Right. I was talking about the unsupported accusations doorhinge made, not your post.
Noted. That sort of nonsense just gets my dander up, is all.
(Bolding added)
What “unsupported accusations” did I make?
Yes, I could have looked elsewhere for an answer to my query about the comedian Colbert’s PAC. I chose to inquiry on a website that claims to fight ignorance since 1973. Was that the wrong choice? I don’t follow Colbert’s comedy routines as closely as others seem to do. Please forgive me.
Colbert-Busch didn’t get elected because she didn’t get enough voters to vote for her. Whatever it was that she offered the voters wasn’t enough to convince a majority of voters that she should be elected. Even the title of this thread suggests that Colbert-Busch is best known for being someone’s relative - Sanford defeats Colbert’s sister. That’s still not a very good reason for voting for anyone.
:rolleyes:
That’s not an answer. (Or is it?)
*Accusation - a statement saying that someone has done something morally wrong, illegal, or unkind, or the fact of accusing someone.
Query - a question, often expressing doubt about something or looking for an answer from an authority.
Question - a sentence or phrase used to find out information*.
What “unsupported accusations” did I actually make? I’m asking for your assistance to better understand the issue.
It’s an answer, and it’s all the answer this deserves. There was no evidence he bankrolled the campaign, and no evidence that all the reports and announcements about the donation were false. I’m not impressed by the “I’m Just Asking Questions” defense.
It worked well enough for George W. Bush. And for John Q. Adams and Benjamin Harrison, for that matter.
Didn’t go over so well for poor David Hitler though.
I’m not interested in “impressing” you. I made no “unsupported accusations”.
n/m
I thought he said he was going to be on some Argentinian Tail!
Would you prefer ‘sleazy insinuations’?
:rolleyes:
Rather fond of lewd suggestions, myself.
Looks like the health care law might have been the reason for Sanford’s victory:
Hopefully the health care law will be a big issue in the 2014 elections.
Hopefully the GOP will do what that editorial writer suggests and try to appeal to women by pledging to repeal Obamacare.
If Obamacare raises womens’ premiums a lot, it won’t be a hard sell.
Once 2014 comes, the excuses won’t wash anymore. Obamacare either succeeds or fails.
I doubt it, and not just because the source of this “data” is a group that spent $250,000 for Sanford.
Sanford won because he’s the Republican and it’s a very Republican district, not because of the health care law.
And conservatives will declare it a failure on January 1, regardless of empirical evidence.
True. However, the public will judge who is right by their own experiences with the law. I figure that anyone who sees a 30%+ premium increase, anyone who has to pay the penalty, or anyone whose hours get cut, or any business owner whose income gets cut will be pretty motivated, and that’s what happens if the law is working. If it goes bad, then you get all the bad stuff without the good stuff that creates voters wanting to protect their benefits.