JJ Husker Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 In this thread we have Dems Who are the "Dems" posting in this thread? Here's who's posted: knapplc (the thread starter - THE OP!!!!) QMany carlfense Junior Creighton Duke BigRedBuster I don't know if they're dems (at least 2 of the first 4 have denied it) or dem leaning, but the first 3 comments after your OP were skewed to this being a GOP issue. I guess when certain people constantly attack all things republican and conservative and stick up for most things liberal and dem, well, they're bound to get lumped in as dems whether or not they actually are. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck............around here it claims to be an independent. It really shouldn't seem out of line or unearned. Just once it would be nice to see an example from either side of the aisle that isn't screwing the taxpayers in one way or another. Like a taxpayer funded liaison with his mistress is really any worse than a President having an affair with an intern in the oval office, or killing a girl in a drunken auto accident, or..or..or. This Sanford deal is the issue that we're supposed to get all up in arms about? 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted May 8, 2013 Author Share Posted May 8, 2013 In this thread we have Dems Who are the "Dems" posting in this thread? Here's who's posted: knapplc (the thread starter - THE OP!!!!) QMany carlfense Junior Creighton Duke BigRedBuster I don't know if they're dems (at least 2 of the first 4 have denied it) or dem leaning, but the first 3 comments after your OP were skewed to this being a GOP issue. I guess when certain people constantly attack all things republican and conservative and stick up for most things liberal and dem, well, they're bound to get lumped in as dems whether or not they actually are. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck............around here it claims to be an independent. It really shouldn't seem out of line or unearned. Just once it would be nice to see an example from either side of the aisle that isn't screwing the taxpayers in one way or another. Like a taxpayer funded liaison with his mistress is really any worse than a President having an affair with an intern in the oval office, or killing a girl in a drunken auto accident, or..or..or. This Sanford deal is the issue that we're supposed to get all up in arms about? Are you happy Sanford, a guy who used taxpayer money to fund his liaisons with his Argentine mistress, is now back in politics as a US Congressman? Link to comment
rawhide Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 Hows come nobody picks on us independents? Or could we just be classified as politically agnostic??? Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 Political parties: the single largest flaw of America's Democratic government system... 1 Link to comment
Whistlebritches Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 So you would be alright with an employee disappearing for a week in your company truck to drive cross-country to bang his mistress. Not only ok with it but you'd hire him again when he asked for his job back. WTH And to be fair to BRB there is a LOT of love of everything Bill Clinton. Maybe not in this thread by these posters but he is well loved by the party. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 Are you happy Sanford, a guy who used taxpayer money to fund his liaisons with his Argentine mistress, is now back in politics as a US Congressman? No, absolutely not happy about it. Voters can be extremely stupid. Carl did have a point about this probably being the result of him having an R behind his name, in that area, in this particular race. Sad thing is, we don't have better people running and we aren't likely to get better people seeking office. We can lament all day long about voters picking R's or D's but when either one is likely to be a crook and cheat, does it really matter? Link to comment
knapplc Posted May 8, 2013 Author Share Posted May 8, 2013 Are you happy Sanford, a guy who used taxpayer money to fund his liaisons with his Argentine mistress, is now back in politics as a US Congressman? No, absolutely not happy about it. Then we are, once again, in agreement. Detente! Link to comment
lo country Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 Didn't Clinton have relations with and intern in the White House while our tax payers dollars paid his salary? Didn't our tax payers pay for the impeachment after he lied? I guess it depends what you define oral as. My point being for either side to throw out improprieties by either party using tax dollars is crazy. People vote party. Look at any election. Always have and always will. Out of curiosity, have any of those posting lived in or currently live in the south? Cultural issues come into play in all elections. Read a decent article on Drudge that said the special election really tells us nothing on the national political scales. Hard for Republicans outside of SC to call it a victory as the RNC did everything possible to not support him. Had the Dems won, they would have said it was a referendum on the Republican party when in reality, IMO, it would have been SC not giving the guy a second chance. He will probably be a pain in the a$$ o the "establishment Republicans". As brutal as the R primary was, I am surprised he won. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Didn't Clinton have relations with and intern in the White House while our tax payers dollars paid his salary? Didn't our tax payers pay for the impeachment after he lied? I guess it depends what you define oral as. My point being for either side to throw out improprieties by either party using tax dollars is crazy. People vote party. Look at any election. Always have and always will. Out of curiosity, have any of those posting lived in or currently live in the south? Cultural issues come into play in all elections. Read a decent article on Drudge that said the special election really tells us nothing on the national political scales. Hard for Republicans outside of SC to call it a victory as the RNC did everything possible to not support him. Had the Dems won, they would have said it was a referendum on the Republican party when in reality, IMO, it would have been SC not giving the guy a second chance. He will probably be a pain in the a$$ o the "establishment Republicans". As brutal as the R primary was, I am surprised he won. You are correct about Clinton. But I think there is one major difference. I think Sanford specifically used taxpayer dollars for the trip to South America to see his mistress. I could be wrong but I feel pretty confident in that. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Are you happy Sanford, a guy who used taxpayer money to fund his liaisons with his Argentine mistress, is now back in politics as a US Congressman? No, absolutely not happy about it. Then we are, once again, in agreement. Detente! I'm good with detent, dehouse, decar, wherever :-). I'm not gonna get all riled up on my 50th over politics. Had me some Jameson and ready to go out for a birthday meal. Link to comment
strigori Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Are you happy Sanford, a guy who used taxpayer money to fund his liaisons with his Argentine mistress, is now back in politics as a US Congressman? No, absolutely not happy about it. Voters can be extremely stupid. Carl did have a point about this probably being the result of him having an R behind his name, in that area, in this particular race. Sad thing is, we don't have better people running and we aren't likely to get better people seeking office. We can lament all day long about voters picking R's or D's but when either one is likely to be a crook and cheat, does it really matter? Its just that one of the two candidates is a known cheat (if it was at a business it would have been called embezzlement) and a candidate who might be. The heavily gerrymandered districts is the reason, I would need convincing that a known KKK member wouldn't be a lock in districts like that. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 . . . but the first 3 comments after your OP were skewed to this being a GOP issue. You've got a funny way of counting to one . . . Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 I'm good with detent, dehouse, decar, wherever :-). I'm not gonna get all riled up on my 50th over politics. Had me some Jameson and ready to go out for a birthday meal. Happy birthday! Make sure that they don't overcook your bday steak . . . 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted May 9, 2013 Author Share Posted May 9, 2013 Didn't Clinton have relations with and intern in the White House while our tax payers dollars paid his salary? Didn't our tax payers pay for the impeachment after he lied? I guess it depends what you define oral as. My point being for either side to throw out improprieties by either party using tax dollars is crazy. People vote party. Look at any election. Always have and always will. Out of curiosity, have any of those posting lived in or currently live in the south? Cultural issues come into play in all elections. Read a decent article on Drudge that said the special election really tells us nothing on the national political scales. Hard for Republicans outside of SC to call it a victory as the RNC did everything possible to not support him. Had the Dems won, they would have said it was a referendum on the Republican party when in reality, IMO, it would have been SC not giving the guy a second chance. He will probably be a pain in the a$$ o the "establishment Republicans". As brutal as the R primary was, I am surprised he won. You're tilting at windmills. NOBODY is defending Clinton. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 . . . but the first 3 comments after your OP were skewed to this being a GOP issue. You've got a funny way of counting to one . . . Yeah, 2 & 3 required a little creativity based on past experience. Thanks for the bday wish. Good but safe guess on it being steak. Link to comment
Recommended Posts