Attention Fellow Conservatives

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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. 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.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

[Rage Against the McKee]

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?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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?

[Rage Against the McKee]

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?

[Rage Against the McKee]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/republican-election-kansas-secretary-of-state

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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?

[Rage Against the McKee]

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?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

[michigancat]

CUT THE BULLSHIT

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

[Tobias]

so what changed?

[michigancat]

so what changed?

Didn't he cheat on his wife or something?

[Rage Against the McKee]

The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?

[CNS]

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

[star seed 7]

Kansas: liberal haven

[Rage Against the McKee]

Kansas: We break the law to stop voter fraud.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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?  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.