• 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!

Stephen Colbert's Sister Could Stun Republicans and Win a House Seat.....

Is she a dimwitted libofascist prostitute like her brother?
 
Funny thing. Your side had the oppertunity to take control of senate in both 2010 and 2012, and yet the republicans have failed to get a majority. Heck they could not even take Harry Reid's seat in 2010.

I wouldn't boast too much. Democrats renominated Harry Reid. Not exactly something to boast about either.
 
Stephen Colbert may have opted not to pursue a serious political campaign, but another Colbert, his sister, is embarking on one of her own. And though it's still too soon to predict the final outcome, early signs indicate that she has a surprisingly good chance of pulling off a huge upset and capturing what was once a solidly Republican seat.

a-new-poll-shows-elizabaeth-colbert-busch-in-a-virtual-tie-with-her-likely-republican-opponent.jpg


On Tuesday, a Public Policy Polling survey showed Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch in a virtual tie with likely challenger Mark Sanford in the special election to fill South Carolina's vacant House seat. Busch led Sanford 47 percent to 45 percent, just within the poll's 2.9 percent margin of error.

The poll also found Busch tied, at 43 percent, with Curtis Bostic, her other potential foe for the May special election. Bostic and Sanford will go head-to-head in a Republican primary run-off next week, a contest Sanford is heavily favored to win, despite having left the governor's office in disgrace after his bizarre extramarital affair came to light four years ago.

That Busch is performing so well may come as a bit of a surprise. The seat in question, representing South Carolina's 1st District, is reliably red. It hasn't been held by a Democrat in more than 30 years, and Tim Scott (R) last November won re-election there with 62 percent of the vote — double what his Democratic challenger received. (In December, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (R) appointed Scott to fill a vacant Senate seat, prompting the special election.).....snip~

Stephen Colbert's sister could stun Republicans and win a House seat - The Week

So does anybody think Colbert's sister can win this House Seat? Do we have any from SC that is up on this situation?

Why did the Southern Cons allow this Putz to run for the House Seat? This is what I have brought up in the past about Southern Cons trying to make moves without checking with others. Why would you even Risk this House seat over this Douchebag?
cussing.gif


What did we tells ya? The Rest of us that lean Right autta come down there and smacks ya upside the head.
slap2.gif


Ya'll best not lose that seat. Otherwise we gonna have to make ya an offer ya can'ts refuse.
yo2.gif

This is completely face-palm-worthy and retarded, although not much surprises me these days
 
This is completely face-palm-worthy and retarded, although not much surprises me these days

It doesn't really surprise me.....although Sanford thinking he should run and trying to act like he has the Support of GOP is what is the real Joke. Guess he told the S Carolinians, hey you're stuck with me and they fell for it.
 
Neither party deserves to be condemned on the basis of no evidence. I don't believe in guilt by association or innuendo.:cool:

So why on Earth did you decide to respond the person who was trying to illuminate that fact to erod (i.e. the person who was actually making such guilt by association claims)?

It's difficult to believe in your claim above when you choose to respond to the response to such an action rather than the action itself.
 
So why on Earth did you decide to respond the person who was trying to illuminate that fact to erod (i.e. the person who was actually making such guilt by association claims)?

It's difficult to believe in your claim above when you choose to respond to the response to such an action rather than the action itself.

To whom I respond is entirely my choice, and I'm indifferent to your belief/non-belief.:cool:
 
To whom I respond is entirely my choice, and I'm indifferent to your belief/non-belief.:cool:

Yes, and I'm interested in exploring your choices in greater depth, as is obvious by virtue of the way I worded the previous post.

So I repeat, since you clearly failed to comprehend said question, "So why on Earth did you decide to respond the person who was trying to illuminate that fact to erod (i.e. the person who was actually making such guilt by association claims)?"
 
Yes, and I'm interested in exploring your choices in greater depth, as is obvious by virtue of the way I worded the previous post.

So I repeat, since you clearly failed to comprehend said question, "So why on Earth did you decide to respond the person who was trying to illuminate that fact to erod (i.e. the person who was actually making such guilt by association claims)?"

Because that's the post I saw, and because in my experience guilt by association is used much more against Repubs than Dems.:cool:
 
Didn't republicans elect david duke to office at one time?
Actually it was not the GOP who elected David Duke. If you knew anything about Louisiana politics you would not have made that ridiculous statement. As many registered democrats voted for him as GOP.
 
Because that's the post I saw, and because in my experience guilt by association is used much more against Repubs than Dems.:cool:

It was responding to a post that was quoted in the same post you saw. Did you decide to ignore that bit and comment from a position of ignorance due to inaccurate assumptions that you made?

Makes more sense to make a comment from a position of knowledge, no? I mean, you didn't even make a cursory effort to comprehend what you were attempting to "rebut". That's not particularly rational, is it? It would explain why you are apparently oblivious to the guilt by association being used against dems, though.
 
Actually it was not the GOP who elected David Duke. If you knew anything about Louisiana politics you would not have made that ridiculous statement. As many registered democrats voted for him as GOP.

In the republican stronghold of the 81st?
 
I ask a simple Socratic question designed to illuminate the ludicrous nature of a claim made about dems, and instead of applying the minimal amount of rational, intelligent thought to that question in the context in which it was asked, I'm accused of attacking Republicans.

This is why the dems are winning. Far too many republicans have decided to cease having any affiliation with common sense.
 
It was responding to a post that was quoted in the same post you saw. Did you decide to ignore that bit and comment from a position of ignorance due to inaccurate assumptions that you made?

Makes more sense to make a comment from a position of knowledge, no? I mean, you didn't even make a cursory effort to comprehend what you were attempting to "rebut". That's not particularly rational, is it? It would explain why you are apparently oblivious to the guilt by association being used against dems, though.

It makes sense to comment from any position I choose. I was not rebutting anything, but merely noting that there are no records of party affiliations of voters. That required no deeper knowledge of (or interest in) the thread.:cool:
 
It makes sense to comment from any position I choose.

Making a comment form a position of ignorance cannot possibly make sense, by virtue of the definitions of the words involved.

I was not rebutting anything, but merely noting that there are no records of party affiliations of voters.

Then why not "merely note" those things in a way that makes sense? What you did was comment in a way that directly undermined and contradicted your later-stated beliefs.

That required no deeper knowledge of (or interest in) the thread.:cool:

In order to make an intelligent response, knowledge of the context to which you are responding is ALWAYS required. Don't kid yourself. If you wish to make stupid comments, then continue to do as you have done. If you wish to make intelligent ones, though, that are worth reading, rethink your strategy and make sure they are not founded on ignorance.
 
The sad thing is that mark Sanford's name recognition gives him a edge over his primary oppenent. Unfortunately for him but a godsend to all of us sane people, sandfords name is synonymous with scandel.

South Carolina, please show this disgrace to the door.
For the Republicans it is called scandal... when it's the Party of Clinton... it's called a resume enhancer.

Who was that tax cheat? Not Obama's Treasury Secretary Geithner, not Daschle... ahhh... not Linda Chavez... ahhh yeah... House Ways & Means champion... Charlie Rangel.
 
Making a comment form a position of ignorance cannot possibly make sense, by virtue of the definitions of the words involved.



Then why not "merely note" those things in a way that makes sense? What you did was comment in a way that directly undermined and contradicted your later-stated beliefs.



In order to make an intelligent response, knowledge of the context to which you are responding is ALWAYS required. Don't kid yourself. If you wish to make stupid comments, then continue to do as you have done. If you wish to make intelligent ones, though, that are worth reading, rethink your strategy and make sure they are not founded on ignorance.

Wrong, arrogant, and a waste of time.:cool:
 
For the Republicans it is called scandal... when it's the Party of Clinton... it's called a resume enhancer.

Who was that tax cheat? Not Obama's Treasury Secretary Geithner, not Daschle... ahhh... not Linda Chavez... ahhh yeah... House Ways & Means champion... Charlie Rangel.

Geithner's situation has already been explained to you. Several times. Expat tax withholding issues are common. Every big 4 firm has significant people working on just that. It's THAT common. You deliberately choose to ignore the education you received to engage in partisan hackery. House Ways & Means appointments are done outside of the the presidency. Please relearn basic civics.

Linda Chavez was a Bush Nominee. Really. Google Man.
Daschle however is pretty bad.
 
For the Republicans it is called scandal... when it's the Party of Clinton... it's called a resume enhancer.

Who was that tax cheat? Not Obama's Treasury Secretary Geithner, not Daschle... ahhh... not Linda Chavez... ahhh yeah... House Ways & Means champion... Charlie Rangel.

Good evening, zimmer. :2wave:

I liked your term "resume enhancer." :lamo: And you're right about the party designations, too! So far you're 2-0...not bad! :2bow:
 
Voters elected him. There is no data re the party affiliations of his voters.:roll:

Making a comment form a position of ignorance cannot possibly make sense, by virtue of the definitions of the words involved.



Then why not "merely note" those things in a way that makes sense? What you did was comment in a way that directly undermined and contradicted your later-stated beliefs.



In order to make an intelligent response, knowledge of the context to which you are responding is ALWAYS required. Don't kid yourself. If you wish to make stupid comments, then continue to do as you have done. If you wish to make intelligent ones, though, that are worth reading, rethink your strategy and make sure they are not founded on ignorance.

You might want to ask yourself why my simple statement of fact, offered with objective neutrality, set you off on such an odd series of rants.:sigh:
 
Good evening, zimmer. :2wave:

I liked your term "resume enhancer." :lamo: And you're right about the party designations, too! So far you're 2-0...not bad! :2bow:

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:
"Resume enhancer" reminds me of some male-oriented commercials that used to run on cable TV.:shock:
 
Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:
"Resume enhancer" reminds me of some male-oriented commercials that used to run on cable TV.:shock:

Ooooh, you're right. I wonder if the poster did that deliberately... :lamo:
 
You might want to ask yourself why my simple statement of fact, offered with objective neutrality, set you off on such an odd series of rants.:sigh:

You might want to ask yourself why you are under the delusional idea that the eye-roll at the end can co-exist with an "objectively neutral" comment.

I guess it's fun to lie to yourself, though.
 
Back
Top Bottom