RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement.

RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DarkSteven -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/5/2013 7:07:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 probably mostly cuz I am not an American so i think differently than ya'll do & have different expectations.. maybe ya'll need to raise yer standards (a lot)! [:D] Nah. You lower yours.

tj444 -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/5/2013 7:12:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Ah, but there are differences. As an example (and it certainly isn't true in every case), if one of them Blue's doesn't want to own a gun, he won't buy one and will try to prevent you from buying one, too. If a Red doesn't want to buy a gun, he doesn't buy a gun, but he's not likely to attempt to make your choice for you. so thats whats important to you? not getting a govt & system that actually does work for the voters/taxpayers? and that is why (imo) things will never change, never get better, the country will continue to flounder & the 1% will continue to get richer and richer.. oh well..

tj444 -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/5/2013 7:25:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 probably mostly cuz I am not an American so i think differently than ya'll do & have different expectations.. maybe ya'll need to raise yer standards (a lot)! [:D] Nah. You lower yours. I dont need to, its not my country and what Americans decide to do with their country's future is up to them.. I have my opinions and thats all they are, I just think you could do so much better with your country, but its really up to Americans...

DesideriScuri -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/5/2013 7:34:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Ah, but there are differences. As an example (and it certainly isn't true in every case), if one of them Blue's doesn't want to own a gun, he won't buy one and will try to prevent you from buying one, too. If a Red doesn't want to buy a gun, he doesn't buy a gun, but he's not likely to attempt to make your choice for you. so thats whats important to you? not getting a govt & system that actually does work for the voters/taxpayers? and that is why (imo) things will never change, never get better, the country will continue to flounder & the 1% will continue to get richer and richer.. oh well.. We're getting fucked from both sides. I'd rather get fucked from the side that isn't attempting to impose more and more state control. The "less bad of the two choices," while still bad, is the better option.

LizDeluxe -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/7/2013 6:40:03 PM)
Sanford completes political comeback in South Carolina race Who's laughing now, folks?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/7/2013 6:59:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe Sanford completes political comeback in South Carolina race Who's laughing now, folks? The people in the other 49 states and DC.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/7/2013 7:32:58 PM)
Before this one, my personal favorite was a mayor of Hialeah, FL who was convicted of felony racketeering and removed from office. He was then reelected while out on appeall and, mysteriously, the DA dropped the charges. Miami, the other third world country,

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/8/2013 7:57:37 AM)
FR The people in SC got what they deserved. Someone who truly lacks integrity as a politician. But it allows them to continue with the conservative and racist policies they hold near and dear. And for the south, well what more can one expect. It's business as usual....[&:]

LizDeluxe -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/8/2013 4:08:16 PM)
It's gotta be pretty humiliating to lose to this guy.

DomKen -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/8/2013 4:56:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Ah, but there are differences. As an example (and it certainly isn't true in every case), if one of them Blue's doesn't want to own a gun, he won't buy one and will try to prevent you from buying one, too. If a Red doesn't want to buy a gun, he doesn't buy a gun, but he's not likely to attempt to make your choice for you. Ah, but there are differences. As an example (and it certainly isn't true in every case), if one of them Red's doesn't want to have an abortion, she won't have one and will try to prevent you from having one, too. If a Blue doesn't want to have an abortion, she doesn't have one, but she's not likely to attempt to make your choice for you.

thishereboi -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/9/2013 5:13:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe Sanford completes political comeback in South Carolina race Who's laughing now, folks? When my mom was in high school, she moved to SC for a while. Upon hearing that she was from Detroit the teacher asked her to stand up and tell the other children what it was like to take a dog sled to school. From the article I would have to guess that the intelligence level hasn't really risen much down there since then. I am so thankful my grandparents didn't decide to stay.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/9/2013 2:33:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe It's gotta be pretty humiliating to lose to this guy. Not really given that it is SC. This is much more a reflection about the voters in SC than it is about Elizabeth Colbert-Busch. Colbert-Busch has nothing to be embarrassed by. The fact that the voters in SC are not embarrassed by their choice shows where they are coming from quite clearly.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/9/2013 2:42:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe It's gotta be pretty humiliating to lose to this guy. I'd be more humiliated to be the voters. Living proof that the only thing they care about is the little letter after someone's name. Does he cheat? Does he lie? Does he steal? Does he commit other misdemeanors? It's OK. He has the right letter after his name.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/9/2013 2:45:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe It's gotta be pretty humiliating to lose to this guy. I'd be more humiliated to be the voters. Living proof that the only thing they care about is the little letter after someone's name. Does he cheat? Does he lie? Does he steal? Does he commit other misdemeanors? It's OK. He has the right letter after his name. My favorite is the SuperBowl incident. The fact that he can't even respect the terms of his divorce settlement when he is the one who caused the divorce to begin with is truly laughable. He wouldn't have to miss the SuperBowl with his son if he had not behaved in a way to cause a divorce to begin with. The mind boggles...truly.

hlen5 -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/9/2013 3:17:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe It's gotta be pretty humiliating to lose to this guy. I'd be more humiliated to be the voters. Living proof that the only thing they care about is the little letter after someone's name. Does he cheat? Does he lie? Does he steal? Does he commit other misdemeanors? It's OK. He has the right letter after his name. My favorite is the SuperBowl incident. The fact that he can't even respect the terms of his divorce settlement when he is the one who caused the divorce to begin with is truly laughable. He wouldn't have to miss the SuperBowl with his son if he had not behaved in a way to cause a divorce to begin with. The mind boggles...truly. Why didn't he invite his kid to join him at his own home? Sanford thinks he is above the law. I can hardly wait to see what he's caught doing next.

LizDeluxe -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/9/2013 3:37:52 PM)
Sanford is a douchebag. I think that's something that all of us agree on but you have to look a little deeper than that. He's not the first douchebag we've seen in politics and they are on both sides of the aisle even up to and including the Oval Office. When stuff like that happens it desensitizes voters to that sort of thing. One year you tell people it's a personal matter then the next year you run the other guy up a flagpole. It doesn't work that way. Place the blame where it belongs. Secondly, he may be a douchebag but you know how he's going to vote and if he supports the issues you support then you have a quandary. You can take the moral high ground and can send this woman to Congress who is likely going to vote lockstep with Pelosi and vote for everything you do not support or you can send the douchebag who will at least vote for the things that are important to you. The whole moral argument holds a lot more water when it's Sanford and another Republican without all the baggage that you were choosing between. Lastly, the Ashley Madison billboard. Everyone was guffawing it up on the first page of this thread. Did anyone stop to consider that this billboard placed by a company from another country poking fun at Sanford's expense may have motivated a few folks on the fence to vote for him because the billboard pissed them off? It was funny when Colbert Busch was nine points ahead. It's not so funny now, is it?

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/9/2013 4:31:23 PM)
No one's disputing the immorality of voting for Sanford.... But all kidding aside, I agree that at the end of the day we each vote for the people who we feel will best represent us politically (even if not personally). HOWEVER, when you are the so-called party of family values it is a level of hypocrisy that the Democrats can't quite match. It is not part of the Democratic party's political platform to go on and on about family values. So if I vote for a Democrat who is divorced, or had an affair, etc., etc., it doesn't really matter because most Democrats believe those things are private issues to be sorted out between the parties involved. Whereas conservatives constantly want to define for other people what the rules are. If one feels they have the right to legislate private morality (including things like birth control) then shouldn't they be following that private morality themselves? I don't see a lot of Democratic voters or Democratic politicians pushing for policies that prevent people from exercising personal freedoms in their private lives. At the end of the day, this shows conservative voters don't give a flying f* about private morality. Then why do the Republicans keep trying to legislate private morality for the rest of us? If they can leave Sanford alone then leave the rest of us the f* alone, too.....[:D]

LizDeluxe -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/9/2013 5:18:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Whereas conservatives constantly want to define for other people what the rules are. Weak. Both parties do this. Gay marriage. Both sides are pushing for their viewpoint and want to define for other people what the rules are. Same for abortion, gun control, death penalty... you name it. Passing any law by its very nature defines what the rules are for everyone. How was Roe versus Wade any less a measure to legislate private morality? Eleven states (at last count) have approved gay marriage. How is that any less a measure to legislate private morality? You cannot attack the ones you disapprove of and herald the ones you agree with. Well, you can. Most people do. That's why we're in the mess we're in.

Lucylastic -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/9/2013 6:02:15 PM)
Abortion, not legislation for every person...entrenched womens rights Gay marriage again, not legislating against ANYONE, civil rights for EVERYONE Death penalty???

thishereboi -> RE: Mark Sanford picks up another endorsement. (5/9/2013 8:02:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess No one's disputing the immorality of voting for Sanford.... But all kidding aside, I agree that at the end of the day we each vote for the people who we feel will best represent us politically (even if not personally). HOWEVER, when you are the so-called party of family values it is a level of hypocrisy that the Democrats can't quite match. It is not part of the Democratic party's political platform to go on and on about family values. So if I vote for a Democrat who is divorced, or had an affair, etc., etc., it doesn't really matter because most Democrats believe those things are private issues to be sorted out between the parties involved. Whereas conservatives constantly want to define for other people what the rules are. If one feels they have the right to legislate private morality (including things like birth control) then shouldn't they be following that private morality themselves? I don't see a lot of Democratic voters or Democratic politicians pushing for policies that prevent people from exercising personal freedoms in their private lives. At the end of the day, this shows conservative voters don't give a flying f* about private morality. Then why do the Republicans keep trying to legislate private morality for the rest of us? If they can leave Sanford alone then leave the rest of us the f* alone, too.....[:D] doesn't that broad brush make your arms hurt when you swing it around like that. [8\|]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875