Social Media Marketing Boot Camp: April 16

Need Help?

Employers

Join Today or Log in

Jobs

Hiring?
Post your open positions on our job board.
Satisfaction guaranteed. Learn more.

FAQ Contact Us

Courses

June 6, 2013 | An Interactive Online Event
Implement a complete social media campaign in six weeks. Register now.

FAQ Contact Us

Events

June 4, 2013 | San Francisco

Explore how you can — and should — approach Twitter to make the most of it for your brand. Learn from social media pros at the San Francisco Giants, SFGate, and more. Learn more.

News

How to Make Pinterest Work for Your Brand
Social-savvy marketers tell how companies can start pinning to increase the bottom line. Read more

FAQ Contact Us

Shortcuts: scoop jobs, social media jobs, online courses

Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Sanford wins Special Election

Sanford wins Special Election

Post Reply Back to Forums

1–25 out of 30 messages

Author	Message

mpdodgson	Posted - 5/8/2013 8:38:24 AM \| show profile \| flag this post I must admit I was surprised--not shocked--but surprised. I really thought the party of 'Traditional Family Values' was not going to give Mark (Yea! I was hiking!! That's the ticket!) Sanford another shot... But this is, after all, South Carolina. And lines like “I am an imperfect man, saved by God’s grace" apparently still work. (As it turned out, it wasn't even close) http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2013/05/07/7ab18818-b747-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html?hpid=z1 I swear, the next time I hear another old time conservative rail against that philandering Bill Clinton, I'm going to point to this race and then get sick.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 5/8/2013 12:46:02 PM \| show profile \| flag this post This was in a district... that went for Romney by 18 percentage points. Sanford won by just 9. This should have been a landslide for a Republican nominee. The fact that Colbert-Bush got that close shows a lot of Republicans had to hold their noses to cast their votes for Sanford.

blackedtaped	Posted - 5/8/2013 12:59:39 PM \| show profile \| flag this post So let me see... One of you was surprised by an experienced politican winning his original House seat over a novice. And the other thinks that the fact it was not as significant a winning margin as the previous Presidential election is relevant despite the fact it was an special election in an off year. Really guys, that's all you got? Remember stuff like this when someone asks "Whatever happened to the Current Events forum?"

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 5/8/2013 3:49:04 PM \| show profile \| flag this post The fact they found... a Democrat in South Carolina is a testament to the power of electron microscopes.

mpdodgson	Posted - 5/8/2013 7:08:08 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Aw c'mon blackedtape; The 'Sanford Special Election' race was most definitely Current Events/Political News. (you) "One of you was surprised by an experienced politican winning his original House seat over a novice" YEAH. I was. Because what you could have said was 'A nationally disgraced, ridiculed, walking parody of every cheating husband pond scum of a guy who tries to get off by saying he was following his heart donchaknow...and GOD will excuse him... piece of sh*t actually gets elected AGAIN...because the FAMILY VALUES voters of his party will take this neanderthal over anyone with a (D) behind their name. I thought my point was clear; It's amazing how Repubs can excuse one of their own for, let's say, "indescretions", but have no problem for condemning to hell Dems for that sin. And even a slimy Repub is better than a Dem woman.

blackedtaped	Posted - 5/8/2013 7:38:19 PM \| show profile \| flag this post No, your point was quite clear And not at all surprising considering your, shall we say, "slant" on everything. But here is another point, one you will not like. Sanford ran a very simple campaign, vote for Bush and it will be one step closer to putting Nancy Pelosi back in charge. A simple but effective campaign technique, one that continues to keep the House in republican control.

mpdodgson	Posted - 5/8/2013 9:07:24 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Well then my friend; If my point was clear, why did you neglect it? (namely the hypocrisy of the 'family values' voters condemning un-faithful Dems, but apparently accepting Sanfords Argentine adventure as nothing more than a Lord sanctioned boo-boo?). And, another point, isn't every first time candidate a "novice"? And does that automatically disqualify you against someone who, by almost every account, may be a lying scumbag, but what the heck, he's held office before, he must be qualified??) And, here's another point (that you brought up); Sanford's "simple campaign" was not 'Vote for me--because I'm better'--It was "vote for Bush {actually it's Busch} and it will be one step closer to putting Nancy Pelosi back in charge." Well there's a positive message. 'I'm slime--but she'll give you Pelosi'. Lemme guess. That's going to be the GOP mantra for 2014. We're horrible brain dead science denying women hating gun lovin flag wavin hypocritical idiots--but if you don't vote for us yer gonna get Pelosi back. Wonderful. And you guys are proud of this strategy?

blackedtaped	Posted - 5/8/2013 9:18:01 PM \| show profile \| flag this post You guys? Why do I need to keep repeating this "I am not a republican". I am a conservative and there is a difference. And the vote against Pelosi campaign has been working well for republicans so they would be foolish to change tactics.

blackedtaped	Posted - 5/9/2013 12:53:49 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Here is the thing, Mpdodgson When you talk about how I vote or even how I am registered that is one point but when you start talking party strategy that is another. I disagree with the official republican party line on many issues and certainly would never consider myself a party member. I am not consulted on any actions they take or any public statements they make, so I don't need to defend either. Nor do I need to speak out against them either. As far as campaign strategy, you act like running against the other party is only a republican strategy. You know better, at least I thought you did. You can't expect republicans to count on the "horrible brain dead science denying women hating gun lovin flag wavin hypocritical idiots" vote alone. And on another note, Cruiser nailed it. This forum has turned into nothing more than a "far left wing echo box". Where else would comments like that one plus "goose stepping" "gun nuts" become the standard? Certainly not a place I feel comfortable visiting anymore.

it's just tv folks	Posted - 5/9/2013 2:34:10 PM \| show profile \| flag this post I'll defend blackedtaped I have either registered to vote as an Independent or non-affiliated, depending on where I lived. I have voted for Republicans. Of course that was a long time ago when most Republicans where I lived were moderate. Then I moved to North Carolina. The Jesse Helms, North Cackalacky version of Republicanism was disturbing, to put it nicely. Where I live now, Republicans are fairly extreme and they don't represent my Christian values. "Like Francis, their patron saint, the Franciscan Sisters who founded St. Anthony’s Hospital saw in their work a deep connection to the healing ministry of Jesus. They took quite literally the commands that Jesus made to his followers in the Gospels: "As you go, proclaim that the kingdom of heaven is close at hand. Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those suffering from skin diseases, drive out devils." Matthew 10:7 "Truly I say to you, whatsoever you do for the least of my people, that you do unto me." Matthew 25:40" http://www.stanthonysmedcenter.com/about/tradition.asp The last Bible passage is especially important to me ... "Truly I say to you, whatsoever you do for the least of my people, that you do unto me." Matthew 25:40. I'm really liking and am drawn to the Franciscans. The new Pope is great. Cardinal O'Malley delivered a wonderful message at the Boston Memorial service for the bombing victims. I am a proudly baptised and raised Lutheran. I believe Martin Luther would like these Franciscans, Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/whatever have governed based on true Christian values. That's why I have supported them with my vote this past decade or so. Conservative values used to include conserving God's awesome world. Now Cons support destroying God's beautifully ballanced environment so that really rich people will get richer. I can not support a "conservative" party that insists it has a right to stick it's nose up a woman's vagina. Can you say "rape with a foreign object"? God doesn't support such crimes. I won't even go into the idiotic statements made by some recent retarded GOP senate candidates.

blackedtaped	Posted - 5/9/2013 2:56:28 PM \| show profile \| flag this post It's Just TV folks I appreciate very much your comments and your stand on your faith. I do wonder how you can state that the only "Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/whatever have governed based on true Christian values". I do not for one millisecond think that when Christ said "Truly I say to you, whatsoever you do for the least of my people, that you do unto me" he was ignoring all the unborn children. Hard to see Christ supporting abortion now isn't it? The real hard truth is that neither party can claim they govern totally based on true Christian values. And personally I am Ok with that, I think that is one reason the First Amendment was added.

orthicon	Posted - 5/9/2013 6:54:01 PM \| show profile \| flag this post you assume the parties scoured the state.. and these two are the best they could come up with as candidates?.. jesus..

blackedtaped	Posted - 5/9/2013 7:56:26 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Orthicon That thought never crossed my mind. Besides Sanford won a primary against the party backed candidate so I would think that is further evidence the answer to your question is no.

VTexan	Posted - 5/10/2013 10:14:34 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Y'know, it's funny I am definitely on the left end of things, but I don't see any of my views as outrageous or extreme. At 59 I've tried to continue taking information in even when it's not so comfortable. As do most I'm sure, I feel like my views try to account for the different stations in life, from those of the smallest means to those who won't ever have to work again. While we can only truly see from behind our own set of eyes, it's incumbent to the truth to try and see all perspectives. And while I'm inclined to speak my mind in terms that may not be overly sensitive to some, I just don't see myself as pedantic or over bearing. As I've said here many times, while I support Obama I think there are perfectly legitimate reasons not to. It's been of great frustration to me that we seem to argue from such disparate positions that finding common ground is no less difficult than an Everest climb.

VTexan	Posted - 5/10/2013 10:16:35 AM \| show profile \| flag this post But getting back to this thread The idea that some are shocked that South Carolina would re-elect a man who has used state funds dishonestly to go to South America and cheat on his wife--that's just not outrageous. Bill Clinton was impeached for less. And that same generalized faction who supported the Clinton impeachment re-elected Sanford. That that ISN'T a surprise...would be surprising to me.

blackedtaped	Posted - 5/10/2013 12:07:52 PM \| show profile \| flag this post VTexan First let me say I have never found your views extreme. I truly appreciate the fact you have never ran from the liberal label but wear it proudly. I have enjoyed sparring with you over the years and wish you only the best. As far as Sanford, what I think is missing here is a little perspective. Sanford was a member of Congress before running for Governor and the people of his district were very happy with the job he did in Congress. This is the same district that just elected him to represent them yet again. You could say they looked past his failings as a human and voted for him based on his job performance as their representative in Congress. But to say that would mean giving credit to the voters in South Carolina for voting with their head not their heart. Since I believe the common understanding is they are all just rural, mouth breathing, ignorant hicks I am not at all surprised that none of you think that is possible. After all these voters are like those voters in Texas you like to blame for election results in your home state.

VTexan	Posted - 5/10/2013 6:04:19 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Nice post, Blacked Although the snark at the end was a bit like finding a hair in my otherwise delicious enchiladas. There is of course the generalized impression of liberals who think of much of the rural south as you describe them, and that is somewhat unfortunate. And of course, the Texas corollary to that view (that we've sent Rick Perry back to Austin 4 times). As most generalizations go, there's reason for them...but that's also not quite fair. As someone who's worked in polling places most elections over the past 12 or so years, I've seen more than my share of voters. I get a large quantity of "mouth breathers" (your metaphor) in each election. I remember the woman who had sewn her own George W. Bush blouse and matching handbag, full of pictures of him on it. We told her she couldn't be in polling place with that shirt on, that it constituted partisan political signage, so she went out to her car and changed (she happened to have a spare shirt, almost as if she'd planned it). She was really angry when she came back in with her handbag and we had to send back to her car with that. She finally voted, breathing, I have no doubt, through her mouth the entire time. I also get a large quantity of people who behave otherwise intelligently, but who check Rick Perry's box. Voting, like art, like romance, like culinary taste...is an involuntary function. I have good friends--a guy who's hired me twice, and who I've respected mightily through the years--who vote Perry. It's a weird ol' world, that's for sure. I'd have designed it differently, but its designer didn't consult me.

blackedtaped	Posted - 5/11/2013 11:53:24 AM \| show profile \| flag this post The thing about elections, VTexan Is that none of us should ever be surprised by the outcome. In my lifetime I have seen dead people, actors including a character actor from "Dukes of Hazzard" no less, former professional wrestlers, comedians, professional athletes, a former member of 60's singing groups and his widow, heck even a foreign born body builder who barely speaks English all elected to high ranking offices. The thing that no longer surprises me is the reactions to election results. The reaction is pretty much always the same; thinking rational voters vote the same as the writer and anyone who voted differently was, well let's just say "not thinking". I have always contended that it works both ways. I believe there are people who can actually look at all the issues, weigh both candidates' strengths and weaknesses and still vote the way I did. And there are people who can look at all the issues and vote the wrong way, well at least opposite of me. Truth is there are plenty of emotional voters for both parties and thinking voters for both parties. By the way, the only reason I hang around here is to remind people that there are two sides to every issue and that thinking, reasonable, rational people can disagree over issues. You and I came to that conclusion years ago, and every now and then we need to remind ourselves of that fact. Thanks for trying to keep me from losing sight of that.

it's just tv folks	Posted - 5/15/2013 1:12:43 PM \| show profile \| flag this post blackedtaped sez: "I do not for one millisecond think that when Christ said "Truly I say to you, whatsoever you do for the least of my people, that you do unto me" he was ignoring all the unborn children. Hard to see Christ supporting abortion now isn't it?" What do you think Christ thinks about the treatment of BORN children by so-called "conservatives" and "republicans"? Why do cons believe it is intolerable to make sure BORN children have access to proper nutrition and health care? Why do cons hate the idea of a quality education for all? Education is what raises us all up. Withholding that opportunity from any of God's children is un-American and despicable. And blackedtaped, why do you believe Christ would support the gunning down of innocent BORN children? I cannot for the life of me understand why cons support the murder of BORN children, especially if it's by gun. Why do conservatives and republicans believe guns have the right to be owned by any crazys, criminalsl, terrorists, murderous nut bags? Why do cons/republicans/gun nuts believe guns are more important than BORN children? Why do cons/republicans/gun nuts think a fetus is more important than a born living human being? Is it because born children make great targets for gun nuts? Why are children allowed to murder other children with guns? Is that a Christ like value? http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/5-Year-Old-Shot-Saturday-by-Friend-Dies-207264551.html http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/08/texas-5-year-old-shoots-7-year-old-brother-during-boys-bath-time/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/24/health/kids-guns-study/index.html What f’n retard thinks it’s a good idea to give a 5 yr old a loaded gun? Why do gun nuts refuse to hold adults, who should know better, responsible for negligent gun storage that results in the death of a human, especially a BORN child? This deserves a separate topic and I have much more to say on this topic. There are situations where an abortion is a medical necessity. I don't believe this very personal decision is something the government should decide for a woman, her doctor and her family. I don't believe a rapist has the right to have a say in whether or not his crime leads to a born child. It's the woman's choice. I believe we should all support the woman’s decision. If her decision is to attempt to carry the fetus to birth and if there is no miscarriage or other problem, we all agree to help with medical, nutritional and educational costs of raising that child and all other BORN children. Contraception leads to fewer abortions. Why are politicians limiting access to proper gynecological care including contraception? Why not legislate that the distribution of viagra (et al) must be done in a facility that meets hospital standards (search Virginia restrictions on gynecological facilities.) Why don't men need to endure a rectal exam and other humiliating procedures before they can have drugs that allow them to procreate and in many cases, rape with their teeny tiny teeny weenie flacide peenies? I think it is absolute lunacy that certain governors think he/she can stick their nose up a woman's vagina without her permission. I also think it is absolute lunacy that so-called "conservatives" want to force victims of rape, incest and child-abuse to seek permission from their abusers in order to seek treatment for sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Heaven forbid contraception is readily available to any woman. Let's not forget the rightwing assertion that rape can't result in pregnancy. No wonder republitards hate edjekashon. And I think it is absolute lunacy that there are people who are fighting for the right of terrorists, criminals and just plain crazy people to own guns. Finally, what the heck does "I do wonder how you can state that the only "Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/whatever have governed ba

it's just tv folks	Posted - 5/15/2013 2:32:47 PM \| show profile \| flag this post (the rest of the post) Finally, what the heck does "I do wonder how you can state that the only "Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/whatever have governed based on true Christian values". Besides not making sense, were you trying to change the meaning of my post by claiming I said "only" Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/whatever" are Christians? "Might could that be have what been what you the meaning"? Now I never said that, but I will forgive you for either lying or being stupid or both.

blackedtaped	Posted - 5/15/2013 2:39:49 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Calm down, It's Just TV Folks You may hurt yourself getting so upset. I was very clear when I said that neither party was following the example of Christ. If not, then allow this to make that point crystal clear. I think both parties do not totally follow the examples set by Christ. As I said I don't have a problem with that. If your faith leads you to vote for a democrat fine, and if mine leads me to vote for a republican well that is fine as well. If you are looking for a fight, go elsewhere. I am not interested in arguing with you. I wasted way too much time doing that long ago. Not worth it.

blackedtaped	Posted - 5/15/2013 2:47:59 PM \| show profile \| flag this post And It's Just TV Folks You stated " Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/whatever have governed based on true Christian values". That is a direct quote. No where did either one of us suggest that only "Liberals/Progressives/Democrats" are Christians. That is not something I would ever do and I don't think you would either. Just wanted to clear that up.

it's just tv folks	Posted - 5/15/2013 9:43:30 PM \| show profile \| flag this post (big sigh) blackedtape, I am not upset, but I am sad that you are not very accurate with your posts. I am sad that you apparently don't believe in a person making their own medical decisions. I'm sad you want to fight any attempt to abort a fetus, but could care less about born humans. As for your adding the word "only": "blackedtaped Posted - 5/9/2013 2:56:28 PM \| show profile \| flag this post It's Just TV folks I appreciate very much your comments and your stand on your faith. I do wonder how you can state that the only "Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/whatever have governed based on true Christian values". I do not for one millisecond think that when Christ said "Truly I say to you, whatsoever you do for the least of my people, that you do unto me" he was ignoring all the unborn children. Hard to see Christ supporting abortion now isn't it?" You added the word "only" before quote to change the meaning of the sentence. " I do wonder how you can state that the only "Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/whatever have governed based on true Christian values"." That is a direct quote from your post. I am not upset, just greatly disappointed. I forgive you.

blackedtaped	Posted - 5/16/2013 10:04:01 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Ok, It's Just TV Folks, let's get real here Yes, I added the word "only". It was my impression of your comments based on the entirety of your post. I was wrong, that was not what you were saying. I apologize, you do think that others who are not "Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/whatever" have governed based on true Christian values. I am glad you feel that way, that is very open-minded and fair. I applaud you for feeling that way. Now, if you want to look at being accurate with posts then I could ask when did I say anything that remotely suggested I "want to fight any attempt to abort a fetus, but could care less about born humans." I think that would mean adding more than a single word to anything I wrote.