- Joined
- Apr 29, 2013
- Messages
- 6,081
- Reaction score
- 3,216
- Location
- Benghazi
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Maybe they just couldn't stand her brother.
That would just be petty. I would prefer not to think of the voters as petty.
Maybe they just couldn't stand her brother.
You have to love the right wing apologists. As if you would ever admit falling prey
to your religious right bedfellows? Y'all got up with fleas.
That would just be petty. I would prefer not to think of the voters as petty.
You make the point. You had to Wikipedia her. Want to know what is TRULY sad? the vast majority of voters in that state voted because of the letter after both candidates names and didnt so much as bother to look at who they were voting for.Public interest is not a credential, especially when that interest is largely scandalous, as in Sanford's case. Aside from being an ethically ambiguous ideologue, I don't see what qualifies Sanford as a candidate.
As for Busch:
:lamo OK...see now that was funny. I knew underneath it all you had a sense of humor.That would just be petty. I would prefer not to think of the voters as petty.
LOL !! Someone piss in your Cheerio's ?
Sorry, the left stupidly elected a incompetent ideologue to run the Country, and now Democrats in local races are paying for it.
LOL !!! Minus petty voters the Democrats would be a long forgotten painful memory.
"PETTTY " is what got BO his second term of failure
really? is that why the dems gained in the
senate last year when they had more seats up for grabs than did the GOP? and is that why the dems got about 1.5 million more votes for house elections than did the GOP last year? other than this extremely red district in an extremely red state, exactly what were all these other "local races" the dems are paying for it in?
Yep, "... South Carolina: too small to be a republic; too big to be an insane asylum.."
Actually, the people of SC-1 were pretty stupid with this one. The best way to have got rid of Sanford, who is an embarrassment to anyone with dignity, would be to have elected Colbert... she would have been a one termer and would not have even remotely affected the balance of power in DC... then they could get themselves a real congressman next time around. Now, they just look like foolish people that would elect any yahoo with an "R" next to their name.
Every person in that district to should go to bed this evening in shame as Washington has one more elected hypocrite.
Both wrong. Well...wrong and a half. Lying under oath...bad. Lying under oath while on trial of sexual harassment for jerking off in front of a campaign staffer and asking her to kiss it. Well...thats kinda an issue. Allegations of rape and sexual assault...those kinda matter too. Getting a blow job from someone he classified as a child...well...that just makes him a douchebag. But....a decent president and one I would vote in tomorrow if it were possible, considering who we have as available options.
And the Sanford issue wasn't his cheating it was using public funds to take trips to see his girlfriend.
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.
Actually it was religious right whack jobs exerting their influence over republicans to participate in a blatant witch hunt. If republicans had a brain, they would have gone after him for national security purposes. He put himself in a position to be bribed.
Instead the religious right does what it always does, it attempts to legislate morality.
Sure thing. To suggest that Family Values was not a centerpiece of the republican party is just silly.
Clinton never had to run for office after the lying under oath thing.
The attacks on Clinton were accusations of marital infidelity, you know, character attacks.
It was easier for me...I told the troops lifes not fair, it is what it is, and to shut up and color. ;-)On the whole he did a reasonably good job as POTUS, and I'm uninterested in his private sexual adventures. Perjury committed by the Commander in Chief had an exceptionally corrosive effect on morale and discipline in the federal chain of command. It was a struggle to explain to younger officers why it was that their ultimate commander was someone who would have been judged unfit for service among them.
Ex-SC Gov. Sanford back in political office
Former Republican South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford revived a scandal-scarred political career by winning back his old congressional seat Tuesday in a district that hasn't elected a Democrat in three decades.
The comeback was complete when he defeated Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, the sister of political satirist Stephen Colbert. With 87 percent of the precincts reporting, Sanford had 54 percent of the vote.
too ****in funny to see this level of partisan blindness.
Marrion Barry was what? 21 years ago? half the posters on this thread would have been... what? 4-5 years old? Some of guys are either showing just how old and decrepit you are or how irrelevant your historical facts are.
Marrion Barry was what? 21 years ago? half the posters on this thread would have been... what? 4-5 years old? Some of guys are either showing just how old and decrepit you are or how irrelevant your historical facts are.
Marion Barry is still in office, representing the 8th Ward on the DC City Council.:roll:
Yes, and his case happened... 21 years ago. Most voters in his district are either too young to remember or probably wouldn't care about his drug use. So how is that relevant to.... an elected official today using tax payer money to finance his trips to see his mistress? Before you answer that: Say it wasn't his mistress, it was just his wife. He'd still be using tax payer money to finance his trips to see her. How does that remotely compare to a guy being arrested for drug use? Which I'll I don't need to remind you, you Libertarians seem to be in support of legalizing because it doesn't harm anyone. But, I get it.
20 years from now, drug use will be mostly legal. Using tax payer money to fund trips and see your mistress will still be frowned upon. By most anyways.
I'm in favor of drug legalization and against using public funds for private purposes. What's your point?:roll:
Yes, and his case happened... 21 years ago. Most voters in his district are either too young to remember or probably wouldn't care about his drug use. So how is that relevant to.... an elected official today using tax payer money to finance his trips to see his mistress? Before you answer that: Say it wasn't his mistress, it was just his wife. He'd still be using tax payer money to finance his trips to see her. How does that remotely compare to a guy being arrested for drug use? Which I'll I don't need to remind you, you Libertarians seem to be in support of legalizing because it doesn't harm anyone. But, I get it.
20 years from now, drug use will be mostly legal. Using tax payer money to fund trips and see your mistress will still be frowned upon. By most anyways.