2014 Elections

[O Really]

Any candidate in a race with less than a 10-point lead is "running scared." Is that unreasonable? Ads are placed at times and in programs where they are expected to hit potential voters. Who watches TV news? Older, usually better educated people. But ads aside, Mr.B., what would keep you from voting for Hagan?

[Mr.B]

"Who watches TV news? Older, usually better educated people."
That's how we stay informed....remembering it though is another thing.

"But ads aside, Mr.B., what would keep you from voting for Hagan?"
A better question to ask would be "What would keep me from voting at all?"

I've yet to see an ad that tells me why I should vote for a particular candidate; they're too busy digging up dirt and past discretions and bashing their opponent(s).

The past is the past; it can't be changed; that doesn't necessarily mean that any hopeful is still in question of his/her abilities. If Bill Clinton was to run for president, though I'm an Independent, I would vote for him...if Hillary was to run, I'd probably vote for her....depending of course on their opposition.

[Mr.B]

Exactly. Bragging on one's self don't count. I'm not interested in popularity.

[O Really]

First, I wouldn't claim that Hagan is a superstar by any definition. Not that many first-term senators get that designation anyway. But she is a lot like the old-school traditional Republicans used to be. She really is a moderate, and that really is a good match for the people (not the legislative maniacs) of North Carolina. So if I were a real Republican, I would be aghast at what the Tillis', Moffits, etc. are doing in Raleigh in the name of my party. The reason the Dems won the legislature for 140 years was that the Democratic party in NC encompassed a wide range of ideology. If the Dems in office then had passed outrageously hard-core leftist laws, their supporters would have turned on them in droves. Now that the drooling rabid right-wingers are having their way, I would expect the same reaction from the more rational members of the Republican party.

So back to Hagan, as far as I know, she has done no harm. She hasn't embarrassed the state; she hasn't introduced bills that a large number of NC citizens would oppose. So if I were a Republican, and my choice was moderate bland Hagan who hasn't screwed up and is similar to what I think a Republican ought to be, as compared to Tillis, who has wreaked havoc on the state, I'd vote for Hagan.

[Mr.B]

"First, I wouldn't claim that Hagan is a superstar by any definition.... as far as I know, she has done no harm."

I have nothing against Ms. Hagan, nor do I favor Tillis politically over her. My gripe is political advertising; in her case, lots of it, and it's greatest content being opponent bashing. No wonder voter turnout is so low; people are turned off by negative advertising.

Again, that mute button thingy...........best invention since sliced bread and ExLax.

"Taxpayers dollars aren't used for the ads."

I said nothing about taxpayer dollars paying for political advertising......pay attention.

[O Really]

You have a strange view of the world, Mr.B.

[Mr.B]

"I said nothing about taxpayer dollars paying for political advertising......pay attention."

Yes you did:

...Hagen has money to burn on advertising thanks to the Democratic party and the poor taxpayers whose tax dollars pay her salary...

"advertising thanks to the Democratic party and the poor taxpayers". Your problem is that I do pay attention, not that I don't.
If you didn't post what you meant to, step up for once and admit it earlier rather than much later or never.

Yes I did not. So...Ms. Hagan works for free? Comprehend much?.......or are you just being your usual jackass self? Look at the sentence carefully...It says thanks to the Democratic Party ....... and her salary. Who pays her salary (that she don't get) but the taxpayers? You don't think she might be using some of her OWN money (that the taxpayers who pay her salary that she don't get), provided the DC isn't paying for all of her advertising?

[indago]

Journalists David Lieb and Thomas Beaumont wrote for The Associated Press 10 October 2014:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts and Gov. Sam Brownback, both locked in surprisingly tight re-election bids, each reaffirmed their support for a state constitutional ban on gay marriage as a court in Kansas' largest, most urban county granted a marriage license to two women. In this mostly Republican and rural state, any talk of gay marriage has typically worked in the favor of GOP candidates who are staunchly against it.

...Kansas' constitutional provision, approved with nearly 70 percent support, not only prohibits gay marriage but also denies same-sex couples any "rights and incidents" associated with marriage. ...Brownback spoke out for the ban, saying in written statement: "Activist judges should not overrule the people of Kansas." Roberts issued a similar statement, vowing to "continue to oppose liberal activist judges who defiantly ignore the will of the people."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article


All voters who do not endorse the gay lifestyle should check the record of candidates for office in their district and support those who are against a gay marriage.

[indago]

You're siding with the KKK, indago.

I'm not a member of KKK. You a member of NAMBLA?

[indago]

indago: "I'm not a member of KKK. You a member of NAMBLA?"

Vrede: "I see you're obsessed with pedophilia, too. I'm not surprised."


Oh, stop being so defensive about it. Since you're into perversity, it's just a matter of degrees for you gays, and gay apologists, or both. Fifty years ago there were several states that had sodomy laws on their books. Now, they have been repealed, or are not enforced. I would suspect that you perverts will have the NAMBLA in the forefront in several years down the road, and we will see the Boy Scouts and NAMBLA as just one big organization.

[O Really]

[... we will see the Boy Scouts and NAMBLA as just one big organization.

I thought it was... http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... files-show

[indago]

indago: "I'm not a member of KKK. You a member of NAMBLA?"

Vrede: "I see you're obsessed with pedophilia, too. I'm not surprised."


Oh, stop being so defensive about it. Since you're into perversity, it's just a matter of degrees for you gays, and gay apologists, or both. Fifty years ago there were several states that had sodomy laws on their books. Now, they have been repealed, or are not enforced. I would suspect that you perverts will have the NAMBLA in the forefront in several years down the road, and we will see the Boy Scouts and NAMBLA as just one big organization.

You can join HERE

[O Really]

I'm not a member of NAMBLA nor the Boy Scouts, and don't intend to defend either organization.
But on sexual matters, which organization is more honest - the one who clearly admits they support relationships that most people would consider perverse, or the one that claims to build boys of character while refusing to let gay men (or women) be scout leaders and letting the straight male leader bugger the boys without serious consequences?

[indago]

indago is still obsessed with pedophilia, yuck, and still fantasizing about my orientation. Clearly, s/he wants to have intercourse with gays, nttawwt, and pedophiles, yuck.

And why am I not surprised that you are still fantasizing about me, even after I had already noted: "I wish you would stop coming on to me here. I'm just not of your ilk."

[indago]

From The New York Times 13 October 2014:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...thanks to lax or nonexistent regulation, a race can be dominated by a single spender, with his own policy agenda, essentially working in collaboration with a campaign. That is the conclusion of a report issued Monday by the Brennan Center for Justice: “Independent” spending on state and local elections has predictably skyrocketed since Citizens United, and coordination laws in many states are either too vague or weakly enforced.

The Supreme Court’s central rationale for allowing unlimited independent spending in support of a candidate is based on the unrealistic notion that the money and the candidate’s campaign are, in fact, separate. But, as the report illustrates, former campaign advisers slide easily into jobs at super PACs that support their old bosses, and candidates work closely with these groups, fund-raising for them and sharing everything from campaign videos to polling data. The theoretical difference between direct contributions and independent spending, the report says, has now been blurred “beyond recognition.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------

article

[indago]

I wish you would stop coming on to me here. I'm just not of your ilk.

[Mr.B]

"Clearly, "consent" has too many syllables for indago. That's exactly how pedophiles and rapists are, yuck....indago is still obsessed with pedophilia, yuck, and still fantasizing about my orientation. Clearly, s/he wants to have intercourse with gays, nttawwt, and pedophiles, yuck."

What a crock. With a few word changes, you said the same thing about me.

Can't you think of anything else besides men fantasizing about you?

You sound like a stuck record. Not only that, you're one sick puppy; you really ought to see a psychiatrist about your obsessive fantasy of men fantasizing about you....unless...... :?:

[bannination]

It's true, I repeat myself because you pitiful, sick, obsessive bigots keep posting the same moronic things. So?

As usual, you whine, lie and change words. I did not say that indago is fantasizing about me but rather that s/he is "still fantasizing about my orientation," which s/he does a bunch, just like you. Also, indago is fantasizing that I'm "coming on to" her/him. Didn't you notice?

This one is especially funny since you quoted what I did post and then lied about it twice. How stupid, and sinful, is that?

Is it still a sin if it's coming from ignorance?

[O Really]

If Mr.B wishes to claim to be so ignorant as to confuse fantasizing about me with "fantasizing about my orientation" and so illiterate as to not have noticed that indago is fantasizing that I'm "coming on to" her/him, I will accept his excuse as being merely pitiful rather than sinful false witness.

Methinks these fellows don't have quite the same grip on the definition of "fantasize" as you and I and Merriam-Webster. Otherwise, it would be pretty difficult to deny.

[Boatrocker]

Florida governors debate marred by trivial live TV squabble over fan

I'm no big fan of Crist, but Ick Scott is just a belligerent toddler who needs his ass whacked.