goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Rage Against the McKee on June 18, 2014, 09:14:09 AM
-
The republican primary is coming up first part of August. Who are you voting for?
-
Woah woah. Dave.
I am trying to tell you about rough ridin' my wife in the ass here, and you're asking me all of these personal questions.
-
Gov: Brownback (does he have a primary challenger?)
Sen: Roberts
House (4th): Pompeo.
The only one that's really interesting to me if Pompeo v. Tiahrt, but I like Mike (hey, that's a good slogan!) because according to his ads he "led troops along the Iron Curtain" which I guess means he was stationed for a time in Germany in the 80s. :lol: He did graduate number 1 from West Point, though, which is pretty impressive.
-
Downtown is going to be a cluster eff. :frown:
-
Roberts is way too old to have a clue, voted against NBAF, and doesn't live in KS.
-
Roberts is way too old to have a clue, voted against NBAF, and doesn't live in KS.
Yes, but his opponent is a tea party physician who doesn't think Roberts has been conservative enough. It's a tough choice, but I think I will stick with Roberts. It has to be his last term anyway, right?
-
Gov: Brownback (does he have a primary challenger?)
Sen: Roberts
House (4th): Pompeo.
The only one that's really interesting to me if Pompeo v. Tiahrt, but I like Mike (hey, that's a good slogan!) because according to his ads he "led troops along the Iron Curtain" which I guess means he was stationed for a time in Germany in the 80s. :lol: He did graduate number 1 from West Point, though, which is pretty impressive.
Brownback actually does have a primary challenger. Jennifer Winn. Voting for her is probably a waste of time, but I will probably give it a try anyway.
-
Roberts is way too old to have a clue, voted against NBAF, and doesn't live in KS.
hopefully just because of the first part :sdeek:
-
I think I will vote for former Lawrence school board president, businessman, and attorney Scott Morgan over Kris Kobach.
I'm also voting for Alan LaPolice over steve dave's guy Tim Huelskamp.
-
if any of you vote for tim huelskamp you're a confirmed piece of human garbage.
-
I am going to vote straight R baby. Just the right hand button for me please.
-
I think I will vote for former Lawrence school board president, businessman, and attorney Scott Morgan over Kris Kobach.
I'm also voting for Alan LaPolice over steve dave's guy Tim Huelskamp.
I think you're an alright person. :thumbs:
-
I am going to vote straight R baby. Just the right hand button for me please.
It's a primary, though. You have to read between the R's here.
-
I am going to vote straight R baby. Just the right hand button for me please.
It's a primary, though. You have to read between the R's here.
There are R's and there are RINO's. It's RINO hunting season in KS baby!
-
I am going to vote straight R baby. Just the right hand button for me please.
It's a primary, though. You have to read between the R's here.
There are R's and there are RINO's. It's RINO hunting season in KS baby!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FoSxTSnA.png&hash=6e91744126ffdfbbc7dabd706c3612f1c086ae8c)
-
:lol:
-
:D
-
:surprised:
-
Not gonna lie, pretty butthurt that my extremely topical, as well as hilarious, gem was over looked.
-
Not gonna lie, pretty butthurt that my extremely topical, as well as hilarious, gem was over looked.
it was as awful as the rest of your posting
-
Not gonna lie, pretty butthurt that my extremely topical, as well as hilarious, gem was over looked.
it was as awful as the rest of your posting
Big surprise, goes right over steve daves head.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FaSGGIwE.gif&hash=f7bb62d5177a6c6a2e3fb2dce71e0725edebf7ea)
-
Not gonna lie, pretty butthurt that my extremely topical, as well as hilarious, gem was over looked.
it was as awful as the rest of your posting
Big surprise, goes right over steve daves head.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FaSGGIwE.gif&hash=f7bb62d5177a6c6a2e3fb2dce71e0725edebf7ea)
It's a two part bit so you didn't really execute it all that well. And it assumes that rage against the McKee is a white guy.
-
Not gonna lie, pretty butthurt that my extremely topical, as well as hilarious, gem was over looked.
it was as awful as the rest of your posting
Big surprise, goes right over steve daves head.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FaSGGIwE.gif&hash=f7bb62d5177a6c6a2e3fb2dce71e0725edebf7ea)
It's a two part bit so you didn't really execute it all that well. And it assumes that rage against the McKee is a white guy.
Are you kidding? The execution was fantastic. I was just betting the odds on the white part.
-
Not gonna lie, pretty butthurt that my extremely topical, as well as hilarious, gem was over looked.
it was as awful as the rest of your posting
Big surprise, goes right over steve daves head.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FaSGGIwE.gif&hash=f7bb62d5177a6c6a2e3fb2dce71e0725edebf7ea)
I loved it , because I'm well versed in classic comedy and knew exactly what you were clowning about.
:thumbsup:
-
Roberts is way too old to have a clue, voted against NBAF, and doesn't live in KS.
Yes, but his opponent is a tea party physician who doesn't think Roberts has been conservative enough. It's a tough choice, but I think I will stick with Roberts. It has to be his last term anyway, right?
Dr. Milton Wolf. He's Obama's second cousin. :sdeek: also, he actually lives in Kansas (Johnson co) and doesn't have near the campaign money that Roberts has. Roberts isn't a bad person but it's time for him to go.
-
I couldn't care less if a senator lives in Kansas. Actually probably better if they didn't.
-
I couldn't care less if a senator lives in Kansas. Actually probably better if they didn't.
i want pork spending that supports ks.
-
I couldn't care less if a senator lives in Kansas. Actually probably better if they didn't.
i want pork spending that supports ks.
you do that without living here
-
I couldn't care less if a senator lives in Kansas. Actually probably better if they didn't.
i want pork spending that supports ks.
you do that without living here
YOU CAN IF YOU VOTE FOR rough ridin' NBAF
-
I don't care about living in state either. I just want a guy that won't say stupid stuff, do stupid stuff, or vote in a stupid way.
-
I don't care about living in state either. I just want a guy that won't say stupid stuff, do stupid stuff, or vote in a stupid way.
I don't think that guy exists. The only thing I find appealing about Roberts over Wolf is that he is 78. This is going to be his last election. If this Wolf guy wins, we could be stuck with him for 20 years.
http://www.miltonwolf.com/
Milton Wolf is a doctor, not a politician.
He believes America must re-embrace the Constitution
and the divinely-inspired American Idea of individual liberty,
limited government and free-market values.
Want to drive Barack Obama crazy? Send his very own fearless
conservative cousin -- "the next Ted Cruz" -- to the
United States Senate!
-
anyone who proclaims himself as "the next ted cruz" gets my vote for sure
-
I definitely like the idea of basing my vote on who is going to drive Barack Obama the craziest.
-
actually, why aren't you voting for this guy ksudub?
-
Huelskamp's latest tweet is just and absolute treat.
-
Huelskamp's latest tweet is just and absolute treat.
The one with the photos of him at the #March4Marriage or the one where he claims rural America is THE endangered species?
-
Huelskamp's latest tweet is just and absolute treat.
The one with the photos of him at the #March4Marriage or the one where he claims rural America is THE endangered species?
they're both fantastic, but the #March4Marriage one.
-
Was fanning insinuating that the GOP primary was going to make downtown KC a mess? Do you think he thought we were talking about the RNC?
:D
-
I liked Milton Wolf's commercial. I'd vote for him in a primary.
Does this go here?
-
Wolf looks a lot better right now, because he isn't relying on attack ads. I really don't care for either candidate.
-
I really liked that he was running to get something done. Something that he feels his constituents want. Go there get it done, then get back to his real job. As our forefathers intended.
-
Wolf looks a lot better right now, because he isn't relying on attack ads. I really don't care for either candidate.
Isn't his entire campaign based around Roberts not living in Kansas?
-
Wolf looks a lot better right now, because he isn't relying on attack ads. I really don't care for either candidate.
Isn't his entire campaign based around Roberts not living in Kansas?
He's taking the tea party/ not a career politician stance from what I've seen. Roberts has been plastering smear ads all over the local stations. Watching them try to out conservative each other has been fun.
-
Wolf looks a lot better right now, because he isn't relying on attack ads. I really don't care for either candidate.
Isn't his entire campaign based around Roberts not living in Kansas?
He's taking the tea party/ not a career politician stance from what I've seen. Roberts has been plastering smear ads all over the local stations. Watching them try to out conservative each other has been fun.
I'm enjoying Tiahrt and Pompeo sparring. Most of the jabs have been from Tiahrt, calling out Pompeo for being non-conservative and supporting Obamacare. I don't think he really supported it, but he did vote for a few bills Obamacare was tied to.
Pompeo has been mostly talking aviation jobs and his military service. He did have one flub though. He had an ad focusing on KS farmers, but used footage of a European combine/ wheat harvest instead of a Kansas wheat harvest. Some implement salesman/ farmer from western Kansas called him out on it. The campaign immediately apologized and cut the clip from the ad.
This is 4th district stuff.
Anyway, Huelskamp has got to go. I'm for Dem. Sherow (despite my seemingly small government mindset).
-
Hey elites, long time lurker in the pit, seldom poster, but tonight I feel obligated to do so after searching LaPolice and only finding one post about him. Great, great dude. He asked to put a sign in our yard on a busy highway today, after quizzing him a bit, I found he has Dr. Barry Flinchbaugh as an advisor and he says he speaks to him daily. He seems down to earth, not a freak out conservative, kill the gays, murder the illegals, kind-of-republican. He's a veteran from podunk Clyde, Kansas, driving around in a beat-up, early 90's late 80's F-150 (no crap, he's had it in parades), and says Huelskamp has to go. No polish, no money, just cares a bunch I guess. I know nothing about Sherow yet, but I think I like this LaPolice guy. Unfortunately, my buddy who is real close with Moran (think real, real close) says he probably has no shot at beating Tim's big pockets. The guy has never held an elected position before, so take that for what it is worth. Please check him out, because eff huelskamp.
http://www.true-conservative.org/home.html
-
Loved Flinchbaugh's Ag Policy class!
-
Loved Flinchbaugh's Ag Policy class!
if I failed at anything regarding academia at KSU, it is that I did not take a class from Barry or Joe Arata.
-
Love lapolice's radio ad about how much of an bad person huels is
-
Had an old lady stop me outside the grocery store this week and ask me to sign a petition to get some independent on the ballot for ks senate.
I had never heard of the guy before and asked what his positions are. She looked confused. I asked her what stances he is running on. She said:
"Well, he doesn't have kids but really likes dogs and stuff".
-
Had an old lady stop me outside the grocery store this week and ask me to sign a petition to get some independent on the ballot for ks senate.
I had never heard of the guy before and asked what his positions are. She looked confused. I asked her what stances he is running on. She said:
"Well, he doesn't have kids but really likes dogs and stuff".
Running on the stud/boss ticket.
-
I get "eff Huelskamp" PAC mailers with a farmer in a K-State hate on them. I will vote for LaPolice in the primary.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj3dbDM4tes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj3dbDM4tes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1heZaIXTsM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1heZaIXTsM)
:jerk:
-
I get "eff Huelskamp" PAC mailers with a farmer in a K-State hate on them. I will vote for LaPolice in the primary.
Lapolice really hates him, it's great
-
If Huelskamp gets reelected, this state is pretty much hopeless.
-
I get "eff Huelskamp" PAC mailers with a farmer in a K-State hate on them. I will vote for LaPolice in the primary.
Have you not seen the commercial?
-
I think I may vote for Wolf in the primary tomorrow, mainly because I'm sick of Roberts' attack ads.
-
warm up the tractor!!!
http://youtu.be/qt5ypIWt5AM (http://youtu.be/qt5ypIWt5AM)
-
I think I may vote for Wolf in the primary tomorrow, mainly because I'm sick of Roberts' attack ads.
Yeah, Roberts has really made himself look like a giant bag of 80 year old crap with this campaign he is running. It's very disappointing, because Milton Wolf seems just terrible, too. Why couldn't Roberts just run his campaign like Mike Pompeo is doing?
-
warm up the tractor!!!
http://youtu.be/qt5ypIWt5AM (http://youtu.be/qt5ypIWt5AM)
lapolice's youtube channel has a must watch playlist of b-roll clips of him silently turning his gaze towards the camera and tractoring and stuff. must watch!
-
Lapolice is Mexican for THE POLICE!!!! :runaway:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F1272644%2Fthumbs%2Fo-CHRIS-FARLEY-EL-NINO-facebook.jpg&hash=f34af6e81e341e6073719511ea927dee0f0684f6)
-
is it french for anything? :Yuck:
-
That is pretty great.
-
Lapolice is Mexican for THE POLICE!!!! :runaway:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F1272644%2Fthumbs%2Fo-CHRIS-FARLEY-EL-NINO-facebook.jpg&hash=f34af6e81e341e6073719511ea927dee0f0684f6)
More Meximerican.
Not The Police or La Policia.
-
warm up the tractor!!!
http://youtu.be/qt5ypIWt5AM (http://youtu.be/qt5ypIWt5AM)
lapolice's youtube channel has a must watch playlist of b-roll clips of him silently turning his gaze towards the camera and tractoring and stuff. must watch!
also silently talking to an old lady in slo motion
-
warm up the tractor!!!
http://youtu.be/qt5ypIWt5AM (http://youtu.be/qt5ypIWt5AM)
lapolice's youtube channel has a must watch playlist of b-roll clips of him silently turning his gaze towards the camera and tractoring and stuff. must watch!
also silently talking to an old lady in slo motion
LOL, these are fantastic.
-
wow, this race is great. Lapolice also misspelled "Clyde" on his twitter bio
https://twitter.com/AlanLaPolice
Also, this happened.
http://www.hutchnews.com/news/local_state_news/gay-movie-becomes-issue-in-lapolice-huelskamp-race/article_aefeb550-6554-5b1e-88ae-110cc90704f9.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1222330/
:lol:
-
sounds like he basically played tim huelskamp in that movie
-
Had an old lady stop me outside the grocery store this week and ask me to sign a petition to get some independent on the ballot for ks senate.
I had never heard of the guy before and asked what his positions are. She looked confused. I asked her what stances he is running on. She said:
"Well, he doesn't have kids but really likes dogs and stuff".
Was it this guy?
http://www.ormanforsenate.com/
I might vote for him in the general election. I have no idea where he stands on the issues, but he is not Pat Roberts or Milton Wolf and that might just be enough for me.
-
Had an old lady stop me outside the grocery store this week and ask me to sign a petition to get some independent on the ballot for ks senate.
I had never heard of the guy before and asked what his positions are. She looked confused. I asked her what stances he is running on. She said:
"Well, he doesn't have kids but really likes dogs and stuff".
Was it this guy?
http://www.ormanforsenate.com/
I might vote for him in the general election. I have no idea where he stands on the issues, but he is not Pat Roberts or Milton Wolf and that might just be enough for me.
:dunno: Does he have kids? How does he feel about dogs?
-
Had an old lady stop me outside the grocery store this week and ask me to sign a petition to get some independent on the ballot for ks senate.
I had never heard of the guy before and asked what his positions are. She looked confused. I asked her what stances he is running on. She said:
"Well, he doesn't have kids but really likes dogs and stuff".
Was it this guy?
http://www.ormanforsenate.com/
I might vote for him in the general election. I have no idea where he stands on the issues, but he is not Pat Roberts or Milton Wolf and that might just be enough for me.
:dunno: Does he have kids? How does he feel about dogs?
(https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ormanforsenate/pages/4/attachments/original/1401720412/GregandSybil.jpg?1401720412)
Greg now lives in Olathe with his wife, Sybil, and their two dogs, Lucy and Mala. Greg is involved with several businesses throughout the country, including Combat Brands in Lenexa, Kansas, and Sybil is earning her Ph.D in Education Leadership and Policy Studies program at the University of Kansas after spending 4 years teaching at the Turner School District in Kansas City, Kansas.
Looks like he has no kids.
-
I own two handguns. I believe in Second Amendment rights of Americans to keep and bear arms.
Both times that I bought a handgun, I was required to go through a mandatory background check to ensure that I was a U.S. citizen who hadn’t been convicted of domestic violence, subject to a restraining order for harassing, stalking, or threatening behavior, incarcerated for longer than a year, dishonorably discharged from the military, or determined to be mentally defective. Over 700,000 people who met the description above have been prevented from buying firearms at licensed dealers since the background check requirements went into effect.
The idea that those 700,000 people could simply head to a gun show and buy a firearm without the same background scrutiny doesn’t make sense to me. While there are likely other illegal ways for criminals to get firearms, we shouldn’t make it easy for a violent offender or a mentally ill individual to get a gun. The process for me took a few minutes and ultimately resulted in me being able to buy my handguns without delay.
This Orman guy seems like he isn't insane or anything. That probably gives him zero chance of winning.
-
Had an old lady stop me outside the grocery store this week and ask me to sign a petition to get some independent on the ballot for ks senate.
I had never heard of the guy before and asked what his positions are. She looked confused. I asked her what stances he is running on. She said:
"Well, he doesn't have kids but really likes dogs and stuff".
Was it this guy?
http://www.ormanforsenate.com/
I might vote for him in the general election. I have no idea where he stands on the issues, but he is not Pat Roberts or Milton Wolf and that might just be enough for me.
:dunno: Does he have kids? How does he feel about dogs?
(https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ormanforsenate/pages/4/attachments/original/1401720412/GregandSybil.jpg?1401720412)
Greg now lives in Olathe with his wife, Sybil, and their two dogs, Lucy and Mala. Greg is involved with several businesses throughout the country, including Combat Brands in Lenexa, Kansas, and Sybil is earning her Ph.D in Education Leadership and Policy Studies program at the University of Kansas after spending 4 years teaching at the Turner School District in Kansas City, Kansas.
Looks like he has no kids.
Yeah, that's him.
-
I own two handguns. I believe in Second Amendment rights of Americans to keep and bear arms.
Both times that I bought a handgun, I was required to go through a mandatory background check to ensure that I was a U.S. citizen who hadn’t been convicted of domestic violence, subject to a restraining order for harassing, stalking, or threatening behavior, incarcerated for longer than a year, dishonorably discharged from the military, or determined to be mentally defective. Over 700,000 people who met the description above have been prevented from buying firearms at licensed dealers since the background check requirements went into effect.
The idea that those 700,000 people could simply head to a gun show and buy a firearm without the same background scrutiny doesn’t make sense to me. While there are likely other illegal ways for criminals to get firearms, we shouldn’t make it easy for a violent offender or a mentally ill individual to get a gun. The process for me took a few minutes and ultimately resulted in me being able to buy my handguns without delay.
This Orman guy seems like he isn't insane or anything. That probably gives him zero chance of winning.
Kansans will eat him alive.
-
We’ve spent a lot of time over the last two decades debating whether or not a woman should have the right to make decisions about their own reproductive health. As a man, I’ll never have to face some of the decisions that women have to make. I know the women of Kansas are smart, and I trust them to make their own decisions about their reproductive health.
I believe it’s time for our government to move past this issue and start focusing on other important issues, such as healthcare and higher education affordability, tax code simplification, and fixing our broken immigration system.
uh oh
-
welp, he had a nice run
-
Yeah, his dogs won't save him from having no kids and being pro choice. We're going to end up with "the next Ted Cruz."
-
Yeah, his dogs won't save him from having no kids and being pro choice. We're going to end up with "the next Ted Cruz."
The very hint at gun regulation was enough, but the pro choice thing just destroys it. Can't believe guys like this are still trying here.
-
Yeah, his dogs won't save him from having no kids and being pro choice. We're going to end up with "the next Ted Cruz."
The very hint at gun regulation was enough, but the pro choice thing just destroys it. Can't believe guys like this are still trying here.
I mean it's great to have those kinds of opinions but just keep them to yourself for now.
-
Orman looks like mark Ruffalo.
Also, would vote for based only on picture
-
Yeah, his dogs won't save him from having no kids and being pro choice. We're going to end up with "the next Ted Cruz."
The very hint at gun regulation was enough, but the pro choice thing just destroys it. Can't believe guys like this are still trying here.
I mean it's great to have those kinds of opinions but just keep them to yourself for now.
Maybe even do some double talk or something?
Orman looks like mark Ruffalo.
Also, would vote for based only on picture
Thought I was the only one seeing this. Probably enough if he was in another state. :dunno:
-
If there weren't a democrat running, I would like his chances.
-
If there weren't a democrat running, I would like his chances.
Yep, he would absolutely crush that 6% of the KS pop.
-
If there weren't a democrat running, I would like his chances.
I don't understand your meaning (I also don't even know what office this is for)
-
If there weren't a democrat running, I would like his chances.
Yep, he would absolutely crush that 6% of the KS pop.
http://ksn.com/2014/07/24/ksn-news-poll-shows-kansas-senate-race-heating-up/
The democrat is currently polling at 33%. Roberts is at 38%. Orman 14%.
If there weren't a democrat running, I would like his chances.
I don't understand your meaning (I also don't even know what office this is for)
It is for US senate.
-
Ah, ok, ya
-
Seems like a reasonable guy. Would probably vote for him.
-
Seems like a reasonable guy. Would probably vote for him.
:cheers:
-
Taylor will beat Wiesner. Orman and Taylor will take votes from each other, destroying whatever slim chance of getting elected either may have had.
-
Taylor will beat Wiesner. Orman and Taylor will take votes from each other, destroying whatever slim chance of getting elected either may have had.
Orman is going to get some votes from either Roberts or Wolf, too. That primary campaign has gotten really ugly and I want to punch both of those guys in the face right now.
-
Taylor will beat Wiesner. Orman and Taylor will take votes from each other, destroying whatever slim chance of getting elected either may have had.
Orman is going to get some votes from either Roberts or Wolf, too. That primary campaign has gotten really ugly and I want to punch both of those guys in the face right now.
I think some of this will happen. I mean, the general voice of the commercials is that Oldballs is more conservative than Wolf, yet wolf is a TeaParty guy. I mean, that is crazier than crazy.
The non old white religious hateful yet conservative Kansans may actually need a different candidate that also isn't a democrat.
-
Yeah, his dogs won't save him from having no kids and being pro choice. We're going to end up with "the next Ted Cruz."
Nothing says level - headed sanity like a guy who signs his dogs names on Christmas cards to friends and family.
What Kansas really needs is a guy who thinks every unwanted dog deserves a good family and every unwanted child should have its spine snipped before being deposited in a trash can marked "medical waste." Pretty much sums up every piece of crap liberal I know.
-
Yeah, his dogs won't save him from having no kids and being pro choice. We're going to end up with "the next Ted Cruz."
Nothing says level - headed sanity like a guy who signs his dogs names on Christmas cards to friends and family.
What Kansas really needs is a guy who thinks every unwanted dog deserves a good family and every unwanted child should have its spine snipped before being deposited in a trash can marked "medical waste." Pretty much sums up every piece of crap liberal I know.
Why do you hate dogs?
-
Yeah, his dogs won't save him from having no kids and being pro choice. We're going to end up with "the next Ted Cruz."
Nothing says level - headed sanity like a guy who signs his dogs names on Christmas cards to friends and family.
What Kansas really needs is a guy who thinks every unwanted dog deserves a good family and every unwanted child should have its spine snipped before being deposited in a trash can marked "medical waste." Pretty much sums up every piece of crap liberal I know.
Why do you hate dogs?
Why do you value dogs more than children?
-
Yeah, his dogs won't save him from having no kids and being pro choice. We're going to end up with "the next Ted Cruz."
Nothing says level - headed sanity like a guy who signs his dogs names on Christmas cards to friends and family.
What Kansas really needs is a guy who thinks every unwanted dog deserves a good family and every unwanted child should have its spine snipped before being deposited in a trash can marked "medical waste." Pretty much sums up every piece of crap liberal I know.
Why do you hate dogs?
Why do you value dogs more than children?
I don't see where he wants it to be illegal to give dogs abortions or put them to sleep. Seems like he probably values children more than dogs, but he just doesn't come out and say it. Maybe that would be a good question for him at his next campaign stop.
-
His beard looks like a real go-getter.
-
His beard looks like a real go-getter.
Those shoes preclude him being gay.
-
He probably doesn't even think birth control is genocide, what a stupid lib :curse:
-
He probably doesn't even think birth control is genocide, what a stupid lib :curse:
John Stamos-Ruffalo has gone on record as not thinking that.
-
His beard looks like a real go-getter.
Those shoes preclude him being gay.
John Stamos-Ruffalo is most certainly not gay. Boots or no boots. You can tell by that pic how much they just love to get after it (when the dogs are kenneled of course).
-
His beard looks like a real go-getter.
Those shoes preclude him being gay.
John Stamos-Ruffalo is most certainly not gay. Boots or no boots. You can tell by that pic how much they just love to get after it (when the dogs are kenneled of course).
Absolutely, those two bone probably 3 times a day. They both have "the look"
-
They don't have kids because he won't leave it alone long enough to conceive.
-
Any of you guys vote Winn for governor?
-
I thought voting was in November????
-
I thought voting was in November????
It's today if you are a republican.
-
Came home from vacation to a pile of various ads for Republican primary candidates. Going to look through them and maybe go vote in the primary. Registered as a 'pub to vote for Ron P. in the 2010 primary. These ads are generally pretty entertaining.
-
Came home from vacation to a pile of various ads for Republican primary candidates. Going to look through them and maybe go vote in the primary. Registered as a 'pub to vote for Ron P. in the 2010 primary. These ads are generally pretty entertaining.
Honestly, in Kansas, everyone should register republican.
-
Came home from vacation to a pile of various ads for Republican primary candidates. Going to look through them and maybe go vote in the primary. Registered as a 'pub to vote for Ron P. in the 2010 primary. These ads are generally pretty entertaining.
Honestly, in the USA, everyone should vote republican.
:horrorsurprise:
-
Came home from vacation to a pile of various ads for Republican primary candidates. Going to look through them and maybe go vote in the primary. Registered as a 'pub to vote for Ron P. in the 2010 primary. These ads are generally pretty entertaining.
Honestly, in the USA, everyone should vote republican.
:horrorsurprise:
Interesting notion, I understand the middle east is booming under strict religious rule
-
Came home from vacation to a pile of various ads for Republican primary candidates. Going to look through them and maybe go vote in the primary. Registered as a 'pub to vote for Ron P. in the 2010 primary. These ads are generally pretty entertaining.
Honestly, in the USA, everyone should vote republican.
:horrorsurprise:
Interesting notion, I understand the middle east is booming under strict religious rule
People said that about the USA for 200 years.
-
Pretty ashamed of 1st-District voters giving the primary to Huelskamp. I'm full-boar for Sherow in November. Glad I'll have a chance to vote.
-
the libtard primary in saline county was like half a screen and a couple of those were writeins
-
the libtard primary in saline county was like half a screen and a couple of those were writeins
That's why you don't register libtard in saline county. Could have voted against Huelskamp.
-
definitely an internal struggle, mostly fueled by laziness :frown:
-
definitely an internal struggle, mostly fueled by laziness :frown:
I bet you got a big frown and maybe even an eye roll when you told the lady at the DMV to register you democrat, though. That had to have been kind of nice.
-
it's been over ten years so I don't really remember how it all went down
-
And you get to mush neocons with "actually, I'm a registered republican"
-
i am a democrat who is registered republican in KS. i try to vote for the least crazy republican to help my state out. #democracy
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/democrat-withdrawal-threat-pat-roberts-110574.html
Guys, Kansas might elect an independent to the senate.
-
Democrat withdrew because of an affair. I think Roberts is in for a tough fight, but wins.
-
Democrat withdrew because of an affair. I think Roberts is in for a tough fight, but wins.
Not joking, I heard his affair was with the dog whisperer's beard.
-
Does that mean his girlfriend or literally his immaculately sculpted salt n peppa facial hair
-
How many of you conservatives are routinely called racists by liberals? According to FSD it happens to all conservatives on the reg.
-
How many of you conservatives are routinely called racists by liberals? According to FSD it happens to all conservatives on the reg.
The same amount as are called racists by conservatives I'd imagine.
-
How many of you conservatives are routinely called racists by liberals? According to FSD it happens to all conservatives on the reg.
+1. But only by you, MIR. Only by you.
-
I've never thought that all conservatives were racist just that all racists were conservatives.
-
How many of you conservatives are routinely called racists by liberals? According to FSD it happens to all conservatives on the reg.
Oh look, the bigot trying to downplay/marginalize his bigotry. How adorable
-
I've never thought that all conservatives were racist just that all racists were conservatives.
New Black Panthers? Or are you one those people who don't believe black against white racism is definitionally possible?
-
Democrat withdrew because of an affair. I think Roberts is in for a tough fight, but wins.
:sdeek:
I thought it had to do with the likleyhood of Orman being a better bet against Roberts, as Orman and Taylor were splitting the moderate vote.
-
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-senate-race-in-kansas-just-got-crazy/
-
I've never thought that all conservatives were racist just that all racists were conservatives.
New Black Panthers? Or are you one those people who don't believe black against white racism is definitionally possible?
yeah. those a-holes have their own channel. wtf. (black people, not black panthers)
-
Democrat withdrew because of an affair. I think Roberts is in for a tough fight, but wins.
Not joking, I heard his affair was with the dog whisperer's beard.
Frank and Claire Underwood couldn't have planned and executed this better. Well done, Orman.
-
Kobach just blocked the Dem from withdrawing from the race, keeping him on the ballot.
Kansas election officials said on Thursday that a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate cannot withdraw from the race as he intended, a ruling that could be good news for the Republican incumbent as well as Republican efforts to take control of the U.S. Senate.
Democrat Chad Taylor on Wednesday pulled out of the race without explanation, which if allowed could swing a significant number of votes to independent candidate Greg Orman, who is seeking to unseat Republican U.S. Senator Pat Roberts.
Orman has been thought to have stronger support in the conservative state than Taylor. Having both Orman and Taylor on the ballot would split the vote for Roberts' opponents.
Kobach said the decision was announced after consultation with office legal staff, adding that partisan politics played no part. The ruling could be challenged in court, he said.
"This has nothing to do with the party, the law is the law," Kobach said.
Kobach just won Roberts race for him.
-
rediculous.
-
:lol:
-
suck it, libdependents
-
It will be interesting to see how many votes Taylor gets.
-
It will be interesting to see how many votes Taylor gets.
agreed
-
FYKK
-
Kobach is such a crap head.
-
Kobach said that Taylor failed to provide notice that he is incapable of serving in the Senate, which the law requires. In his brief letter to the secretary of state sent Wednesday, the last day for changes to the ballot, Taylor only said that he was dropping out.
"We now have no choice but to keep his name on the ballot," Kobach told reporters.
Strictly a wording issue.
"Yesterday afternoon, I contacted Brad Bryant, Director of Elections and Legislative Matters for the Kansas Secretary of State’s Office, to inquire about the requisite steps needed to terminate my candidacy for United State Senate and to withdraw my name from the ballot," explained Taylor. "Mr. Bryant provided explicit instructions as to the information required in the letter to remove my name. I proceeded to draft and deliver a letter to the Kansas Secretary of State’s Office of Elections, giving notice of my withdrawal from the United States Senate race. I specifically asked Mr. Bryant if the letter contained all the information necessary to remove my name from the ballot. Mr. Bryant said, 'Yes.'"
Does Kobach view this as the greatest accomplishment of his career thus far? My guess is yes. How often do you get to win the favor of a Senator by handing him the election? I mean, Kobach is going to be KS's replacement for Roberts in the future with the full weight of the Reds behind him. Big time stuff.
-
Kobach said that Taylor failed to provide notice that he is incapable of serving in the Senate, which the law requires. In his brief letter to the secretary of state sent Wednesday, the last day for changes to the ballot, Taylor only said that he was dropping out.
"We now have no choice but to keep his name on the ballot," Kobach told reporters.
Strictly a wording issue.
"Yesterday afternoon, I contacted Brad Bryant, Director of Elections and Legislative Matters for the Kansas Secretary of State’s Office, to inquire about the requisite steps needed to terminate my candidacy for United State Senate and to withdraw my name from the ballot," explained Taylor. "Mr. Bryant provided explicit instructions as to the information required in the letter to remove my name. I proceeded to draft and deliver a letter to the Kansas Secretary of State’s Office of Elections, giving notice of my withdrawal from the United States Senate race. I specifically asked Mr. Bryant if the letter contained all the information necessary to remove my name from the ballot. Mr. Bryant said, 'Yes.'"
Does Kobach view this as the greatest accomplishment of his career thus far? My guess is yes. How often do you get to win the favor of a Senator by handing him the election? I mean, Kobach is going to be KS's replacement for Roberts in the future with the full weight of the Reds behind him. Big time stuff.
I would guess Kobach did something mean to Mexicans that he is more proud of.
-
Welcome to the Wild World of Political Rasslin"!! Big Mean Ass Pat stomps midget tag team of Taylor and Orman. Referee Killer Kobach zaps them with a cattle pod. Thier supporters cry for Bigmeat Barak to save them. Instead they get Braindead Biden - new term for Pat, shakes hand with Re-elected Sam. Hayseed Huelskamp is lost somewhere!
-
To be fair, Kobach has far from "handed the race to Roberts", and Kobach was just applying the law as, you know, it's written. Just to be fair.
-
lol renocat
-
lol renocat
yes, was a v. good post
-
Karbach is a v, v good brewery.
-
To be fair, Kobach has far from "handed the race to Roberts", and Kobach was just applying the law as, you know, it's written. Just to be fair.
Did you read CNS' post or do you not care?
-
A group calling themselves Traditional Republican For Common Sense came out in support of Orman. Common Sense??????? What a sack of horseshit!! An independent Senator has to align with a party to get on committees to protect KS interests. I do not think the Republican Leadership will welcome him. So its kiss old Harry Reid's butt, and vote with the bastard that is gumming up the works.
-
Great points, renocat
-
A group calling themselves Traditional Republican For Common Sense came out in support of Orman. Common Sense??????? What a sack of horseshit!! An independent Senator has to align with a party to get on committees to protect KS interests. I do not think the Republican Leadership will welcome him. So its kiss old Harry Reid's butt, and vote with the bastard that is gumming up the works.
Why wouldn't they welcome him?
-
In fairness, I suppose he might caucus with Republicans, but have doubts after reading an article that was in the net version of the New York Times. The article stated Orman would caucus with the majority and that is predicted to be Democrats. Also the article suggested that Orman as a former democrat would lean to this side. We should find out from him his intentions as who he will caucus with. I plan to vote for Pat. I have known him for years, and he can get a lot done if the Reid mob will let opposing views to be voted on. I am afraid of what we might really be getting with Orman.
-
In fairness, I suppose he might caucus with Republicans, but have doubts after reading an article that was in the net version of the New York Times. The article stated Orman would caucus with the majority and that is predicted to be Democrats. Also the article suggested that Orman as a former democrat would lean to this side. We should find out from him his intentions as who he will caucus with. I plan to vote for Pat. I have known him for years, and he can get a lot done if the Reid mob will let opposing views to be voted on. I am afraid of what we might really be getting with Orman.
Most of the forecasts I have seen project the republicans taking the Senate. If the democrats manage to hold it, wouldn't it be a lot easier for Kansas to get some pork if we have somebody caucusing with them?
-
Article I read on Orman said that he was a Con for 15yrs before becoming a dem for 8 yrs and then went independent for a while. Said he made the switch from red to blue because of the extreme swing right.
-
I am really trying to come up with a good reason somebody should not be allowed to remove himself from the ballot at any point. I can't think of one. I remember about a decade ago when Missouri had a dead man on one of their ballots.
-
Rage you made a good point about caucasing. I have to admit Orman has tapped into everyone's frustration with DC and the desire to throw all of the bums out, but I would like to think Pat is not one of them. I hope the Republicans win the majority. If so, it seems a Senator with seniority that can serve as a ranking committee and subcommittee member could best vote as the majority of Kansans wish and protect things like Ft. Riley and McConnel AFB. If Orman aligns with Democrats I would think he would have to vote with the party leadership; if not he would be cornered off into meaningless hole somewhere. I just want to know his position on this important point.
-
Rage you made a good point about caucasing. I have to admit Orman has tapped into everyone's frustration with DC and the desire to throw all of the bums out, but I would like to think Pat is not one of them. I hope the Republicans win the majority. If so, it seems a Senator with seniority that can serve as a ranking committee and subcommittee member could best vote as the majority of Kansans wish and protect things like Ft. Riley and McConnel AFB. If Orman aligns with Democrats I would think he would have to vote with the party leadership; if not he would be cornered off into meaningless hole somewhere. I just want to know his position on this important point.
Pat really upset me when he voted against NBAF. I like him more than Milton Wolf and voted for him in the primary.
-
I am really trying to come up with a good reason somebody should not be allowed to remove himself from the ballot at any point. I can't think of one. I remember about a decade ago when Missouri had a dead man on one of their ballots.
It would allow the party to choose who they want in the general election after the primary. The winner could be replaced by any other person the party committee wants to run in the general election, making the primary moot.
-
I am really trying to come up with a good reason somebody should not be allowed to remove himself from the ballot at any point. I can't think of one. I remember about a decade ago when Missouri had a dead man on one of their ballots.
It would allow the party to choose who they want in the general election after the primary. The winner could be replaced by any other person the party committee wants to run in the general election, making the primary moot.
There isn't anything wrong with that.
-
there shouldn't be primaries or parties to begin with, but i guess that's a different thread
-
Who would be the Senator if Taylor were to win? Somebody the Democratic Party chooses, I presume. Would it not be a lot better if the voters actually knew who they were voting for?
-
Rage you made a good point about caucasing. I have to admit Orman has tapped into everyone's frustration with DC and the desire to throw all of the bums out, but I would like to think Pat is not one of them. I hope the Republicans win the majority. If so, it seems a Senator with seniority that can serve as a ranking committee and subcommittee member could best vote as the majority of Kansans wish and protect things like Ft. Riley and McConnel AFB. If Orman aligns with Democrats I would think he would have to vote with the party leadership; if not he would be cornered off into meaningless hole somewhere. I just want to know his position on this important point.
Pat really upset me when he voted against NBAF. I like him more than Milton Wolf and voted for him in the primary.
This, He voted against something in which the University built a hall for in his name.
-
I don't think the libtards understand that allowing this idiot to do this, or worse yet, set binding supreme court precedent allowing this, would allow the Republicans to run an OK Cat in the Dem primaries and then have him withdraw leaving a single pub on the ballot in perpetuity.
-
I don't think the libtards understand that allowing this idiot to do this, or worse yet, set binding supreme court precedent allowing this, would allow the Republicans to run an OK Cat in the Dem primaries and then have him withdraw leaving a single pub on the ballot in perpetuity.
No problem there. You would just see the political parties crumble, which would be great.
-
I don't think the libtards understand that allowing this idiot to do this, or worse yet, set binding supreme court precedent allowing this, would allow the Republicans to run an OK Cat in the Dem primaries and then have him withdraw leaving a single pub on the ballot in perpetuity.
No problem there. You would just see the political parties crumble, which would be great.
Political parties wrote this statute to protect political parties. Two political parties is better than 1.
-
I don't think the libtards understand that allowing this idiot to do this, or worse yet, set binding supreme court precedent allowing this, would allow the Republicans to run an OK Cat in the Dem primaries and then have him withdraw leaving a single pub on the ballot in perpetuity.
Yeah, the depths of neocon depravity are sometimes shocking to good, decent folk
-
Brownback and Roberts need to take their advertisement gurus out behind the shed and kick their butts. I want to see them win, but if they keep running bland TV ads they may lose. People don't take time to understand issues, and are swayed by catchy soundbites. The car going backward and the creepy music ads for Davis are more effective than the sunny day Sam commercials. Is Roberts airing any ads? Tell your conservative friends to vote and spread the word about our boys.
-
Why do you want to see those losers win? They are a black eye for the state
-
Brownback and Roberts need to take their advertisement gurus out behind the shed and kick their butts. I want to see them win, but if they keep running bland TV ads they may lose. People don't take time to understand issues, and are swayed by catchy soundbites. The car going backward and the creepy music ads for Davis are more effective than the sunny day Sam commercials. Is Roberts airing any ads? Tell your conservative friends to vote and spread the word about our boys.
I think Brownback's ads really are pretty good as far as political ads go. Roberts isn't running any ads, but the ads he ran during his primary campaign made him look like a piece of crap, so I don't know if that's a bad thing.
-
Why do you want to see those losers win? They are a black eye for the state
I'm not a huge fan of Brownback or Roberts. Brownback tends to get needlessly bogged down in controversies over social issues, and Roberts is too old and "establishment" and has no real connection with Kansas anymore. But while I think they're both generally lousy candidates, I support them both because I'm pragmatic.
Roberts could very well be the difference in whether Republicans retake the Senate, something that desperately needs to happen if we're to have any hope of reforming and/or repealing the damage done by Obama and his Dems. Orman is a Democrat at heart, and there is no doubt he will caucaus with the Dems if control is at stake. He supports, among other things, expnasion of Medicaid in KS, which will be disastrous for our budget when the feds stop paying for it in a few years (that's not a guess - that's the express plan).
Brownback has taken significant strides towards reducing Kansas tax burden and making the state (such that it is) more attractive to business. Paul Davis is a liberal running as a moderate - his only hope for victory is to fool enough "moderate republicans" (mainly in JoCo) to vote for him. He selected Jill Docking - a rabid leftist - as his running mate in order to capitalize on the old Docking political connections and money. He also supports Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid. His tax policy remains shrouded in mystery - he criticizes the state's budget shortfalls while never committing to repeal Brownback's tax cuts - but there can be little doubt that with liberal Davis in the governor's office, taxes will head the other way. Meaningful spending cuts will also be a dead issue.
-
Wait, so Roberts isn't even trying anymore? Huh. weird.
-
Davis's ad is weird and generally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
-
I love how anyone even an inch to the left is a "rabid leftist". Ksuw is such a rough ridin' moron :lol:
-
I love how anyone even an inch to the left is a "rabid leftist". Ksuw is such a rough ridin' moron :lol:
Says the guy measuring an inch to the left.
-
No semi successful Democrat in Kansas is a rabid leftist. You have to go to michigancatville to find them
Rabid rightests? We have lots of those
-
No semi successful Democrat in Kansas is a rabid leftist. You have to go to michigancatville to find them
Rabid rightests? We have lots of those
We have plenty of both. As demonstrated herein.
-
:lol:
-
People talk about Medicaid as if it's the worst thing ever. There are a lot of folks who have literally no options, namely the elderly and disabled with either no families or families who can't/won't support them.
-
People talk about Medicaid as if it's the worst thing ever. There are a lot of folks who have literally no options, namely the elderly and disabled with either no families or families who can't/won't support them.
This phenomen is pretty much everywhere, doesn't seem to matter where I go (and I go a lot of places)
It's all people wanna talk about anymore. Spracne, I seriously don't know if at this point it's possible to turn the tide back in favor of medicaid.
-
Rest easy Dems, the overwhelmingly Democrat Kansas SC is almost certainly going to order Taylor's removal from the ballot. The statute in question (http://www.ksrevisor.org/statutes/chapters/ch25/025_003_0006b.html) requires:
(b) Any person who has been nominated by any means for any national, state, county or township office who declares that they are incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected may cause such person's name to be withdrawn from nomination by a request in writing, signed by the person and acknowledged before an officer qualified to take acknowledgments of deeds.
Taylor's letter evidently did not declare that he is "incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected" - intead, he only referred to the statute. The Court is going to allow him to wiggle out by ruling that a reference to the statute is the same thing as the declaration required by the statute. This will be an odd ruling, but politics evidently trumps the law. Maybe next time I'm sworn in as a witness, I'll just "swear to do everything listed in K.S.A. ____." Should be legally sufficient, right?
Odder still, the Kansas Democrat party is making no secret of the fact that they don't intend to replace Taylor on the ballot with another Democrat, which is also expressly required by the law. However, that question is not before the Court. Kobach will have to file his own lawsuit, which the Court won't decide until after the ballots sans Taylor have already been printed.
So, instead of there being a liberal on the ballot running as a Democrat, there will be a liberal on the ballot running as an Independent. The Democrat Party Motto: Lie, Cheat, Steal, Just Win By Any Means Necessary.
-
Rest easy Dems, the overwhelmingly Democrat Kansas SC is almost certainly going to order Taylor's removal from the ballot. The statute in question (http://www.ksrevisor.org/statutes/chapters/ch25/025_003_0006b.html) requires:
(b) Any person who has been nominated by any means for any national, state, county or township office who declares that they are incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected may cause such person's name to be withdrawn from nomination by a request in writing, signed by the person and acknowledged before an officer qualified to take acknowledgments of deeds.
Taylor's letter evidently did not declare that he is "incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected" - intead, he only referred to the statute. The Court is going to allow him to wiggle out by ruling that a reference to the statute is the same thing as the declaration required by the statute. This will be an odd ruling, but politics evidently trumps the law. Maybe next time I'm sworn in as a witness, I'll just "swear to do everything listed in K.S.A. ____." Should be legally sufficient, right?
Odder still, the Kansas Democrat party is making no secret of the fact that they don't intend to replace Taylor on the ballot with another Democrat, which is also expressly required by the law. However, that question is not before the Court. Kobach will have to file his own lawsuit, which the Court won't decide until after the ballots sans Taylor have already been printed.
So, instead of there being a liberal on the ballot running as a Democrat, there will be a liberal on the ballot running as an Independent. The Democrat Party Motto: Lie, Cheat, Steal, Just Win By Any Means Necessary.
Maybe Kobach should have just followed the law in the first place. That would have given him time to get a replacement democrat on the ballot.
-
Koback arguably is following the law. The statute is ambiguous as to what is required. I would hope the supreme court wouldn't interpret it such that the written requirement has no meaning, we'll see though. If Taylor is incapable of being a senator, he's surely incapable of being a DA, so he should quit that too.
Also, the Supreme Court is not overwhelming democrat, it's 4-3 Democrat appointed. Carol Beier is a rough ridin' leftist idiot, tho.
-
Koback arguably is following the law. The statute is ambiguous as to what is required. I would hope the supreme court wouldn't interpret it such that the written requirement has no meaning, we'll see though. If Taylor is incapable of being a senator, he's surely incapable of being a DA, so he should quit that too.
Also, the Supreme Court is not overwhelming democrat, it's 4-3 Democrat appointed. Carol Beier is a rough ridin' leftist idiot, tho.
Arguably, but when he has allowed people off the ballot in past elections without the statement in writing, and considering that the letter requested that Taylor be removed from the ballot pursuant to the statute requiring the statement, I think it's pretty likely the court will rule in Taylor's favor. Kobach is a prime example of why the Secretary of State should not be a political office elected by the populace. Insurance commissioner shouldn't be, either.
-
Koback arguably is following the law. The statute is ambiguous as to what is required. I would hope the supreme court wouldn't interpret it such that the written requirement has no meaning, we'll see though. If Taylor is incapable of being a senator, he's surely incapable of being a DA, so he should quit that too.
Also, the Supreme Court is not overwhelming democrat, it's 4-3 Democrat appointed. Carol Beier is a rough ridin' leftist idiot, tho.
Arguably, but when he has allowed people off the ballot in past elections without the statement in writing, and considering that the letter requested that Taylor be removed from the ballot pursuant to the statute requiring the statement, I think it's pretty likely the court will rule in Taylor's favor. Kobach is a prime example of why the Secretary of State should not be a political office elected by the populace. Insurance commissioner shouldn't be, either.
Good point. The SoS should be a non political position appointed by... the governor. That would remove any political concerns and make the office more directly accountable to the people.
Or better yet, maybe we should pick SoS the same way we pick KSSC candidates - first have a panel of (mostly liberal) attorneys narrow it down to three (moderate to liberal) choices from which the governor can pick.
-
Koback arguably is following the law. The statute is ambiguous as to what is required. I would hope the supreme court wouldn't interpret it such that the written requirement has no meaning, we'll see though. If Taylor is incapable of being a senator, he's surely incapable of being a DA, so he should quit that too.
Also, the Supreme Court is not overwhelming democrat, it's 4-3 Democrat appointed. Carol Beier is a rough ridin' leftist idiot, tho.
Arguably, but when he has allowed people off the ballot in past elections without the statement in writing, and considering that the letter requested that Taylor be removed from the ballot pursuant to the statute requiring the statement, I think it's pretty likely the court will rule in Taylor's favor. Kobach is a prime example of why the Secretary of State should not be a political office elected by the populace. Insurance commissioner shouldn't be, either.
Good point. The SoS should be a non political position appointed by... the governor. That would remove any political concerns and make the office more directly accountable to the people.
Or better yet, maybe we should pick SoS the same way we pick KSSC candidates - first have a panel of (mostly liberal) attorneys narrow it down to three (moderate to liberal) choices from which the governor can pick.
Yes, the second way you listed would be ideal. Secretary of State is a job. Political ideology should not play a factor. Thankfully, we have kept our courts mostly politics-free. I'm sure they will do the right thing and fix this mess.
-
Koback arguably is following the law. The statute is ambiguous as to what is required. I would hope the supreme court wouldn't interpret it such that the written requirement has no meaning, we'll see though. If Taylor is incapable of being a senator, he's surely incapable of being a DA, so he should quit that too.
Also, the Supreme Court is not overwhelming democrat, it's 4-3 Democrat appointed. Carol Beier is a rough ridin' leftist idiot, tho.
Arguably, but when he has allowed people off the ballot in past elections without the statement in writing, and considering that the letter requested that Taylor be removed from the ballot pursuant to the statute requiring the statement, I think it's pretty likely the court will rule in Taylor's favor. Kobach is a prime example of why the Secretary of State should not be a political office elected by the populace. Insurance commissioner shouldn't be, either.
Good point. The SoS should be a non political position appointed by... the governor. That would remove any political concerns and make the office more directly accountable to the people.
Or better yet, maybe we should pick SoS the same way we pick KSSC candidates - first have a panel of (mostly liberal) attorneys narrow it down to three (moderate to liberal) choices from which the governor can pick.
Yes, the second way you listed would be ideal. Secretary of State is a job. Political ideology should not play a factor. Thankfully, we have kept our courts mostly politics-free. I'm sure they will do the right thing and fix this mess.
You know, I think you may be on to something. Since this group of attorneys knows best, maybe they should vet the governor senate candidates down for us, too. Similar to what we have on the current ballot, they could give us three candidates: a liberal, a liberal running as an "independent," and a lousy establishment conservative.
-
I don't think there is a liberal running as an independent on the ballot for governor, but I may be wrong.
-
I don't think there is a liberal running as an independent on the ballot for governor, but I may be wrong.
Senator, Governor, same difference.
-
I don't think there is a liberal running as an independent on the ballot for governor, but I may be wrong.
Senator, Governor, same difference.
Pretty big difference actually. The senator can actually vote against Obamacare, while the governor can only reject it symbolically by sending money back to Washington at the expense of Kansas taxpayers.
-
The senator can actually vote against Obamacare, while the governor can only reject it symbolically by sending money back to Washington at the expense of Kansas taxpayers.
You don't seem to understand how Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid works. Ultimately, when the federal government stops paying for the expanded Medicaid, Kansas will have dodged a major budgetary bullet.
-
The senator can actually vote against Obamacare, while the governor can only reject it symbolically by sending money back to Washington at the expense of Kansas taxpayers.
You don't seem to understand how Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid works. Ultimately, when the federal government stops paying for the expanded Medicaid, Kansas will have dodged a major budgetary bullet.
When does this happen? Wouldn't we be in a position where we could just cut medicaid back to where it is today?
-
The senator can actually vote against Obamacare, while the governor can only reject it symbolically by sending money back to Washington at the expense of Kansas taxpayers.
You don't seem to understand how Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid works. Ultimately, when the federal government stops paying for the expanded Medicaid, Kansas will have dodged a major budgetary bullet.
When does this happen? Wouldn't we be in a position where we could just cut medicaid back to where it is today?
:lol: No. Google it.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/
So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/
So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?
Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.
-
Good, all healthcare should be taxpayer funded
-
Good, all healthcare should be taxpayer funded
Yes, cause the money fairy can always print more money to pay for it, right?
Question: Many Canadians prefer to come to America to see a specialist rather than wait six months or more to see one provided by their taxpayer funded healthcare system. Once the libtards transform our own system into a single payer paradise, where do we go (and the Canadians, too, I guess) to see a specialist?
Another question: Are you on Medicaid? Are you actually excited for everyone to receive Medicaid-quality healthcare (unless you're rich enough to afford a private doctor)?
-
A February GOA report said 4% of medicaid recipients account for 30% of payments, mostly for the long term care of the elderly in care homes. This is going to get worse as there are more baby boomers coming and less young workers to foot the bill. I am not in favor of doing away with medicaid, but it needs reformed not just more money pumped into it. I have enjoyeed the lively debate on this thread. Second the appt. of the SoS to get a qualified person; an election could yield a clinker someday.
-
Good, all healthcare should be taxpayer funded
Yes, cause the money fairy can always print more money to pay for it, right?
Question: Many Canadians prefer to come to America to see a specialist rather than wait six months or more to see one provided by their taxpayer funded healthcare system. Once the libtards transform our own system into a single payer paradise, where do we go (and the Canadians, too, I guess) to see a specialist?
Another question: Are you on Medicaid? Are you actually excited for everyone to receive Medicaid-quality healthcare (unless you're rich enough to afford a private doctor)?
We could stop buying tanks and jets that sit unused (a republican "free stuff" jobs plan).
FYI, I actually have Canadians in my family and they love their system and openly mock the neocon american media's portrayal of it. stop getting your opinions from rush
-
What's wrong with Rush?
-
He is to conservative media what the crazy right thinks the rest of the media is to media x 100
-
Are there any principles he argues for that are wrong?
-
Are there any principles he argues for that are wrong?
I'm a parent. I haven't got the luxury of principles...
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/
So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?
Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.
You realize that by not expanding Medicare in Kansas, our federal tax dollars go to people in other states while our local hospitals suffer, right? It seems somewhat likely that hospital closures could end up costing the state more revenue than the expansion would cost.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/
So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?
Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.
You realize that by not expanding Medicare in Kansas, our federal tax dollars go to people in other states while our local hospitals suffer, right? It seems somewhat likely that hospital closures could end up costing the state more revenue than the expansion would cost.
Not sure if typo, but you do understand the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, yes?
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/
So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?
Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.
You realize that by not expanding Medicare in Kansas, our federal tax dollars go to people in other states while our local hospitals suffer, right? It seems somewhat likely that hospital closures could end up costing the state more revenue than the expansion would cost.
Not sure if typo, but you do understand the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, yes?
Yeah, meant Medicaid. Not so much a typo as a brain fart.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/
So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?
Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.
You realize that by not expanding Medicare in Kansas, our federal tax dollars go to people in other states while our local hospitals suffer, right? It seems somewhat likely that hospital closures could end up costing the state more revenue than the expansion would cost.
If Kansas takes the money to pay for it for a few years, and then can't politically reverse it later when the state is paying and costs rise the state goes bankrupt. Think of it like GM and all the benefits to workers and bond holders that they couldn't pay.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/
So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?
Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.
You realize that by not expanding Medicare in Kansas, our federal tax dollars go to people in other states while our local hospitals suffer, right? It seems somewhat likely that hospital closures could end up costing the state more revenue than the expansion would cost.
If Kansas takes the money to pay for it for a few years, and then can't politically reverse it later when the state is paying and costs rise the state goes bankrupt. Think of it like GM and all the benefits to workers and bond holders that they couldn't pay.
It wouldn't be any harder to justify politically than leaving the money on the table is now. The state can always stop funding Medicaid when their share gets unaffordable.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/
So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?
Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.
You realize that by not expanding Medicare in Kansas, our federal tax dollars go to people in other states while our local hospitals suffer, right? It seems somewhat likely that hospital closures could end up costing the state more revenue than the expansion would cost.
Not sure if typo, but you do understand the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, yes?
Yeah, meant Medicaid. Not so much a typo as a brain fart.
Sorry to break it to you, but it's pretty obvious you don't understand what Medicaid is, then.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/
So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?
Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.
You realize that by not expanding Medicare in Kansas, our federal tax dollars go to people in other states while our local hospitals suffer, right? It seems somewhat likely that hospital closures could end up costing the state more revenue than the expansion would cost.
If Kansas takes the money to pay for it for a few years, and then can't politically reverse it later when the state is paying and costs rise the state goes bankrupt. Think of it like GM and all the benefits to workers and bond holders that they couldn't pay.
It wouldn't be any harder to justify politically than leaving the money on the table is now. The state can always stop funding Medicaid when their share gets unaffordable.
The federal money is for a very short period, the states liability (that it can't afford) is forever. These things traditionally don't get reversed politically, politicians don't like running on benefits they are going to end. This liability is being dumped on the states for a reason.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/
So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?
Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.
You realize that by not expanding Medicare in Kansas, our federal tax dollars go to people in other states while our local hospitals suffer, right? It seems somewhat likely that hospital closures could end up costing the state more revenue than the expansion would cost.
Not sure if typo, but you do understand the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, yes?
Yeah, meant Medicaid. Not so much a typo as a brain fart.
Sorry to break it to you, but it's pretty obvious you don't understand what Medicaid is, then.
It's medical care for poor people.
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/fault-lines/articles/2014/7/12/hospitals-continuetoshutdowninruralamerica.html
-
Good, all healthcare should be taxpayer funded
Yes, cause the money fairy can always print more money to pay for it, right?
Question: Many Canadians prefer to come to America to see a specialist rather than wait six months or more to see one provided by their taxpayer funded healthcare system. Once the libtards transform our own system into a single payer paradise, where do we go (and the Canadians, too, I guess) to see a specialist?
Another question: Are you on Medicaid? Are you actually excited for everyone to receive Medicaid-quality healthcare (unless you're rich enough to afford a private doctor)?
We could stop buying tanks and jets that sit unused (a republican "free stuff" jobs plan).
FYI, I actually have Canadians in my family and they love their system and openly mock the neocon american media's portrayal of it. stop getting your opinions from rush
QFT.
Grew up on Canadian border and not sure I ever heard of any wanting to get our medical system. All they want is our tax structure on buying goods. Border cities in NNY are booming due to the favorable exchange rate and lower taxes on goods. Canadians flood in on the weekends to shop.
-
Good, all healthcare should be taxpayer funded
Yes, cause the money fairy can always print more money to pay for it, right?
Question: Many Canadians prefer to come to America to see a specialist rather than wait six months or more to see one provided by their taxpayer funded healthcare system. Once the libtards transform our own system into a single payer paradise, where do we go (and the Canadians, too, I guess) to see a specialist?
Another question: Are you on Medicaid? Are you actually excited for everyone to receive Medicaid-quality healthcare (unless you're rich enough to afford a private doctor)?
We could stop buying tanks and jets that sit unused (a republican "free stuff" jobs plan).
FYI, I actually have Canadians in my family and they love their system and openly mock the neocon american media's portrayal of it. stop getting your opinions from rush
QFT.
Grew up on Canadian border and not sure I ever heard of any wanting to get our medical system. All they want is our tax structure on buying goods. Border cities in NNY are booming due to the favorable exchange rate and lower taxes on goods. Canadians flood in on the weekends to shop.
Those extra taxes on stuff they buy helps pay for their healthcare. Pretty un-Canadian of them to buy across the border.
-
Good, all healthcare should be taxpayer funded
Yes, cause the money fairy can always print more money to pay for it, right?
Question: Many Canadians prefer to come to America to see a specialist rather than wait six months or more to see one provided by their taxpayer funded healthcare system. Once the libtards transform our own system into a single payer paradise, where do we go (and the Canadians, too, I guess) to see a specialist?
Another question: Are you on Medicaid? Are you actually excited for everyone to receive Medicaid-quality healthcare (unless you're rich enough to afford a private doctor)?
We could stop buying tanks and jets that sit unused (a republican "free stuff" jobs plan).
FYI, I actually have Canadians in my family and they love their system and openly mock the neocon american media's portrayal of it. stop getting your opinions from rush
QFT.
Grew up on Canadian border and not sure I ever heard of any wanting to get our medical system. All they want is our tax structure on buying goods. Border cities in NNY are booming due to the favorable exchange rate and lower taxes on goods. Canadians flood in on the weekends to shop.
The VAT driving up the prices of all their goods is how they pay for that "free" healthcare. And long waits for specialists is a well-documented fact in the Canadian system. There just aren't enough specialists willing to work for the low rates single-payer affords. Essentially, everyone's on Medicaid up there. Google it. Medicaid coverage blows - this is not a model we want to emulate.
Canada also has the advantage of not making poverty its chief import from its southern border. The idea of adopting single-payer for the US population is financial suicide (well, even more so I guess. 18 trillion and counting...) But hey, we can easily pay for it if we just slash our military! What good has a strong military ever done for us? :facepalm:
-
What good has a strong military ever done for us? :facepalm:
This would make a pretty good Pit topic, really. We won WW2 when our military was pretty weak.
-
What good has a strong military ever done for us? :facepalm:
We won WW2 when our military was pretty weak.
This isn't even remotely true. Our military was relatively small/weak when WW2 began, prompting one of the largest single purpose industrial efforts (maybe the largest?) the world has ever known to build it up. We most assuredly did not win WW2 with a weak military.
-
It's helped our economy. Of course, shifting much of that spending to health care would have a similar effect.
-
What good has a strong military ever done for us? :facepalm:
We won WW2 when our military was pretty weak.
This isn't even remotely true. Our military was relatively small/weak when WW2 began, prompting one of the largest single purpose industrial efforts (maybe the largest?) the world has ever known to build it up. We most assuredly did not win WW2 with a weak military.
Right now we spend more on defense than all other industrialized nations combined. People freak out over any defense spending cut. We would probably have to cut defense spending by more than 60% to get back to where we were at the end of WW2, relatively speaking.
-
It's helped our economy. Of course, shifting much of that spending to health care would have a similar effect.
Dear gawd :facepalm:
-
It's helped our economy. Of course, shifting much of that spending to health care would have a similar effect.
Dear gawd :facepalm:
Yes, shifting money from one pocket to the other (or printing it? yeah, sounds like we'd be printing a lot more of it) is sure to help the economy in the long run. :facepalm:
-
As expected, the KSSC ruled that Taylor's use of the words "pursuant to K.S.A. ____" amounted to a declaration that he is incapable of serving. So again, from now on, I suppose any time anyone takes an oath or makes some other declaration required by statute, they can just save time by referring to the statute instead of saying the words. :jerk:
Oddly though, the Democrats don't seem interested in replacing Taylor on the ballott, which is also required by Kansas law.
K.S.A. 25-3905(a): When a vacancy occurs after a primary election in a party candidacy, such vacancy shall be filled by the party committee of the congressional district, county or state, as the case may be....
I wonder how the KSSC will distort this law to give the Dems yet another pass? Stay tuned....
-
Kansas is so liberal. rough ridin' Kansas! :shakesfist:
-
As expected, the KSSC ruled that Taylor's use of the words "pursuant to K.S.A. ____" amounted to a declaration that he is incapable of serving. So again, from now on, I suppose any time anyone takes an oath or makes some other declaration required by statute, they can just save time by referring to the statute instead of saying the words. :jerk:
Oddly though, the Democrats don't seem interested in replacing Taylor on the ballott, which is also required by Kansas law.
K.S.A. 25-3905(a): When a vacancy occurs after a primary election in a party candidacy, such vacancy shall be filled by the party committee of the congressional district, county or state, as the case may be....
I wonder how the KSSC will distort this law to give the Dems yet another pass? Stay tuned....
The intent of the law matters. Did the legislature write the law intending to use it to force a party to choose a replacement, or did they write the law assuming the party would want a candidate? I don't think the court has time to hear Kobach on that matter, anyway. The ballots have to be finalized tomorrow.
-
And yeah, this court ruling has changed all of our lives. Now, whenever I talk about my rights to free speech, I'm just going to refer to the first amendment instead.
-
As expected, the KSSC ruled that Taylor's use of the words "pursuant to K.S.A. ____" amounted to a declaration that he is incapable of serving. So again, from now on, I suppose any time anyone takes an oath or makes some other declaration required by statute, they can just save time by referring to the statute instead of saying the words. :jerk:
Oddly though, the Democrats don't seem interested in replacing Taylor on the ballott, which is also required by Kansas law.
K.S.A. 25-3905(a): When a vacancy occurs after a primary election in a party candidacy, such vacancy shall be filled by the party committee of the congressional district, county or state, as the case may be....
I wonder how the KSSC will distort this law to give the Dems yet another pass? Stay tuned....
The intent of the law matters. Did the legislature write the law intending to use it to force a party to choose a replacement, or did they write the law assuming the party would want a candidate? I don't think the court has time to hear Kobach on that matter, anyway. The ballots have to be finalized tomorrow.
Funny you should mention intent. These laws were "intended" to stop the very dirty politics the Democrats are currently engaging in. That's why you can't just pull a candidate for any old reason after a primary - they have to be incable of fulfilling the duties of office - which is why the statute required that declaration as a deterent. No matter, says the KSSC. Moreover, even if you yank a candidate, you have to replace him.
-
What is the penalty for not replacing him? I would assume it is that you just don't get your party on the ballot. Seems fair.
-
And yeah, this court ruling has changed all of our lives. Now, whenever I talk about my rights to free speech, I'm just going to refer to the first amendment instead.
Because that's the same thing. :jerk: I didn't say the ruling changed all our lives, I just said that the liberal KSSC aided and abetted the Democrats in their dirty political tricks.
-
What is the penalty for not replacing him? I would assume it is that you just don't get your party on the ballot. Seems fair.
It's not fair if the reason you pulled your candidate was to consolidate the vote behind another liberal running as an "Independent." It's a dirty trick. There doesn't need to be a "penalty" for the Court to order that the law be obeyed.
-
What is the penalty for not replacing him? I would assume it is that you just don't get your party on the ballot. Seems fair.
It's not fair if the reason you pulled your candidate was to consolidate the vote behind another liberal running as an "Independent." It's a dirty trick. There doesn't need to be a "penalty" for the Court to order that the law be obeyed.
The court can order whatever they want, but the dems still have to find a guy who actually agrees to run for senate. What happens if they can't find somebody?
-
What is the penalty for not replacing him? I would assume it is that you just don't get your party on the ballot. Seems fair.
It's not fair if the reason you pulled your candidate was to consolidate the vote behind another liberal running as an "Independent." It's a dirty trick. There doesn't need to be a "penalty" for the Court to order that the law be obeyed.
The court can order whatever they want, but the dems still have to find a guy who actually agrees to run for senate. What happens if they can't find somebody?
They already did: Taylor. If they want him off, they need a replacement.
Question: Do you disagree that this is a dirty trick? Do you actually think that Taylor honestly is incable of serving?
-
What is the penalty for not replacing him? I would assume it is that you just don't get your party on the ballot. Seems fair.
It's not fair if the reason you pulled your candidate was to consolidate the vote behind another liberal running as an "Independent." It's a dirty trick. There doesn't need to be a "penalty" for the Court to order that the law be obeyed.
The court can order whatever they want, but the dems still have to find a guy who actually agrees to run for senate. What happens if they can't find somebody?
They already did: Taylor. If they want him off, they need a replacement.
Question: Do you disagree that this is a dirty trick? Do you actually think that Taylor honestly is incable of serving?
Yes, I disagree. If a candidate doesn't want to be on the ballot, he should be able to withdraw. There is nothing dirty about this. The dems know they can't win, so why run? Would it have been a dirty trick if Newt would have dropped out of the republican primary earlier so Santorum would have gotten more support?
-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/republican-election-kansas-secretary-of-state
-
Question: Do you disagree that this is a dirty trick? Do you actually think that Taylor honestly is incable of serving?
Yes, I disagree. If a candidate doesn't want to be on the ballot, he should be able to withdraw. There is nothing dirty about this.
The law doesn't allow you to withdraw for "not wanting to be on the ballot." You can onloy withdraw if you are "incapable of serving." Do you understand the definitional difference between "can't" and "I don't wanna"? Now I'll ask you again, do you think Taylor told the truth when he said he was "incapable of serving if elected"? If so, what do you think changed?
-
Question: Do you disagree that this is a dirty trick? Do you actually think that Taylor honestly is incable of serving?
Yes, I disagree. If a candidate doesn't want to be on the ballot, he should be able to withdraw. There is nothing dirty about this.
The law doesn't allow you to withdraw for "not wanting to be on the ballot." You can onloy withdraw if you are "incapable of serving." Do you understand the definitional difference between "can't" and "I don't wanna"? Now I'll ask you again, do you think Taylor told the truth when he said he was "incapable of serving if elected"? If so, what do you think changed?
He lost interest, I guess. Does it really matter if he was telling the truth?
-
Question: Do you disagree that this is a dirty trick? Do you actually think that Taylor honestly is incable of serving?
Yes, I disagree. If a candidate doesn't want to be on the ballot, he should be able to withdraw. There is nothing dirty about this.
The law doesn't allow you to withdraw for "not wanting to be on the ballot." You can onloy withdraw if you are "incapable of serving." Do you understand the definitional difference between "can't" and "I don't wanna"? Now I'll ask you again, do you think Taylor told the truth when he said he was "incapable of serving if elected"? If so, what do you think changed?
He lost interest, I guess. Does it really matter if he was telling the truth?
Of course it does, you dolt. If he lied, it's a dirty trick. Cut the bullshit. You know and I know that he lied, period, to advance Democrat party politics. If you can't acknowledge that, it's not worth discussing further.
-
CUT THE BULLSHIT
-
Question: Do you disagree that this is a dirty trick? Do you actually think that Taylor honestly is incable of serving?
Yes, I disagree. If a candidate doesn't want to be on the ballot, he should be able to withdraw. There is nothing dirty about this.
The law doesn't allow you to withdraw for "not wanting to be on the ballot." You can onloy withdraw if you are "incapable of serving." Do you understand the definitional difference between "can't" and "I don't wanna"? Now I'll ask you again, do you think Taylor told the truth when he said he was "incapable of serving if elected"? If so, what do you think changed?
He lost interest, I guess. Does it really matter if he was telling the truth?
Of course it does, you dolt. If he lied, it's a dirty trick. Cut the bullshit. You know and I know that he lied, period, to advance Deomcrat party politics. If you can't acknowledge that, it's not worth discussing further.
I love how it's somehow dirty for a candidate uninterested in a position to remove himself from a ballot. It's not dirty at all to keep his name on the ballot for the sole purpose of splitting votes and helping out your pal that you are campaigning for.
-
And is Taylor similarly incapable of serving as Shawnee County DA? Actually, lying in a notarized letter to the KS SoS probably should disqualify you from serving in law enforcement.
-
Apparently Kobach has decided not to print the ballots this week. This comes after he claimed that they needed to be finalized by Friday. I wonder what changed.
-
I love how it's somehow dirty for a candidate uninterested in a position to remove himself from a ballot. It's not dirty at all to keep his name on the ballot for the sole purpose of splitting votes and helping out your pal that you are campaigning for.
Again, if you're going to pretend that Taylor was "uninterested" in being the next KS Senator, you just sound rough ridin' ridiculous. I can't help you. And yes, of course there is a political interest in keeping Taylor on the ballot, but it's not "dirty" to follow the law and only allow candidates to withdraw after a certified primary. It's dirty to lie. Taylor lied.
-
I love how it's somehow dirty for a candidate uninterested in a position to remove himself from a ballot. It's not dirty at all to keep his name on the ballot for the sole purpose of splitting votes and helping out your pal that you are campaigning for.
Again, if you're going to pretend that Taylor was "uninterested" in being the next KS Senator, you just sound rough ridin' ridiculous. I can't help you. And yes, of course there is a political interest in keeping Taylor on the ballot, but it's not "dirty" to follow the law and only allow candidates to withdraw after a certified primary. It's dirty to lie. Taylor lied.
The Supreme Court just ruled otherwise. Maybe your republican glasses are distorting things for you.
-
Apparently Kobach has decided not to print the ballots this week. This comes after he claimed that they needed to be finalized by Friday. I wonder what changed.
Do you seriously wonder what changed, or is that a rhetorical question? He has a political interest in keeping a Dem on the ballot, but it's within his discretion to bump the date. He is acting within the law and not lying, so that's two things he's got going for him as opposed to, say, the Demorat party.
-
I love how it's somehow dirty for a candidate uninterested in a position to remove himself from a ballot. It's not dirty at all to keep his name on the ballot for the sole purpose of splitting votes and helping out your pal that you are campaigning for.
Again, if you're going to pretend that Taylor was "uninterested" in being the next KS Senator, you just sound rough ridin' ridiculous. I can't help you. And yes, of course there is a political interest in keeping Taylor on the ballot, but it's not "dirty" to follow the law and only allow candidates to withdraw after a certified primary. It's dirty to lie. Taylor lied.
The Supreme Court just ruled otherwise. Maybe your republican glasses are distorting things for you.
I am entitled to opine, and correct, that the liberal Court ruled incorrectly, thereby abetting Taylor in his lie. A lie you still refuse to acknowledge - and it just makes you sound absolutely ridiculous.
-
Apparently Kobach has decided not to print the ballots this week. This comes after he claimed that they needed to be finalized by Friday. I wonder what changed.
Do you seriously wonder what changed, or is that a rhetorical question? He has a political interest in keeping a Dem on the ballot, but it's within his discretion to bump the date. He is acting within the law and not lying, so that's two things he's got going for him as opposed to, say, the Demorat party.
Actually, it's not in his discretion to bump the date. Federal law requires the ballots to be sent to absentee voters at least 45 days prior to the election date.
-
so what changed?
-
so what changed?
Didn't he cheat on his wife or something?
-
The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?
-
The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?
Guy on the radio this morning said that this ruling just proves how overly liberal the court is. He backed up his opinion by the fact they the state hasn't killed anyone since Capital Punishment was reinstated in the late '90's.
rough ridin' Liberals :shakesfist:
-
Kansas: liberal haven
-
Kansas: We break the law to stop voter fraud.
-
The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?
And George HW Bush appointed "republican" David Souter to the USSC, so that obviously means he was a conservative, right? :rolleyes: The KSSC is currently composed (until Stegall joins) of hard leftists and a couple of squishy "moderates." Our current nominating process, by which a predominantly liberal group of attorneys first screens the candidates, has done a good job of ensuring this.
Anyway, back to the point you keep dodging, you really believe Taylor didn't lie when he "declared" that he's incapable of serving? Wow.
-
Kansas: liberal haven
i lol'd
-
The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?
And George HW Bush appointed "republican" David Souter to the USSC, so that obviously means he was a conservative, right? :rolleyes: The KSSC is currently composed (until Stegall joins) of hard leftists and a couple of squishy "moderates." Our current nominating process, by which a predominantly liberal group of attorneys first screens the candidates, has done a good job of ensuring this.
Anyway, back to the point you keep dodging, you really believe Taylor didn't lie when he "declared" that he's incapable of serving? Wow.
No, I don't. I certainly would never vote for him.
-
The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?
And George HW Bush appointed "republican" David Souter to the USSC, so that obviously means he was a conservative, right? :rolleyes: The KSSC is currently composed (until Stegall joins) of hard leftists and a couple of squishy "moderates." Our current nominating process, by which a predominantly liberal group of attorneys first screens the candidates, has done a good job of ensuring this.
Anyway, back to the point you keep dodging, you really believe Taylor didn't lie when he "declared" that he's incapable of serving? Wow.
No, I don't. I certainly would never vote for him.
Ok, so you agree that Taylor lied in a notarized letter to the SoS. Now, would you also agree that lying to satisfy a legal requirement, in order to give your party a political advantage, is a dirty trick?
It's interesting to me that not a single justice thought to ask Mr. Taylor's attorney the reason he was incapable of serving. They didn't ask because they know he's lying (as we all do), and they are complicit in his lie by removing him from the ballot without requiring an explanation.
-
The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?
And George HW Bush appointed "republican" David Souter to the USSC, so that obviously means he was a conservative, right? :rolleyes: The KSSC is currently composed (until Stegall joins) of hard leftists and a couple of squishy "moderates." Our current nominating process, by which a predominantly liberal group of attorneys first screens the candidates, has done a good job of ensuring this.
Anyway, back to the point you keep dodging, you really believe Taylor didn't lie when he "declared" that he's incapable of serving? Wow.
No, I don't. I certainly would never vote for him.
Ok, so you agree that Taylor lied in a notarized letter to the SoS. Now, would you also agree that lying to satisfy a legal requirement, in order to give your party a political advantage, is a dirty trick?
It's interesting to me that not a single justice thought to ask Mr. Taylor's attorney the reason he was incapable of serving. They didn't ask because they know he's lying (as we all do), and they are complicit in his lie by removing him from the ballot without requiring an explanation.
No, it's just following the letter of the law to get your name off of the ballot. If you don't want to be a senator, you don't have to be a senator.
-
The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?
And George HW Bush appointed "republican" David Souter to the USSC, so that obviously means he was a conservative, right? :rolleyes: The KSSC is currently composed (until Stegall joins) of hard leftists and a couple of squishy "moderates." Our current nominating process, by which a predominantly liberal group of attorneys first screens the candidates, has done a good job of ensuring this.
Anyway, back to the point you keep dodging, you really believe Taylor didn't lie when he "declared" that he's incapable of serving? Wow.
No, I don't. I certainly would never vote for him.
Ok, so you agree that Taylor lied in a notarized letter to the SoS. Now, would you also agree that lying to satisfy a legal requirement, in order to give your party a political advantage, is a dirty trick?
It's interesting to me that not a single justice thought to ask Mr. Taylor's attorney the reason he was incapable of serving. They didn't ask because they know he's lying (as we all do), and they are complicit in his lie by removing him from the ballot without requiring an explanation.
No, it's just following the letter of the law to get your name off of the ballot. If you don't want to be a senator, you don't have to be a senator.
No, you're still not getting this. It is most certainly not "following the letter of the law" to withdraw in the manner Taylor did unless he actually is incapable of serving. That's kind of the whole friggin point of the law. So, he lied.
Politicians lie all the time, of course. The difference here, and what makes this such a galling dirty trick, is that Taylor, a District Attorney, lied to the legal system, and a court of 6 esteemed jourists - who knew the same as you and I that he was lying - let him get away with it without so much as asking for a reason because of ideology.
-
The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?
And George HW Bush appointed "republican" David Souter to the USSC, so that obviously means he was a conservative, right? :rolleyes: The KSSC is currently composed (until Stegall joins) of hard leftists and a couple of squishy "moderates." Our current nominating process, by which a predominantly liberal group of attorneys first screens the candidates, has done a good job of ensuring this.
Anyway, back to the point you keep dodging, you really believe Taylor didn't lie when he "declared" that he's incapable of serving? Wow.
No, I don't. I certainly would never vote for him.
Ok, so you agree that Taylor lied in a notarized letter to the SoS. Now, would you also agree that lying to satisfy a legal requirement, in order to give your party a political advantage, is a dirty trick?
It's interesting to me that not a single justice thought to ask Mr. Taylor's attorney the reason he was incapable of serving. They didn't ask because they know he's lying (as we all do), and they are complicit in his lie by removing him from the ballot without requiring an explanation.
No, it's just following the letter of the law to get your name off of the ballot. If you don't want to be a senator, you don't have to be a senator.
No, you're still not getting this. It is most certainly not "following the letter of the law" to withdraw in the manner Taylor did unless he actually is incapable of serving. That's kind of the whole friggin point of the law. So, he lied.
Politicians lie all the time, of course. The difference here, and what makes this such a galling dirty trick, is that Taylor, a District Attorney, lied to the legal system, and a court of 6 esteemed jourists - who knew the same as you and I that he was lying - let him get away with it without so much as asking for a reason because of ideology.
The law says you have to declare yourself incapable of serving. It doesn't say you have to prove that you are incapable or even really be incapable. Plus, as secretary of state, you have to be consistent in how you apply the law. If you allow other candidates withdraw with no declaration, you have to let this candidate withdraw, too.
-
The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?
And George HW Bush appointed "republican" David Souter to the USSC, so that obviously means he was a conservative, right? :rolleyes: The KSSC is currently composed (until Stegall joins) of hard leftists and a couple of squishy "moderates." Our current nominating process, by which a predominantly liberal group of attorneys first screens the candidates, has done a good job of ensuring this.
Anyway, back to the point you keep dodging, you really believe Taylor didn't lie when he "declared" that he's incapable of serving? Wow.
No, I don't. I certainly would never vote for him.
Ok, so you agree that Taylor lied in a notarized letter to the SoS. Now, would you also agree that lying to satisfy a legal requirement, in order to give your party a political advantage, is a dirty trick?
It's interesting to me that not a single justice thought to ask Mr. Taylor's attorney the reason he was incapable of serving. They didn't ask because they know he's lying (as we all do), and they are complicit in his lie by removing him from the ballot without requiring an explanation.
No, it's just following the letter of the law to get your name off of the ballot. If you don't want to be a senator, you don't have to be a senator.
No, you're still not getting this. It is most certainly not "following the letter of the law" to withdraw in the manner Taylor did unless he actually is incapable of serving. That's kind of the whole friggin point of the law. So, he lied.
Politicians lie all the time, of course. The difference here, and what makes this such a galling dirty trick, is that Taylor, a District Attorney, lied to the legal system, and a court of 6 esteemed jourists - who knew the same as you and I that he was lying - let him get away with it without so much as asking for a reason because of ideology.
The law says you have to declare yourself incapable of serving. It doesn't say you have to prove that you are incapable or even really be incapable.
:facepalm: :lol: Hey - the law doesn't say you can't lie! No really, that's your argument? :lol: Whatever man, there's no convincing you. You're hopeless.
-
You can't accept other withdrawals from other campaigns without verifying statements and then take this one to court just because somebody you like might lose his office. If the law had been consistently applied the way you want it to be in the past, I would have no problem with Kobach trying to leave Taylor on the ballot. This is just the Secretary of State trying to rig an election, and the people who support that are just as bad as he is.
-
Just look at this liberal filth . . . I bet he named the white dog Harry Reid and the brown dog Barack Obama Jr.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pitch.com%2Fimager%2Fnew-poll-has-greg-orman-stretching-out-a-7%2Fb%2Foriginal%2F4870188%2Ff441%2FGregandSybil.jpg&hash=fc0e18144b5cf1743ff2a66e90bda8f5542b3d22)
-
LOL
-
White one actually looks like Pelosi a little
-
Regarding the Orman family picture, the dog children look happy. According to his bio no children; I don't trust a man who won't spawn. Also he had a company that sold energy effecient lighting, damn dim blue bulbs. Is this guy a prairie al gore?
-
Regarding the Orman family picture, the dog children look happy. According to his bio no children; I don't trust a man who won't spawn. Also he had a company that sold energy effecient lighting, damn dim blue bulbs. Is this guy a prairie al gore?
Maybe his wife can't conceive and it's very painful for them jerk
-
Regarding the Orman family picture, the dog children look happy. According to his bio no children; I don't trust a man who won't spawn. Also he had a company that sold energy effecient lighting, damn dim blue bulbs. Is this guy a prairie al gore?
Maybe his wife can't conceive and it's very painful for them jerk
He should still be judged harshly for that.
-
What is the penalty for not replacing him? I would assume it is that you just don't get your party on the ballot. Seems fair.
It's not fair if the reason you pulled your candidate was to consolidate the vote behind another liberal running as an "Independent." It's a dirty trick. There doesn't need to be a "penalty" for the Court to order that the law be obeyed.
The court can order whatever they want, but the dems still have to find a guy who actually agrees to run for senate. What happens if they can't find somebody?
Probably just have a check box next to "democrat"
I don't understand why this whole charade isn't humiliating for the Democrats. The pubs acting like babies and the sorry state of Dem party is probably why.
-
Question: Do you disagree that this is a dirty trick? Do you actually think that Taylor honestly is incable of serving?
Yes, I disagree. If a candidate doesn't want to be on the ballot, he should be able to withdraw. There is nothing dirty about this.
The law doesn't allow you to withdraw for "not wanting to be on the ballot." You can onloy withdraw if you are "incapable of serving." Do you understand the definitional difference between "can't" and "I don't wanna"? Now I'll ask you again, do you think Taylor told the truth when he said he was "incapable of serving if elected"? If so, what do you think changed?
He lost interest, I guess. Does it really matter if he was telling the truth?
I would guess perjury is not something lawyers should be engaged in. If Taylor is capable of serving, and a court has now ruled he swore under oath he is not, he has committed perjury.
-
The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?
Per curiam does not necessarily mean unanimous. What's was bizarre (chicken-crap) is that they had the interim judge sign the opinion.
Politics aside, our Supreme court is in an extremely sad state right now.
-
None of this will matter in November when Roberts wins reelection in a landslide. I don't think the tea party people pissed at Roberts are ultimately going to support orman. Just like I don't think they'll ultimately support davis.
-
Question: Do you disagree that this is a dirty trick? Do you actually think that Taylor honestly is incable of serving?
Yes, I disagree. If a candidate doesn't want to be on the ballot, he should be able to withdraw. There is nothing dirty about this.
The law doesn't allow you to withdraw for "not wanting to be on the ballot." You can onloy withdraw if you are "incapable of serving." Do you understand the definitional difference between "can't" and "I don't wanna"? Now I'll ask you again, do you think Taylor told the truth when he said he was "incapable of serving if elected"? If so, what do you think changed?
He lost interest, I guess. Does it really matter if he was telling the truth?
I would guess perjury is not something lawyers should be engaged in. If Taylor is capable of serving, and a court has now ruled he swore under oath he is not, he has committed perjury.
I didn't even see where the court questioned Taylor.
-
What is the penalty for not replacing him? I would assume it is that you just don't get your party on the ballot. Seems fair.
It's not fair if the reason you pulled your candidate was to consolidate the vote behind another liberal running as an "Independent." It's a dirty trick. There doesn't need to be a "penalty" for the Court to order that the law be obeyed.
The court can order whatever they want, but the dems still have to find a guy who actually agrees to run for senate. What happens if they can't find somebody?
Probably just have a check box next to "democrat"
I don't understand why this whole charade isn't humiliating for the Democrats. The pubs acting like babies and the sorry state of Dem party is probably why.
It absolutely should be humiliating to the democrats. The icing on the cake will be when Orman caucuses with the pubs.
-
Question: Do you disagree that this is a dirty trick? Do you actually think that Taylor honestly is incable of serving?
Yes, I disagree. If a candidate doesn't want to be on the ballot, he should be able to withdraw. There is nothing dirty about this.
The law doesn't allow you to withdraw for "not wanting to be on the ballot." You can onloy withdraw if you are "incapable of serving." Do you understand the definitional difference between "can't" and "I don't wanna"? Now I'll ask you again, do you think Taylor told the truth when he said he was "incapable of serving if elected"? If so, what do you think changed?
He lost interest, I guess. Does it really matter if he was telling the truth?
I would guess perjury is not something lawyers should be engaged in. If Taylor is capable of serving, and a court has now ruled he swore under oath he is not, he has committed perjury.
I didn't even see where the court questioned Taylor.
I don't think the Kobonster raised the issue. He should have ranted and raved about how rough ridin' incompetent you have to be to be incapable of being a senator. How Stuart smally is a senator. And demanded that someone so incompetent immediately resign from his da position for the safety of all women, children and cops in Shawnee county. At least get your money's worth.
What is also troubling is how willy nilly our S.Ct issued a writ of mandamus, and how they did some pathetic statutory construction that didn't even get into legislative intent or a single canon of construction. It was a frighteningly terrible opinion and they should be embarrassed. If I was kobach I probably would disregard it.
-
Question: Do you disagree that this is a dirty trick? Do you actually think that Taylor honestly is incable of serving?
Yes, I disagree. If a candidate doesn't want to be on the ballot, he should be able to withdraw. There is nothing dirty about this.
The law doesn't allow you to withdraw for "not wanting to be on the ballot." You can onloy withdraw if you are "incapable of serving." Do you understand the definitional difference between "can't" and "I don't wanna"? Now I'll ask you again, do you think Taylor told the truth when he said he was "incapable of serving if elected"? If so, what do you think changed?
He lost interest, I guess. Does it really matter if he was telling the truth?
I would guess perjury is not something lawyers should be engaged in. If Taylor is capable of serving, and a court has now ruled he swore under oath he is not, he has committed perjury.
I didn't even see where the court questioned Taylor.
They didn't, and the letter is not a sworn statement, so he didn't perjure himself. He did lie to the legal system, which is blatantly unethical, but he'll never be called out for that, just like the justices chose not to call him out for his lie. Instead, they aided him in his lie. That's the part that's so infuriating. It's just another example of how the government no longer has any sense of justice or right and wrong - the government only cares about government, and the liberal expansion of more government.
-
Question: Do you disagree that this is a dirty trick? Do you actually think that Taylor honestly is incable of serving?
Yes, I disagree. If a candidate doesn't want to be on the ballot, he should be able to withdraw. There is nothing dirty about this.
The law doesn't allow you to withdraw for "not wanting to be on the ballot." You can onloy withdraw if you are "incapable of serving." Do you understand the definitional difference between "can't" and "I don't wanna"? Now I'll ask you again, do you think Taylor told the truth when he said he was "incapable of serving if elected"? If so, what do you think changed?
He lost interest, I guess. Does it really matter if he was telling the truth?
I would guess perjury is not something lawyers should be engaged in. If Taylor is capable of serving, and a court has now ruled he swore under oath he is not, he has committed perjury.
I think Kobach should sue and try to prove that Chad Taylor would be an outstanding US Senator.
-
:lol:
-
Regarding the Orman family picture, the dog children look happy. According to his bio no children; I don't trust a man who won't spawn. Also he had a company that sold energy effecient lighting, damn dim blue bulbs. Is this guy a prairie al gore?
You're kidding about the bulbs right?
-
Regarding the Orman family picture, the dog children look happy. According to his bio no children; I don't trust a man who won't spawn. Also he had a company that sold energy effecient lighting, damn dim blue bulbs. Is this guy a prairie al gore?
You're kidding about the bulbs right?
LEDs are great. CFLs are the spawn of satan. Which one was Taylor?
-
Question: Do you disagree that this is a dirty trick? Do you actually think that Taylor honestly is incable of serving?
Yes, I disagree. If a candidate doesn't want to be on the ballot, he should be able to withdraw. There is nothing dirty about this.
The law doesn't allow you to withdraw for "not wanting to be on the ballot." You can onloy withdraw if you are "incapable of serving." Do you understand the definitional difference between "can't" and "I don't wanna"? Now I'll ask you again, do you think Taylor told the truth when he said he was "incapable of serving if elected"? If so, what do you think changed?
He lost interest, I guess. Does it really matter if he was telling the truth?
I would guess perjury is not something lawyers should be engaged in. If Taylor is capable of serving, and a court has now ruled he swore under oath he is not, he has committed perjury.
I didn't even see where the court questioned Taylor.
They didn't, and the letter is not a sworn statement, so he didn't perjure himself. He did lie to the legal system, which is blatantly unethical, but he'll never be called out for that, just like the justices chose not to call him out for his lie. Instead, they aided him in his lie. That's the part that's so infuriating. It's just another example of how the government no longer has any sense of justice or right and wrong - the government only cares about government, and the liberal expansion of more government.
It was attested to under oath, so yes, he committed perjury.
-
Get this, guys. Lawrence Liberal Paul Davis went to a strip club near Coffeeville during the 90s. What a loser. :lol:
-
Get this, guys. Lawrence Liberal Paul Davis went to a strip club near Coffeeville during the 90s. What a loser. :lol:
Decay of morals in our society didn't just start today. Pfft. Libs have been pushing that agenda for decades. He was probably handing out Plan b pills or something.
-
Coffeeville :lol:
-
Get this, guys. Lawrence Liberal Paul Davis went to a strip club near Coffeeville during the 90s. What a loser. :lol:
During a meth bust! Apparently you can take the scumbag out of Lawrence, but you can't take the lawrence out of the scumbag.
-
He had to lay on the floor of the champagne room :frown:
-
He had to lay on the floor of the champagne room :frown:
:yuck:
-
Davis was at the club practicing his handshake.
-
He had to lay on the floor of the champagne room :frown:
At Secrets in Coffeeville. :frown:
-
Keep up the good work in this thread, everyone. KSUW has taken over as the board personality I find most entertaining. Sorry, Kim.
-
I am seeing on the news that some absentee ballots still have Taylor's name on them and some don't have the correct date that they need to be returned by. What a joke. Kobach has one of the easiest jobs on planet earth and he can't get it right.
-
I am seeing on the news that some absentee ballots still have Taylor's name on them and some don't have the correct date that they need to be returned by. What a joke. Kobach has one of the easiest jobs on planet earth and he can't get it right.
I'm sure it was an honest mistake.
-
I am seeing on the news that some absentee ballots still have Taylor's name on them and some don't have the correct date that they need to be returned by. What a joke. Kobach has one of the easiest jobs on planet earth and he can't get it right.
Liberal media :curse:
-
Your ballot comes from your county election commissioner, not the Kobonster.
This thing has gotten so mumped up by Taylor and Kobach, that both parties are going to get what they deserve, a federal lawsuit where the SCOTUS decides who wins.
-
“You may vote using the ballot accompanying this letter as soon as you receive it, or you may wait to vote until you’ve received further notification from us,” Kobach told overseas voters. His disclaimer added, “If a replacement ballot is sent to you, and you have already returned the ballot that accompanies this letter, only your replacement ballot will be counted.”
CNN had this and linked from your fav source:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/kobachs-ballot-disclaimer-worsens-kansas-circus (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/kobachs-ballot-disclaimer-worsens-kansas-circus)
-
:lol:
-
Except for you overseas kansas voters, all 642 of you, you get yours from kobach himself.
-
Except for you overseas kansas voters, all 642 of you, you get yours from kobach himself.
Yep. You get a ballot that may or may not count, pending further notice. Thank you for your service.
-
Except for you overseas kansas voters, all 642 of you, you get yours from kobach himself.
Yep. You get a ballot that may or may not count, pending further notice. Thank you for your service.
Depends on whether the KS S.Ct continues to read statutes out of the books. What a mess.
-
If only the man whose only role is to get people driver's licenses and print ballots would stop trying to interpret a law that the Supreme Court has already interpreted for him . . .
-
If only the man whose only role is to get people driver's licenses and print ballots would stop trying to interpret a law that the Supreme Court has already interpreted for him . . .
I'm not sure you understand what the secretary of state does.
All the court did was interpret the word "pursuant", which was not part of the law, and then refuse to enforce another law. They're as culpable as Taylor, the Dems and Kobach
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.islandpacket.com%2Fsmedia%2F2014%2F09%2F23%2F16%2F53%2F18TGFz.AuSt.9.jpeg&hash=d0168fc6027228edb2ca7c34861a746fc0439296)
-
Holy crap, elect that man!
-
:lynchmob:
-
Always knew Mark Ruffalo was emaw
-
Is he super wishy-washy? I bet he wears KU stuff during basketball season.
-
Always knew Mark Ruffalo was emaw
That's John Stamos. Noted emaw hero.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F1289515%2Fthumbs%2Fo-JOHN-STAMOS-facebook.jpg&hash=4636aade94ddace2665c4666f831eb066f204a6d)
-
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/sam-brownback-kansas-paul-davis
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motherjones.com%2Ffiles%2FBrownback_630x700.jpg&hash=4560d740c3d77f1f02dcdf629b32663c835099d1)
This image is pretty great.
-
Welp, it's settled then.
-
KS religious conservatives, heads up:
http://cjonline.com/news/2014-09-24/state-oks-sale-sex-toys-online-recoup-tax-losses (http://cjonline.com/news/2014-09-24/state-oks-sale-sex-toys-online-recoup-tax-losses)
ad fake dongs per aspera
-
Who does Greg Orman caucus and side with you? He won't say, and seems to be hiding on this issue. My guess.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I'm betting he sides with the republicans.
-
I'm betting he sides with the republicans.
So you're betting the Republicans win back 51 seats without Roberts? He'll caucus with whomever takes the majority, but if the Republicans only get to 50 without him, you can be damned sure he'll go Democrat. His ideology appears to be left of center. The only question is whether he's more a Claire McCaskill left or full-on crazy-eyes Nancy Pelosi left.
-
I'm betting he sides with the republicans.
So you're betting the Republicans win back 51 seats without Roberts? He'll caucus with whomever takes the majority, but if the Republicans only get to 50 without him, you can be damned sure he'll go Democrat. His ideology appears to be left of center. The only question is whether he's more a Claire McCaskill left or full-on crazy-eyes Nancy Pelosi left.
I think he will side with whoever is more likely to get him reelected.
-
He will caucus with Dems. I mean, he could win the election today if he would simply come out and say he would caucus with the R's.
-
He will caucus with Dems. I mean, he could win the election today if he would simply come out and say he would caucus with the R's.
If he said he would caucus with the R's from day 1, Taylor never would have dropped out of the race and he would have zero chance of winning.
-
He will caucus with Dems. I mean, he could win the election today if he would simply come out and say he would caucus with the R's.
If he said he would caucus with the R's from day 1, Taylor never would have dropped out of the race and he would have zero chance of winning.
Yep, but Taylor is gone now and has been for a week or more. So, he could win the thing right now if he simply said he was going with the R's. The race becomes a contest against two R's at that point. One who many dislike but may or may not vote for because they are worried that the other guy may go Dem. So, if Orman came out R, it would sway many of those voters, imo. Race over.
-
He will caucus with Dems. I mean, he could win the election today if he would simply come out and say he would caucus with the R's.
If he said he would caucus with the R's from day 1, Taylor never would have dropped out of the race and he would have zero chance of winning.
Yep, but Taylor is gone now and has been for a week or more. So, he could win the thing right now if he simply said he was going with the R's. The race becomes a contest against two R's at that point. One who many dislike but may or may not vote for because they are worried that the other guy may go Dem. So, if Orman came out R, it would sway many of those voters, imo. Race over.
If he comes out as a republican now, he loses everything he has been running on up to this point, like being a "true independent". Whoever Orman decides to caucus with, I would certainly hope that he gets the state of Kansas a whole lot of pork in return.
-
He will caucus with Dems. I mean, he could win the election today if he would simply come out and say he would caucus with the R's.
If he said he would caucus with the R's from day 1, Taylor never would have dropped out of the race and he would have zero chance of winning.
Yep, but Taylor is gone now and has been for a week or more. So, he could win the thing right now if he simply said he was going with the R's. The race becomes a contest against two R's at that point. One who many dislike but may or may not vote for because they are worried that the other guy may go Dem. So, if Orman came out R, it would sway many of those voters, imo. Race over.
If he comes out as a republican now, he loses everything he has been running on up to this point, like being a "true independent". Whoever Orman decides to caucus with, I would certainly hope that he gets the state of Kansas a whole lot of pork in return.
The other options are gone now though. The choice is him or Roberts. If you liked Orman because he was more moderate or liberal, well guess what, you are still voting for him over Roberts.
-
He will caucus with Dems. I mean, he could win the election today if he would simply come out and say he would caucus with the R's.
If he said he would caucus with the R's from day 1, Taylor never would have dropped out of the race and he would have zero chance of winning.
Yep, but Taylor is gone now and has been for a week or more. So, he could win the thing right now if he simply said he was going with the R's. The race becomes a contest against two R's at that point. One who many dislike but may or may not vote for because they are worried that the other guy may go Dem. So, if Orman came out R, it would sway many of those voters, imo. Race over.
If he comes out as a republican now, he loses everything he has been running on up to this point, like being a "true independent". Whoever Orman decides to caucus with, I would certainly hope that he gets the state of Kansas a whole lot of pork in return.
The other options are gone now though. The choice is him or Roberts. If you liked Orman because he was more moderate or liberal, well guess what, you are still voting for him over Roberts.
True, but I think he is going to win, anyway. He still has a month to pick the R's if he falls behind in the polls.
-
Orman is going to caucus with the party that gives him, and by extension Kansas, the best deal. I think the republicans want the senate more than the democrats care to keep it, but it will be interesting to say the least.
-
Orman is going to caucus with the party that gives him, and by extension Kansas, the best deal. I think the republicans want the senate more than the democrats care to keep it, but it will be interesting to say the least.
say What!!!!???? The dems are desperate to keep every small edge they have, even if it includes ditching Holder and suddenly getting a new "tough on the border" attitude AG along with a new war on terror before the election.
-
Orman is going to caucus with the party that gives him, and by extension Kansas, the best deal. I think the republicans want the senate more than the democrats care to keep it, but it will be interesting to say the least.
say What!!!!???? The dems are desperate to keep every small edge they have, even if it includes ditching Holder and suddenly getting a new "tough on the border" attitude AG along with a new war on terror before the election.
Yeah, both parties want it really bad, but I just think the republicans want it more. We will find out in January, I guess. Unless Roberts wins. Then he will just toe the party line and keep voting against things like NBAF and the farm bill.
-
does he have the option to not caucus with anyone and flip double birds
-
Is anyone else bothered by, "I'll caucus with the majority"? I mean, what the eff is that?
This 1% er sounds like a real bandwagon jagoff
-
Caucusing sounds like exactly what is wrong with our political system
-
Orman likes the Seahawks, the Dodgers, the Heat, Duke basketball and Alabama football.
-
Orman likes the Seahawks, the Dodgers, the Heat, Duke basketball and Alabama football.
:love: Would vote for.
-
Is anyone else bothered by, "I'll caucus with the majority"? I mean, what the eff is that?
This 1% er sounds like a real bandwagon jagoff
Seems pretty smart to me. Orman is going to get himself a spot on whatever committee he wants.
-
Is anyone else bothered by, "I'll caucus with the majority"? I mean, what the eff is that?
This 1% er sounds like a real bandwagon jagoff
Seems pretty smart to me. Orman is going to get himself a spot on whatever committee he wants.
This is a complete failure in logic
-
From a guy on shaggy who attended some private Q&A thing of ormans last night
OK... So we got started last night around 7:30 with some mingling and wine/cocktails. About 25-28 people were there and most were businessmen/small business owners or doctors. I believe there was 1 lawyer in the crowd as well. Greg worked the room, made everyone comfortable, and made sure he personally introduced himself to everyone. His wife also introduced herself as she got there about 10 minutes before he was able to.
When we sat down Greg went over his history, his ties to KS, his professional career, and then what his vision was. It's pretty clear, he presents a different option. There isn't anything flashy about him, he's running because he reconizes what everyone reconizes.. we have a bunch of hacks in washington. He openly said that he is socially "tolerant." He isn't against gay marriage and he isn't overly religious, but with where our state is and the times we are in he doesn't feel that abortion and keeping the gays out of the chapel is a priority. He is a fiscal conservative. He comes from a successful business background and he makes decisions based on facts. Not opinions or feelings. Facts.
He was asked what he feels the 3 biggest issues are.
1. Healthcare costs - I think this is a bullshit answer at first, but he recognizes that costs will continue to increase. The key is limiting that. He worked with a research doctor at St. Luke's hospital in KC regarding some health issue. The hospital found that when it prescribed a certain drug after a heart stent there was a less than 10% return rate of the patients. The problem is, the patients that got the drug weren't at risk for bleeding so they didn't need it. The patients that were at risk weren't getting it and were having a return rate of over 50%. By just getting the presription right and it saved the hospital millions as well as the patients that were effected. The doctors in the crowd agreed.
2. He talked about entitlements and the poverty issue - This seemed "feel good" to me. But he brought up good points about getting to the root of problems. One case he brought up was how a local KC school had a poor graduation rate. The school was in a poorer area and they did some studies on transportation. The school changed the bus policy to pick up kids that lived further than 1/2 mile away instead of just the kids that live over 2 miles away. Graduation rates rose from sub 50% to over 75%.
3. Immigration - He was very clear and open about this subject. I flat doesn't make sense to find and deport everyone. You can't do it. He mentioned an agriculture company that siad they could hire 1000 employees in KS if there was clarity on that issue. I didn't get that but whatever. He also brought up that illegals are less likely to call the police. In western ks there was recently a gang of 20 people that were arrested for preying on illegal immigrants. They would rape, burglarize, and extort the immigrants because they knew they couldn't call the police. Bringing those people onto the payroll only raises the tax base and solves other crimes. This is pretty much how I felt.
Finally he covered the status quo. This was the subject I was most interested in and this is where the 49-50 split scenario was brought up and asked about. In this scenario he was asked what he would do. He said he would negotiate with both sides regarding issues that he felt were most pressing and whoever agreed to address the issues in a smart pragmatic way would be the group he joined. If they didn't stay true to their word he would head to the other side of the aisle to see what he could accomplish.
My comment "Realistically you have 2 years of influence. We know you're not going to get everything you want done in those two years, so how are you going to make the most impact while you have the most influence?" He responded that we need to change the leadership at the top. Going directly after the top leaders of each party is priority number one. Greg also said that this is a 2 term project. He really feels that things are measuring up well and if he can't make a bit of progress in 2 terms then he is not going to run for a third term.
Later, I was talking with the family friend we worked with to set up the gathering and he told me that Harry Reid and Mitch Mcconnell are target number 1 and 2. If things shake out to where Greg has the maximum influence he will not caucus with the dems if harry reid is going to be majority leader. To a lesser extent Mitch Mcconnell. If you want his support there has to be new leadership in your party. He might just be entering the senate at the right time.
Greg is self funding his campaign, not taking any special interest money, and is running a very positive campaign. He only said "my opponent" 3 times all night. It was about tackling issues and discussion not about complaining. We had some great personal discussion later in the night between the two of us and the guy has my support. I, and he, hope that he can be a model for other states to upset their status quo.
-
TLDNR
Cliff's notes please
-
TLDNR
Cliff's notes please
You will hate Greg Orman.
-
TLDNR
Cliff's notes please
You will hate Greg Orman.
Yup, rabid leftist
-
lib, thanks for the Orman veiwpoint. He sounds like a pretty good ol' turd and actually in the middle; not a leftie. IMO a true conservative is best, but I won't slit my wrists if Orman is elected because it sounds like he hates that greasy old bastard Reid as much as I do. I'd rather caucus with a rattlesnake than liar Reid. If Orman can torture Dem leadership then great - it would frost those eastern leftist butts if he did caucus with Republicans. Orman sounds pragmatic and doesn't pander to groups and say things to get elected espcially to ignorant voters. I respect a honest pol even if I disagree with him on some issues. I like Pat, but I am worried about him. Recently, Kansas declared zombie recognition week (?) and Roberts seems to be taking it to heart.
-
lib, thanks for the Orman veiwpoint. He sounds like a pretty good ol' turd and actually in the middle; not a leftie. IMO a true conservative is best, but I won't slit my wrists if Orman is elected because it sounds like he hates that greasy old bastard Reid as much as I do. I'd rather caucus with a rattlesnake than liar Reid. If Orman can torture Dem leadership then great - it would frost those eastern leftist butts if he did caucus with Republicans. Orman sounds pragmatic and doesn't pander to groups and say things to get elected espcially to ignorant voters. I respect a honest pol even if I disagree with him on some issues. I like Pat, but I am worried about him. Recently, Kansas declared zombie recognition week (?) and Roberts seems to be taking it to heart.
This guy gets it. I mean, who cares if he goes easy on brown ppl and gays as long as he really fucks with harry and stuff. Go get him Orman!
-
Sounds like a huge stud. Using his independent status to manipulate the majority leader appointment is genius and huge balled.
I would love if Orman could end Roberts lifetime office at 33 years.
-
TLDNR
Cliff's notes please
You will hate Greg Orman.
Great, thx
-
So he's a "fiscal conservative" but he's in favor of expanding Medicaid to citizens above the poverty line as well as 15 million poor and newly legalized immigrants, he's "outraged" by a government "shutdown" in which the government never really shut down, and he's promising to leverage his independent status to bring home more pork to Kansas? Sounds like Orman is either lying about being a fiscal conservative or he doesn't know what a fiscal conservative is. Either way, I think I'd prefer to vote for someone who I at least know will caucus with the GOP and evict Harry Reid.
-
i just dont understand how you can complain about the state of washington and then vote for someone who has been there for 33 years
-
I'm sure he supports amnesty because it is good for the Kansas economy.
-
i just dont understand how you can complain about the state of washington and then vote for someone who has been there for 33 years
Just needs more time. Washington is a network and you got to get into it before you can change it. I mean, look at Harry Reid. He has been there for over 27 yrs......wait....
-
Coach Weis should run for office. He will get the time he needs in DC.
-
i just dont understand how you can complain about the state of washington and then vote for someone who has been there for 33 years
As an outsider, Obama has taken everything wrong with Washington and doubled down.
-
i just dont understand how you can complain about the state of washington and then vote for someone who has been there for 33 years
As an outsider, Obama has taken everything wrong with Washington and doubled down.
He only has 2 years left, thank to term limits. Orman supports term limits.
-
Looks like the ballot for senate will stay liberal-free.
http://www.kmbc.com/news/court-democrats-dont-need-to-replace-taylor-on-kansas-ballot/28356508
-
My super conservative small to medium business owner friends have all met with Orman and came away very impressed. "Either he does all kinds of badass stuff because he is the deciding vote, or he gets mumped when there's already a majority and the parties hate that he chose to not caucus with either party prior to election. I like him because I would go out like that too." - almost verbatim conservative guy
-
980 radio just said that orman is up 46-41 in the latest USA today poll, and Davis is up 46-42.
-
980 radio just said that orman is up 46-41 in the latest USA today poll, and Davis is up 46-42.
I think Orman will hold on. It's going to be a long month for Davis, though.
-
My super conservative small to medium business owner friends have all met with Orman and came away very impressed. "Either he does all kinds of badass stuff because he is the deciding vote, or he gets mumped when there's already a majority and the parties hate that he chose to not caucus with either party prior to election. I like him because I would go out like that too." - almost verbatim conservative guy
Congrats on having so many friends you can lump them into categories, including, the small business owner category and the medium business owner category.
-
Even super-moderate-tard Steve Rose of the KC Star gets it: Orman jeopardizes GOP Senate control, and as long as Harry Reid is in control, nothing will get done. http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/steve-rose/article2499238.html (http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/steve-rose/article2499238.html)
The Republicans need to pick up six seats to take over the Senate. They cannot afford to lose Kansas.
Orman will not say whether he would caucus with the Democrats or Republicans. If he would declare himself an independent, moderate Republican, a la Nancy Kassebaum, he would have my vote in a heartbeat. But, unless he unexpectedly changes his mind, Orman will keep his intentions a secret, if he has even figured out what he would do.
It is imperative that with President Barack Obama in the White House, the country needs both chambers of Congress to be controlled by Republicans. Only then, will the gridlock be broken.
Sure, a lot of legislation will come out of a Republican-controlled Congress that will be odious to Obama. That's why he has the veto pen.
Obama has used his veto pen only twice - less than any president since James Garfield in 1881. That's because Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate have blocked virtually all the bills that have originated in the House, and Reid has squashed all Republican efforts in the Senate.
So, for those who are concerned that extremists will take over the government if the Senate goes Republican, keep two things in mind. One, there is the veto; two, the Republican senators likely to get elected in November are not from the tea party. They are "establishment" Republicans who are more responsible.
This unified Republican control could lead to some very interesting outcomes, much like when Bill Clinton was president and faces a unified Republican Congress. Clinton negotiated a balanced budget and welfare reform. If Obama had a little more Clinton in him, he would make strides with Republicans. It would require both sides moving toward the center to get things accomplished.
And if the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate, they would have to demonstrate they could govern, not just obstruct.
There would be tremendous pressure on Republicans to act on some sort of immigration reform, tax reform, infrastructure plan, Obamacare modifications and an energy plan that would include the Keystone Pipeline XL.
Probably their first act would to approve fast-track trade agreements. Obama wants them, but the pacts have been blocked by Senate Democrats, who are influenced by trade unions opposed to free trade.
And that pretty well sums it up.
-
Hey look at that! George Soros (think evil version of Charles Koch) is hosting a fundraiser for "independent" Greg Orman! http://freebeacon.com/politics/soros-to-host-fundraiser-for-independent-kansas-senate-candidate/ (http://freebeacon.com/politics/soros-to-host-fundraiser-for-independent-kansas-senate-candidate/)
Cause that's what George wants - more "independents" in Congress.
-
How do you get more evil than the Kochs?
-
Roberts or someone admittedly less staunchly conservative the someone who is partying with the ultra conservative. Hmm, weird that soros would choose what he has.
-
Roberts or someone admittedly less staunchly conservative the someone who is partying with the ultra conservative. Hmm, weird that soros would choose what he has.
Smells of desperation.
-
How do you get more evil than the Kochs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday)
-
How do you get more evil than the Kochs?
I always hear people say this, but don't know a single evil thing any of them have done. Is this a "big oil" thing or butthurt about them being libertarians thing?
-
The right wingers are pulling ahead in the polls.
If it's made public Ormand took soros money he's completely mumped.
-
How do you get more evil than the Kochs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday)
That's not evil, it's smart. He profited legally from the UK government's stupidity.
-
George Soros (think evil version of Charles Koch)
Soros didn't inherit the start of his fortune from his father.
-
How do you get more evil than the Kochs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday)
That's not evil, it's smart. He profited legally from the UK government's stupidity.
yes, evil genius.
-
I thought the Roberts/Orman debate went pretty much as expected last night. Gonna be a very close race, but I'm skeptical Roberts will pull it out. Hopefully the GOP will make significant gains elsewhere in the Senate, making Orman a non-issue.
The GOP needs more young blood, but they need it from impassioned conservatives/libertarians like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul - not from squishy moderates like Greg Orman. Oh well. We shall see.
I'm feeling a bit more comfortable about Brownback/Davis, which is a much more important race for Kansans.
-
Lol
-
George Soros (think evil version of Charles Koch)
Soros didn't inherit the start of his fortune from his father.
Soros is pure evil. To save his own ass he betrayed his Jewish family by posing as a non-jew and working for the nazis.
If you don't think what he did with the british sterling is wrong, you should get a job working for Goldman sachs or RJ Reynolds, because you have the moral compass of a crack dealer.
-
I personally don't appreciate any billionaires heavily fincially involved in politics.
-
I don't remember seeing police stumping for govs. Seems odd.
-
I don't remember seeing police stumping for govs. Seems odd.
unions
-
Plumbers and Pipe Fitters going for Davis too, shocking.
-
So who are we all voting for tomorrow?
-
According to my mailbox, all available candidates are all basically Obamas. Even the Rep's. What's a moderate to do?
-
According to my mailbox, all available candidates are all basically Obamas. Even the Rep's. What's a moderate to do?
I think you have to have the ability to cut through the bullshit and find the real Obamas.
-
George Soros (think evil version of Charles Koch)
Soros didn't inherit the start of his fortune from his father.
Soros is pure evil. To save his own ass he betrayed his Jewish family by posing as a non-jew and working for the nazis.
If you don't think what he did with the british sterling is wrong, you should get a job working for Goldman sachs or RJ Reynolds, because you have the moral compass of a crack dealer.
This post is adorable. To be so ignorant of a topic and yet so angry about it.
FSD: "I don't know or understand what this guy actually did, but I heard I should hate him!"
-
Ah yes, Bread is just part of the great Soros obfuscation and deflection.
Any money going to Dem/Prog/Lib is "good money" no matter the source.
-
I don't think Soros or the Kochs are evil. They just have way too much wealth to know what to do with and the Rs and Ds have effectively scammed them out of millions.
-
Ah yes, Bread is just part of the great Soros obfuscation and deflection.
Any money going to Dem/Prog/Lib is "good money" no matter the source.
I don't care who any of these guys donate money to. The first time I heard about Soros was here. Same for the Koches. Don't be so weird Dax.
-
If Roberts croaks in office or becomes mentally incapable of serving, the governor will name his replacement. A Governor Davis would name a Democrat, and old Bastard Reid would smile his happy weasel smile. This is a good reason to vote Brownback.
-
George Soros (think evil version of Charles Koch)
Soros didn't inherit the start of his fortune from his father.
Soros is pure evil. To save his own ass he betrayed his Jewish family by posing as a non-jew and working for the nazis.
If you don't think what he did with the british sterling is wrong, you should get a job working for Goldman sachs or RJ Reynolds, because you have the moral compass of a crack dealer.
This post is adorable. To be so ignorant of a topic and yet so angry about it.
FSD: "I don't know or understand what this guy actually did, but I heard I should hate him!"
This post is incongruent with your, "the first time I heard of soros was in the pit"
-
he didn't say the first time was this thread you mongoloid
-
he didn't say the first time was this thread you mongoloid
Do you point your bat at the fans in the outfield bleachers before you jack homeruns like this?
-
fsd is proof that abortion should be used more often. just a stupid, stupid person, utterly incapable of following normal conversation
-
:lol:
-
Lib, your behavior "here" is quite manic. Come here and give me a hug and cry it out. You don't really want to murder me. It's okay that you're a neocon, it's not the dirty word you think it is.
Your Pal,
Sugar Dick
-
fsd is proof that abortion should be used more often. just a stupid, stupid person, utterly incapable of following normal conversation
Whether "here" is the Pit, Manhattan, Kansas or some other location recently arrived at, the point is the same, you dolt.
I don't know what's more concerning, your haste to interject and insult, your ignorance on all things topical, or your deep seated desire to end the lives of people, but you should pick one and address it. Self improvement is hip, bro.
-
George Soros (think evil version of Charles Koch)
Soros didn't inherit the start of his fortune from his father.
Soros is pure evil. To save his own ass he betrayed his Jewish family by posing as a non-jew and working for the nazis.
If you don't think what he did with the british sterling is wrong, you should get a job working for Goldman sachs or RJ Reynolds, because you have the moral compass of a crack dealer.
This post is adorable. To be so ignorant of a topic and yet so angry about it.
FSD: "I don't know or understand what this guy actually did, but I heard I should hate him!"
This post is incongruent with your, "the first time I heard of soros was in the pit"
Actually ksuwildcats? post is why I looked them both up. It took like five minutes.
-
George Soros (think evil version of Charles Koch)
Soros didn't inherit the start of his fortune from his father.
Soros is pure evil. To save his own ass he betrayed his Jewish family by posing as a non-jew and working for the nazis.
If you don't think what he did with the british sterling is wrong, you should get a job working for Goldman sachs or RJ Reynolds, because you have the moral compass of a crack dealer.
This post is adorable. To be so ignorant of a topic and yet so angry about it.
FSD: "I don't know or understand what this guy actually did, but I heard I should hate him!"
This post is incongruent with your, "the first time I heard of soros was in the pit"
Actually ksuwildcats? post is why I looked them both up. It took like five minutes.
Wikipedia expert.
-
George Soros (think evil version of Charles Koch)
Soros didn't inherit the start of his fortune from his father.
Soros is pure evil. To save his own ass he betrayed his Jewish family by posing as a non-jew and working for the nazis.
If you don't think what he did with the british sterling is wrong, you should get a job working for Goldman sachs or RJ Reynolds, because you have the moral compass of a crack dealer.
This post is adorable. To be so ignorant of a topic and yet so angry about it.
FSD: "I don't know or understand what this guy actually did, but I heard I should hate him!"
This post is incongruent with your, "the first time I heard of soros was in the pit"
Actually ksuwildcats? post is why I looked them both up. It took like five minutes.
Lol, I guess lib7 owes me an apology and should thereafter abort himself
-
Biden Blows Greg Orman's Cover: He 'Will Be With Us' (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-blows-greg-ormans-cover-he-will-be-us_818160.html)
Vice President Joe Biden blew Kansas independent Greg Orman's cover in a radio interview today. Orman hasn't stated which party he'll caucus with in the Senate--actively avoiding announcing whether he'll be with Republicans or Democrats--but Biden stated definitively that Orman "will be with us" if he's elected.
"We have a chance of picking up an independent who will be with us in the state of Kansas," said Biden, as he predicted the outcomes of various Senate races around the country.
Orman has stated that he'll caucus with whichever party holds the balance of power in Kansas, but Republicans have long suspected he's likely to join the Democrats' side. Biden seemed to confirm that belief in this interview.
Biden made the remarks in an interview with WPLR, a Connecticut radio station.
-
You don't get to where Orman is in the business world without stabbing a few backs. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him caucus with the republicans after telling the democrats he would work with them if they cleared him a path to the senate.
-
Orman is like my ex-wife; he'll go with whoever has the bigger caucus.
Never been married; anecdote for humorous effect; huge, real huge
-
You don't get to where Orman is in the business world without stabbing a few backs. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him caucus with the republicans after telling the democrats he would work with them if they cleared him a path to the senate.
Why would he caucus with the GOP when he's ideologically aligned with the Dems? You realize he's a libtard right? He previously ran as a Dem, he voted for Barack Obama, his political donations are almost exclusively to libtards. People seem to be overlooking that Greg Orman is, in fact, a libtard.
-
You don't get to where Orman is in the business world without stabbing a few backs. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him caucus with the republicans after telling the democrats he would work with them if they cleared him a path to the senate.
Why would he caucus with the GOP when he's ideologically aligned with the Dems? You realize he's a libtard right? He previously ran as a Dem, he voted for Barack Obama, his political donations are almost exclusively to libtards. People seem to be overlooking that Greg Orman is, in fact, a libtard.
Why would he caucus with the dems when he wants to get reelected in Kansas?
-
Remember guys, anyone a step left of the extreme right is a libtard
-
Remember guys, anyone a step left of the extreme right is a libtard
Abort yourself, Foo (mr. T voice)
-
Orman has proven that the best way to run as a democrat in Kansas is to disassociate yourself from the democrats.
-
Biden is such a dipshit
-
Orman has proven that the best way to run as a democrat in Kansas is to disassociate yourself from the democrats.
Says a lot about kansas
-
I was disappointed the law allowing churches to hold raffles passed. Allowing the institutions most responsible for criminalizing gambling to sanction gambling is hypocrisy at its finest. It was nice seeing that Salina isn't quite as backward as Wichita on the fluoride issue, though.
-
2:1 margin of victory on the fluoride issue was refreshing/a little surprising to me
-
Elaborate on the flouride thing for those of us out of state plz.
-
respects wanted salina to stop fluoridating their water because government mind control
-
I was disappointed the law allowing churches to hold raffles passed. Allowing the institutions most responsible for criminalizing gambling to sanction gambling is hypocrisy at its finest. It was nice seeing that Salina isn't quite as backward as Wichita on the fluoride issue, though.
I voted for the amendment because it is closer to what should actually be the law: the public not G'ingAF what others do with thier money privately. I get the hypocrisy, tho. I mean, anyone telling me I can't bet the money I have earned is about as unamerican as it gets. I could literally open my window and throw my life savings in the wind, but it's illegal to take odds on the KSU football game where I have a decent chance at actually keeping my money.
If there was to be one more Czar announced(not a fan of the term or the modern use of them) it should be one who's job it is to run through the books with a red pen and simply delete stupidity like that.
-
I think it should be legal for everyone else to have raffles, but not churches. This law is completely backwards.
-
Well, ideally, the law simply doesn't recognize any church, just like it doesn't specifically recognize many organizations.
-
Watching Rage and CNS try to cobble together a coherent thought process is as painful as watching children with epilepsy play jenga. It's hopeless, but they aren't going to stop trying.
My, how our previously well funded schools have so famously failed them in the most rudimentary civic concepts, logic and arithmetic.
-
Someone is a proud defender of legalized jesus gambling, apparently.
-
#JesusIsMyBookie
-
The amendment applies to virtually every charitable and non-profit organization, you dipshits. It legalized a rough ridin' raffle.
-
It was adequately explained on the ballot, but clearly the both of you are too goddamn stupid to have made any sense out of a couple sentences, written in English, to know what the eff you were voting on.
http://www.ksrevenue.org/bingoraffle.html
-
It should be all or none. Exemptions for religions and charities should not exist.
-
It should be all or none. Exemptions for religions and charities should not exist.
When stupid doubles down
-
Guys, both my neighbor's pastor as well as the guy in the funny hat at the Shriners Temple say that I should take the over on the Cat's game this wknd.
-
March Madness is going to be huge with the religious community this spring.
-
Grumblings of future amendments:
- Hooking for Abused Women shelters
- Sunday School Meth Manufacturing