• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ex-SC Gov. Sanford back in political office

Yes. Unlike the rest of us, when he stole the money they allowed him to simply pay back and voila... no crime.

Obama does it all the time and you don't seem too bothered by that.
 
Obama does it all the time and you don't seem too bothered by that.

Do you have an actual moment where Obama was caught doing this and was censured for doing it? Or is this just that you think Obama is doing it and you are just spouting crap because you want it to be true? You see, rick was caught doing it.

Oh, and this may be something that is allowed for rich people, but you can be damned sure if you are not rich and powerful and you are caught using taxpayer funds for a trip to argentinia to get a "soul mate," as rick calls his argentinian whores, you will be charged criminally and forced to pay the money back in restitution. This sort of treatment is only normal for a certain class of person, which means it is not actually normal, it is actually an exception to how normal people are treated, which is made for abnormal people.
 
Sorry, but you're wrong. Depends entirely on the accounting/auditing system. I've seen this/done this in both the private sector and in the federal government. Sometimes you pay as you go; sometimes you reimburse after the auditors have done their calculations. And a year after the fact is not out of line in the latter case.:cool:

Which is why he waited until he was caught to pay it back. Sanford can do no wrong in your eyes. lol
 
Do you have an actual moment where Obama was caught doing this and was censured for doing it? Or is this just that you think Obama is doing it and you are just spouting crap because you want it to be true? You see, rick was caught doing it.

Oh, and this may be something that is allowed for rich people, but you can be damned sure if you are not rich and powerful and you are caught using taxpayer funds for a trip to argentinia to get a "soul mate," as rick calls his argentinian whores, you will be charged criminally and forced to pay the money back in restitution. This sort of treatment is only normal for a certain class of person, which means it is not actually normal, it is actually an exception to how normal people are treated, which is made for abnormal people.

The Obamas blow millions on phoney vacations every year. It's common knowledge.
 
Which is why he waited until he was caught to pay it back. Sanford can do no wrong in your eyes. lol

Did the guy that ramrods the GSA go to jail? How many millions did he blow on hot-tubs and penthouses?
 
Which is why he waited until he was caught to pay it back. Sanford can do no wrong in your eyes. lol

I don't recall any story about him being "caught" and the government of SC had taken no extraordinary action. The process took as long as it took, that's all. I'm not a special fan of Sanford, but the fact that you don't like him makes him more attractive.:mrgreen:
 
The Obamas blow millions on phoney vacations every year. It's common knowledge.

So in other words, you actually are making up falsehoods as every president does that. Just wanting to make completely sure you were lying. Thanks a bunch for confirming that. Just because you think it is the same does not make it illegal like what mark Sanford actually did.
 
I don't recall any story about him being "caught" and the government of SC had taken no extraordinary action. The process took as long as it took, that's all.

It took as long as it took because he didn't act on it until several newspapers put in a Freedom of Information Act and dug up his insanely lavish travel. All the sudden after it was reported and after he was allowed and agreed to block investigations of his 37 ethics violations with a $74,000 fine... brought about by the South Carolina GOP run government... all while continuing to say he did nothing wrong.

Jack Hays said:
I'm not a special fan of Sanford, but the fact that you don't like him makes him more attractive.:mrgreen:

That's admitting that I make your choices for you. And you freely admit this? You seem to be falling into the same camp as these folks:

How to Sell Conservatives on Energy-Efficient Lightbulbs

The study looked at the choices of 210 consumers, about two-thirds of them women. All were briefed on the benefits of compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs over old-fashioned incandescents.

When both bulbs were priced the same, shoppers across the political spectrum were uniformly inclined to choose CFL bulbs over incandescents, even those with environmental labels, the study found.

But when the fluorescent bulb cost more – $1.50 instead of $0.50 for an incandescent – the conservatives who reached for the CFL bulb chose the one without the eco-friendly label.

"The more moderate and conservative participants preferred to bear a long-term financial cost to avoid purchasing an item associated with valuing environmental protections," the study said.​
 
Did the guy that ramrods the GSA go to jail? How many millions did he blow on hot-tubs and penthouses?

Be sure to never talk about Sanford in this thread about Sanford. All your deflections helps you protect him. :lamo
 
It's embarassing, but waddaya do...

:shrug:
 
Which only shows how sad and divisive partisans have become. So much for the whole diatribe during the Clinton years the GOP threw about about how "Character matters!!111111!!!!!" Guess not.

Better the devil you know. ;)

I'd vote for a scum bag who represents my views over a saint who stands for everything I despise any day.
 
Last edited:
It took as long as it took because he didn't act on it until several newspapers put in a Freedom of Information Act and dug up his insanely lavish travel. All the sudden after it was reported and after he was allowed and agreed to block investigations of his 37 ethics violations with a $74,000 fine... brought about by the South Carolina GOP run government... all while continuing to say he did nothing wrong.



That's admitting that I make your choices for you. And you freely admit this? You seem to be falling into the same camp as these folks:

How to Sell Conservatives on Energy-Efficient Lightbulbs

The study looked at the choices of 210 consumers, about two-thirds of them women. All were briefed on the benefits of compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs over old-fashioned incandescents.

When both bulbs were priced the same, shoppers across the political spectrum were uniformly inclined to choose CFL bulbs over incandescents, even those with environmental labels, the study found.

But when the fluorescent bulb cost more – $1.50 instead of $0.50 for an incandescent – the conservatives who reached for the CFL bulb chose the one without the eco-friendly label.

"The more moderate and conservative participants preferred to bear a long-term financial cost to avoid purchasing an item associated with valuing environmental protections," the study said.​

There was never any indication that anything had been done wrong. As for making choices, I've made none. Sanford is the issue of the moment. You don't like him, so I enjoy his success.:cool:
 
Better the devil you know. ;)

I'd vote for a scum bag who represents my views over a saint who stands for everything I despise any day.

Good evening, Gathomass88. :2wave:

1. With a few exceptions, you're casting a vote for the least despicable candidate, because...

2. There's not a saint alive who would ever consider a career in politics! They're too honest! :lamo:
 
Good evening, Gathomass88. :2wave:

1. With a few exceptions, you're casting a vote for the least despicable candidate, because...

2. There's not a saint alive who would ever consider a career in politics! They're too honest! :lamo:

True that! :lamo

Frankly, Sanford has nothing on some of the more despicable candidates the DNC has put forward over the years anyway. Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid were and are (respectfully) some the worst human beings to ever disgrace American politics.

At least Sanford's more or less honest about it.
 
Out. :2wave:

It's been one of the most entertaining Mother's Day that I've ever had! :thanks: to all!

Be well.
 
How to Sell Conservatives on Energy-Efficient Lightbulbs

The study looked at the choices of 210 consumers, about two-thirds of them women. All were briefed on the benefits of compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs over old-fashioned incandescents.

When both bulbs were priced the same, shoppers across the political spectrum were uniformly inclined to choose CFL bulbs over incandescents, even those with environmental labels, the study found.

But when the fluorescent bulb cost more – $1.50 instead of $0.50 for an incandescent – the conservatives who reached for the CFL bulb chose the one without the eco-friendly label.

"The more moderate and conservative participants preferred to bear a long-term financial cost to avoid purchasing an item associated with valuing environmental protections," the study said.​
This is so like a liberal. Let's just look for a second at the energy part of this equation. One of the reasons that energy efficient light bulbs are necessary these days is the shortage of energy. We don't lack the resources to provide more energy, but we prevent ourselves from doing this because we don't want to. So rather than provide more energy, which we easily could, we are forced to accept lighting devices which emit a light that's so noxious to the eyes it's impossible to read by them for any length of time. This is touted as progress, and we're supposed to embrace it, even though it sucks. Now someone has to do a study on exactly how to get a liberal to drill for natural gas. I'm hoping a gun is involved. With a 30 round magazine and all kinds of scary looking stuff on it.
 
Be sure to never talk about Sanford in this thread about Sanford. All your deflections helps you protect him. :lamo

Compared to what most politicians do, Sanford didn't do a damn thing wrong. There! I talked about Sanford.
 
Compared to what most politicians do, Sanford didn't do a damn thing wrong. There! I talked about Sanford.

awesome standards you got there chief. as long as a really ****ty politician has someone dropping flack of even ****tier politicians... that makes the former just a-ok.
 
This is so like a liberal. Let's just look for a second at the energy part of this equation. One of the reasons that energy efficient light bulbs are necessary these days is the shortage of energy. We don't lack the resources to provide more energy, but we prevent ourselves from doing this because we don't want to. So rather than provide more energy, which we easily could, we are forced to accept lighting devices which emit a light that's so noxious to the eyes it's impossible to read by them for any length of time. This is touted as progress, and we're supposed to embrace it, even though it sucks. Now someone has to do a study on exactly how to get a liberal to drill for natural gas. I'm hoping a gun is involved. With a 30 round magazine and all kinds of scary looking stuff on it.

Then i guess by your post... that is so like a conservative to build a straw man rant and not even address the point of the study.
 
Then i guess by your post... that is so like a conservative to build a straw man rant and not even address the point of the study.
Yep. Not so much like a conservative, but a lot like me. I like to mirror the responses of the left. Probably indicates a lack of imagination, but since it's a reflection...
 
Yep. Not so much like a conservative, but a lot like me. I like to mirror the responses of the left. Probably indicates a lack of imagination, but since it's a reflection...


I know you are but what am I?
 
I don't know anyone who cared about the sex, e:

Typical right wing apologist nonsense. It was a witch hunt fueled by the religious right wing nut jobs. No more, no less.
 
Compared to what most politicians do, Sanford didn't do a damn thing wrong. There! I talked about Sanford.

Simply watching Sanford on video is enough to make me want to puke.
 
Back
Top Bottom