They forgot to target the NAACP.

Why would they? Has the NAACP called for the violent overthrow of the government?

To collect taxes.

They forgot to target the NAACP.

These great patriots are defending the constitution.

Someone needs to be fired.

McAuliffe vs House of Cards

What a major stud.

Pennsylvania legislative maps upheld.

The Democratic vicious gerrymander is no more.

Link



Cuccinelli 45
McAuliffe 42


Mr. Cuccinelli is very popular with the voters of the Commonwealth.

Leading by 3 against a poor and stale candidate isn't being VERY popular.

How about a 51-24 approval rating?

Link



Christie 62
Buono 28





Christie is looking good as of late.

Link



Cuccinelli 45
McAuliffe 42


Mr. Cuccinelli is very popular with the voters of the Commonwealth.

It is quite interesting. The freeloaders using EBT are exempt from paying sales  taxes that real Americans have to pay in some situations.

My God you're vile.

Hmm? Well, you see, when those types come in and buy coke, cigs, booze, chips, salsa, and a magazine, and split tender with cash and EBT, its quite tricky to allocate the proper sales tax.

Another -- some states tax different items. Some states tax food, and some don't. Some tax prescription medicines, and some don't. Some tax religious materials and some don't. 

It is quite interesting. The freeloaders using EBT are exempt from paying sales  taxes that real Americans have to pay in some situations.

If he is still around, John Boehner's district cannot and will not be messed with in such a manner.

Congress is a horrible place to work. The clubby, statesmanlike atmosphere of the mid-20th century is gone.

It's way too expensive to run. If you have more than few nickles to rub together, you're expected to pour at least hundreds of thousands of dollars into your campaign. The rest comes from endless fundraising and cattle calls and from prostituting yourself to every PAC and trade association in town.

And you have to do it every two years, which essentially means it never ends.

I get running for Senate - you only have to do it every six years. You have more leeway to run for governor in a less partisan climate by focusing on local issues. But who in their right mind would run for a seat in the US House of Representatives?

So why did that "club" atmosphere disappear?

Too many takers, not enough makers, and no cash to grease the wheels.

In the current climate, I doubt Sanford's dalliances will mean squat, and the "normal" partisan divide will redux itself. It is not as if the Dems are on a roll at the moment - they are not.

I say this knowing next to nothing about the district.

Wise man.

Sanford up by nearly 10%.

Yeah, we now have a Todd Akin IN CONGRESS.

Alcee Hastings has been in Congress for a long time.

Sanford up by nearly 10%.

Sanford is soaring.

Berkeley dump. Sanford 60%

Sanford in the lead!

Karen Tumulty ‏@ktumulty 33m
Interviewed about a dozen voters at @ColbertBuschSC home polling place in Mt Pleasant. All but one had voted for @MarkSanford #sc

No kidding. So a handful of SC-01 voters are voting for Sanford just like a 'handful' of Billy Long's constituents don't like sequestration!  

This is a confusing theory, because in a few hours, Sanford will have acquired thousands of votes.

Eh, I'm only making inferences from what you've posted.

And I'm sure there are likewise  thousands of voters in MO-07 who don't want sequestration.

I merely cited the latest news concerning the topic of this discussion.

We have these things called elections and the number of voters that support Mr. Sanford will be reasonably well counted and may yet well be a majority. The number of voters that oppose sequestration in Missouri's 7th district is an unknown number in which any fellow can make whatever assumption they choose to suit whatever goal that they have in mind. It an interesting curiosity to compare facts to assumptions and brand them as equivalent.

Karen Tumulty ‏@ktumulty 33m
Interviewed about a dozen voters at @ColbertBuschSC home polling place in Mt Pleasant. All but one had voted for @MarkSanford #sc

No kidding. So a handful of SC-01 voters are voting for Sanford just like a 'handful' of Billy Long's constituents don't like sequestration! 

This is a confusing theory, because in a few hours, Sanford will have acquired thousands of votes.

Am I the only one who thinks it's a bit odd Republicans are supporting this and Democrats opposing? On the forum that is. It's a tax after all.

It is quite odd especially given that Democrats tend to live in and elect people who enact sales taxes.

Karen Tumulty ‏@ktumulty 33m
Interviewed about a dozen voters at @ColbertBuschSC home polling place in Mt Pleasant. All but one had voted for @MarkSanford #sc

You are in utter denial of exactly who and what you have become. You are part and parcel of a movement that holds to a principled intolerance. What in previous time would be considered the height of poor manners is treated a mere political discourse. You just gratuitously called me "mean," "unpleasant most of the time" and a "'prick,'" as if those weren't your own words. Didn't actually occur to you that your actions were the epitome of being "mean," and "unpleasant?" Apparently, an aggressive self-righteous is part and parcel of that principled intolerance.

Best I can tell, you looked the other way the whole time. Your protestations reek of partisan, and personal, hypocrisy.

Have a nice day.

You're calling me partisan and intolerant? How funny. Is that why many of my best friends here are Republicans while all parties seem to agree that you're an arrogant troll? You can use whatever fancy words you want, but I think thats the key here.

Even if you were be in my party and I'd still be criticizing you for your belligerent and destructive style. You don't come here to contribute anything positive. You're just lookin' for fights, while hijacking a few threads in the process.

I see your hypocrisy meter is hitting high. You accuse me of having a "belligerent and destructive style" while repeating attacking me on a personal level for no apparent reason. Calling me a "troll" isn't even a plausible attack. Word have meanings. A "troll" is by definition a person who writes things they don't actually believe solely for the purpose of annoying people. If you think I am anything other than sincere you are an extremely poor judge of character. From what you have written, the root of your obsession  with me seems to be the fact you considered yourself a better political analyst than I, and, visa versa. You seem to consider the solution my agreeing with your self-assessments. I consider that arrogant and presumptuous.

Again, Miles, I would remind you that in a redistricting thread I pointed out that you had not been truthful with another poster. You response was to go ballistic against me on a personal level acting wounded and aggrieved. Later in the same thread, you admitted to yet another poster that what I had noted was indeed entirely correct. It is one thing for a Bill Clinton, who wanted to be President, to disassemble about his fidelity when he had been caught in a series of affairs. It is another for a poster on the internet to blame an innocent person rather than take responsibility for his actions. That is why I consider you a person of low moral character. Life is too short to invest any personal effort into such persons, Miles.

In this thread, a series of partisan Democrats were suggesting to Republicans they effectively vote for Colbert because Sanford had had an affair. My response was to point out the hypocrisy of those offering that suggestion regarding Bill Clinton. In response, I have received a series of ad hominem attacks ranging from "boob" to "troll." You want escalate the personal attacks by  engaging in amateur psychoanalysis. Instead of accepting my accusations of hypocrisy at face value, you are now claiming the real issue is some unstated desire to "attack" others  and "pick fights." Instead of accepting the fact that refuting an argument is inherently arguing the negative, you claim the real issue is my "negativity." [It doesn't seem register on your partisan brain that I see the election of one Randroid in Congress to be a"positive" and that I was being "positive" in noting the potential upside in a Sanford victory.] In a thread in which poster and poster were giddy about the impending victory of Colbert I stated my preference that Sanford win, and that is equated with "hijacking" a thread.

You have to recall that Miles is a guy who took the incredibly logical approach of concluding that Missouri is a miserable place because the people of Springfield weren't whining about sequestration.