proposal.

Assemblywoman Nicole Parra of Hanford said Monday she wasn't surprised about being punished but was "a little taken back" by Democrats' decision to move her out of the Capitol.

When she abstained from Sunday night's budget vote, the bill fell nine votes short of the two-thirds majority needed. Parra was the only Democrat present who didn't vote for it.

She represents a farm-heavy district in the Central Valley and says she wants a water bond package approved before she'll vote for the budget.

Her new office is in another state building across the street.

link

"Do what we tell you to do or pay the price" - California's Democratic Party.

Isn't it nice to know that the people who demand diversity and choice have no room for dissention within the ranks. "Conform or else" is now the modus operandi for Cals. Democrats.

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

What's really amusing is to see you jump up and down on this issue...
But when the REPUBLICANS use analogous tactics in the DOJ which are ILLEGAL, it's just a matter of "jaywalking" to some...


Back on topic, this decision to kick her out was stupid.

The decision was a lot of things, but it wasn't stupid. It was a very smart way of trying to intimidate someone into conformance with the Party expectations. She didn't lose anything substantial, just an office, which was replaced by one right across the street. No big deal - right??? What this was was a highly unethical act of intimidation and abuse of power. It also reflects the Dem./liberal attitude of "Be as diverse as you want to be as long as you agree with us 100%"

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

Meaningless quibbling.
"Stupid" is all the effort that was necessary for this issue.
You say it was meant to "intimidate", I agree.
You say she didn't lose anything substantial? I agree.

No big deal? I think the Republican "party line" on their scandals is to ask if it was illegal, and then ignore and obfuscate when it actually was...
But for me on this issue, I think she should get the office back ASAP, with an apology.

But tell me.
Is the ONLY reason it's a "big deal" is because it's Democrat?
Cause when the Republicans have been shown to be guilty of worse, it typically gets ignored.
You try to pretend that this is a "Democrat" ploy, yet you ignore the fact that I have actually given a more severe, and seriously ILLEGAL Republican example of these tactics, it gets ignored...

No comment on the REPUBLICAN abuse of power...
But when Democrats are doing it, it's gotta be just a "Democrat" problem and indicative of the whole party...




And you want to know what's really sad?
If you hadn't tried to pretend it was a "Democrat" problem, I don't think I would have even brought up the ILLEGAL Republican actions.
I wouldn't have pointed out the other thread of how the Republicans reacted when Republicans wanted to sweep a more glaring and ILLEGAL abuse of power under the rug...
http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/new...html#post37244

So, to summarize.
Republican ILLEGAL abuse of power? You don't care when it gets swept under the rug and not prosecuted.
Democrat abuse of power? Indicative of a "party" problem...

guilty or worse?...

This isn't about commiting a crime or doing something unethical...No comparison...

She was punished by her own for doing her job as she sees fit...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I only make a comparison because SOMEBODY ELSE is obviously making a distinction in declaring Democrats as worse.

My personal position is that I don't think either party is truly "worse".

But if somebody were to compare the two instances, the one (Republican action in DOJ) is a crime. The other (Democrat removing her from her office space) isn't.
I don't see how just saying "No comparison" can bypass that distinction.

Quite frankly, if I were to miss an important meeting, my boss could move me from my current spot to another location. He DOES HAVE that power.
I think both my hypothetical example and the Parra instance would be absurd, but that's what's available to the people in positions of authority over us.


And in the context of faithful_servant's approach, I would argue that there are also REPUBLICAN attorneys who were ousted from the Department of Justice positions just cause they didn't toe THEIR OWN party line hard enough.
Remember that?
I would think that was crazy too.


But quite frankly, NONE of this would have been brought up by me if "somebody else" hadn't tried to turn this into a "this makes democrats worse cause this is how democrats are" type thing...

He actually said "Cal. Democrats"...

It wasn't all-encompassing, but whether the WHOLE party is "worse" than the other doesn't apply in this thread...

If someone were to compare the two...

I wouldn't...

It's easy...I just did it...

But the taxpayer can hold that boss responsible in the next election...I'm guessing they couldn't do that to your boss...

Are attorneys elected officials or appointments?...

See first response...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Show me where I siad anything even remotely resembling what you're accusing me of. found, you're putting words in my mouth. I merely stated the party of acceptance, diversity and democracy was taking steps to punish individuality, enforce conformity and create an autocratic mindset among the Cal. Dems. My ONLY focus was on this kind of thought pattern and never on trying to make Reps. look better. You read that into my post all by yourself.

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

No need for me to "put" what you freely gave...

"Isn't it nice to know that the people who demand diversity and choice have no room for dissention within the ranks. "Conform or else" is now the modus operandi for Cals. Democrats."
"It also reflects the Dem./liberal attitude of "Be as diverse as you want to be as long as you agree with us 100%""


Do you get points for repeating, out of your own mouth, what I pointed out you were doing?


ROFLMAO!!!
Oh. THAT is hilarious.
So bashing the Democrats is supposed to have NO effect of making "Reps look better"?

Do you actually believe anybody here is going to buy that crap?
Come ON now. You've been posting too long here, showing your true colors, to pull that off...

Nowhere is "Cal" mentioned in post #3.


Of course not.
When you want to limit the scope to complain about "Dem/liberal attitude", looking in the mirror is obviously completely off the table.

There's a Christian bible verse involving removing the beam from your own eye before looking at the speck in somebody else's eye, but I think with some Christians their "Christianity" is non-topical when it comes to the deceit practiced within their political party as well...


I can dream, can't I?

But back on the issue, I suspect that's one of the reasons Repubs lost so big in 2006 election.
If you don't want to learn a lesson there....


Oh. Silly me.
The whole "illegal" thing is obviously not an issue, but whether it's "elected" or "appointed" is another factor.

But tell me. Was she removed from an "elected" office?
Or the physical "appointed" one?