He will probably fail here, but not because we are the "least mountain state of the mountain states". He will probably fail here because it doesn't take much to see through the paper thin veneer.
Damo and Freak - Voting for Schaffer?
- Thread starter Bonestorm
- Start date
Socrtease
Verified User
AND because your state is fuller than most (except for probably Utah) of born again evangelical the bible should be the basis for all laws, Christians. Being in Colorado Springs is like being in the bible belt. Too many bored agains.
CO Springs simply doesn't have enough there to take over the entire vote, clearly not Ritter is Governor. But yeah. There is a center of uber-Christians there.
Shorter Damo: I prefer the candidate that follows the will of the lobbyists over the guy that follows the will of the people.
Pathetic attempt at ad hominem without regard to time spent together sharing ideas.
Truly. Pathetic.
Well, I think you're knee-jerk defense of Schaffer is pretty pathetic, particularly in light of his defense of the labor conditions on the Mariana Islands.
When you speak to your "honest" politician ask him first whether he supports the War Powers Act. Then, when you've become disillusioned with him a bit because he supports it, ask him about his several trips to the islands and relationship with Ben Fitial and why, within months of his 1999 "fact-finding" trip he publicly endorsed Fitial in an local election on the islands and whether it is mere coincidence that Fitial had legislation passed requiring the islands to use Abramoff as a lobbyist? Maybe you should also ask him if he anticipates being investigated by the FBI like the other two Republicans members of Congress that endorsed Fitial in the local election, Don Young and John Doolittle.
I think I answered your concerns with the fact that I would ask him about this, and consider a more deeper answer from a person I find to be honorable.
Instead you promptly "forget" that I said that and pretend it is all defense.
What you seem to fear is that when put into proper context there will be something more to this story than you present. Either that or you know it and fear me talking to the man himself about this.
Either way, this is just a longer winded version of the same pathetic ad hominem attack on my person for no reason other than I prefer to wait for an answer to something you wouldn't even provide a link to your sourcing for.
This was a weak attempt at an attack, so weak that you were embarrassed by your source.
This was a weak attempt at an attack on me, truly pathetic, sad and small.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The least mountain state? Lay off the peyote man. Colorado is the KING of all mountain states. BOW DOWN before our might! Damn wannabe.
seriously, you should come visit to see just how wrong you are. Outside of CO Springs there is not that big of a presence. Even in the Springs they are still a minority. No way do they control the vote in CO. Otherwise Ritter never would have been elected.
And here's the latest from the Denver Post on the endorsements and links to Abramoff and his allies:
http://www.denverpost.com/rapids/ci_8884479
http://www.denverpost.com/rapids/ci_8884479
Ah, from Denver & The West Editorials.
I see. So somebody who shares your opinion of somebody you have never met wrote an article about a man he never met, taking a quote outside of the context, and presenting all the evidence in the worst possible light and this was the worst he could come up with?
I'll still ask Bob about this, but the more you keep pushing the more I find you are just a small man with a small mind who expects the world to think exactly like him or he'll spend all his time making sad little attacks.
It may be that I will agree with you, that he'll have nothing to give me more than this. If such is the case I'll report that too. That won't make me vote for Udall, though.
Uh, they aren't editorials. They're news articles.
And please explain how any "context" at all makes any of this any better. I'm very interested.
1. He reported abuses to the equivalent of their Attorney General. You, of course, ignore that portion or that he even recognized abuses.
2. He was speaking of the portions that did work when he made his remarks.
That is the context that can be shown from just the stories that you linked to.
That wasn't your original sourcing, or you didn't read them if they were.
You're a lost cause. You're basically the hardest of hardcore Republicans but refuse to admit it. At least I openly wear my biases.
1) I'm so glad that Schaffer claims to have reported whatever he saw on his sanitized trip to the equivalent of the attorney general. Really, I am. I just wish that a congressman wouldn't work against legislation to stop forced labor, child labor, slave labor, forced prostitution and forced abortions while taking junkets paid for by lobbyists of the business interests that do that type of stuff. I know it's unfair, but hey.
2) Oh, the portions that did work. Kind of like Mrs. Lincoln saying " Oh, but the show was fantastic" isn't it?
3) I read the articles. All three. You are correct that I first learned of the initial comment from Talking Points Memo and have been following their coverage. But what does that matter?
You're spinning out of control here.
No, when I can read the story and find a context outside of what you are presenting then be able to accurately inform that it wasn't your original source because of that. Well.... It isn't me that is spinning, sad little man.
It is the person who went into piddling little ad hominem after I had already conceded that there might be something there and I would ask Bob about it, that is who is spinning.
Now that I have read the stories you provided, in a desperate after-the-fact attempt to cover your spin and the fact your only source was from talking points, I have found the easy context to bring it up in conversation.
What a sad man, even your own stories gave me the context where what I thought about the man was actually shown, even when the stories tried to make it sound bad.
And I was able to do all of this while under the influence of heavy narcotics for pain. BooYah!
That you had to resort to ad hominem attacks to defend against a person, unused to them, on narcotics who had already stated wondered about the story and would ask Bob about it?
Yeah, that is hilarious.
Of course, I hadn't even read the Denver Post articles when I had said that. I think that if this is the best you have against Shaffer, then Udall is doomed.