I concur, the Governers behavior in particular has been reprehensible. That just doesn't excuse this.
What was the order for "second choice" in the Register poll?
And if you pull someone in a car over pretending to be an officer, you'll be sent to jail.
Who said it was a crime? I said it was scummy.
Exactly, because citizens should have trust that those who act as government representatives actually are government representatives. Do you really not see the relation between the two?
I cannot say I'm surprised you asked a question and refuse to listen to an answer. All you are doing is arguing against a bunch of things no one has claimed. If you would spend more time comprehending what people said and less time arguing against things never said, it would save both of us quite a bit of time.
Of course you don't, because you never wanted to in the first place.
But his mailer was definitely trying to look official, in hopes of scaring voters to go to the caucuses. Even you cannot refute that.
No, I'm comparing it with someone acting as a representative of the government. I've only said this many times. If you still don't see it, then it's a you problem.
The mailer "impersonated" an official notice. Which, much like a person impersonating an officer, is scummy. It has nothing to do with legalities, but rather ethics.
Correction, you have no interest in discussing anything which you have, for whatever reason, deemed damaging to your ego. Big difference.
The mailer was. You cannot refute that.
:lamo
No, I am not. I have been very clear multiple times in answering your question. You simply choose not to understand it, which is, of course, your choice, but it does not reflect well.
That doesn't even make sense. At all.
I don't doubt it, I've never been one to hold the hand of those who are incapable of processing more than one thought at a time. I've been quite upfront about it for a long time.
Your five quoted responses to my posts indicates otherwise. :shrug:
Who said anything about anger? Once more, you are arguing against something not said. Perhaps you'd understand things better if you'd debate what is actually said, rather than things which are not?