Apparently, the right is all atwitter that extremist rightwing Republican Tim Walberg is endorsing Mike Nofs for the vacant state Senate seat in the 19th District.
The seat was vacated when U.S. Rep. Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, unseated Walberg in November when voters rejected his extremist views, and the 19th Senate seat was vacated with Schauer’s move to Washington, D.C. Rep. Martin Griffin, D-Jackson, has also filed to run for the seat that represents Calhoun and Jackson counties. Griffin is a moderate who will better represent the residents of that district over the extreme GOP views that voters soundly rejected in November and have led to defections from the GOP as it continues its veer to the right.
This is little more than political payback because Nofs endorsed Walberg last year. Any endorsement from an extremist like Walberg is good news for the Democrats and the residents of Michigan.
24 comments:
"soundly" defeated him? Once again, you need to do more research. The race between Walberg and Schauer ended up with Schauer winning 48%-46%. A very small margin. Your bs is only exceeded by your complete lack of knowledge.
That is correct, brett. Voters soundly rejected the GOP brand in 2008. There is no doubt about that. When you consider Republicans lost the White House, Democrats gains 21 seats in the U.S. House, Democrats gained seven seats in the U.S. Senate – not including Franken and Specter- and Democrats gained nine seats in the Michigan House, that meets the definition of soundly in my book, brett.
There is no doubt there was a huge win for the Dems in 2008. But you have to wonder about the strength of some of the more recent "wins." Specter, for instance, clearly is still a Republican but knew he couldn't win the primary next year.
Your new "Democrat" was quoted yesterday as saying he hopes Coleman beats Franken in Minnesota.
Your type of Democrats are amusing. In Pennsylvania, the Republicans have manuevered to get two of their party on next November's ballot and no Democrats...and you call that a victory!
And your sense of loyalty...not so much. There are grumblings from true Democrats in the U.S. Senate who can't understand why Harry Reid is leapfrogging them to give choice committee assignments to Specter, a Republican.
Reid reneged on his promise to Specter that he would retain his seniority. It's fun to watch. Reid was on with Wolf Blistered today and when asked about the Coleman election comments by Specter, he paused for a very long time and then said that he spoke to Specter about that and Specter said he'd forgotten which team he was on. Now we'll see if Specter says that what Reid said was true or not ,or if he'll deny Reid's words since Reid reneged on the seniority.
This is what happens when you go to the socialist democrats. You can't trust their word. Specter fits right in with them. Now they are going to be busy trying to explain Schumers statement about telling I-Hop what type of syrup they should be using, and I can't wait to see how these socialist democrats explain away the ACORN problems in Nevada and what will happen when the other states start indicting ACORN.
Two attempts at spin, brett. No problem, Democrats have a big tent. You have really taken direction from the RNC, and you are hitting the talking point hard. But I’m not going to let you get away with it. So once again, brett, there is no such thing as a “Socialist” Democrat in this country, and that is just a fascist Republican talking point.
As for your claims about what he said, if you told me it got dark at 10 p.m. I would be skeptical if you said it. Just more unsubstantiated claims with no link or reference. As for ACORN, they are a nonpartisan agency, and second I have already explained their problems: they paid people by the registration who then made up names to get paid more. I wonder why you weren’t this up in arms over the fraud Leon Drolet used in his failed recall attempts.
What spin? You fail to respond to a single argument and then accuse others of relying on unsubstantiated talking points.
Unsubstantiated? Harry Reid and Arlen Specter are all over TV, newspapers and web sites. What are you denying? That Specter said Reid promised him seniority rights if he switched parties? That Democrats in the Senate grumbled about the deal? That, according to Spector, Reid is now backtracking on his deal? That Reid is stumbling around trying to, in his words, "work something out." That Specter was quoted as saying he hopes Coleman is seated rather than Franken? That because of that, Reid reminded Specter of which team he plays on now? Which of those statements do you doubt? Because I've seen Harry and Arlen on TV clips saying all of them...digital remastering maybe?
It's just more proof that you can't accept the truth even when it's obvious. You admit that even if it's dark, you won't believe it. Pretty much defines your credibility.
By the way, when I brought up Butch Hollowell's dalliance with a whore, as well as Debbie Stabenow's husband's hooker habit, you said neither could be true because they hadn't been convicted of anything. So if Leon Drolet committed fraud, then could you show me when he was charged and convicted...with a link, of course. (You also fail to mention how Dillon used state money to use state employees to harass people who were seeking petition signature. I didn't agree with the recall effort, but Dillon had no right to become a vigilante...with state-paid goons no less.)
Speaking of fraud, Shauer..the guy who beat the guy you call an extremist...is a cheater. He got one of the biggest fines ever for campaign finance cheating. One more example of the type of guy who makes you quiver.
One final point: Despite my repeated requests, you have provided not one shred of proof that you are not a child molester. Remember, I've never called you one; I just want you to prove it's not true. As you stated on another blog, if it's not true, you should be able to prove it.
“You spin me round, round, round…”
Thanks for conceding that you have no answer.
Acceptance is your first and necessary step.
I’ve answered all that old crap before, brett, and I have better things to do than answer it again.
You truly are admitting that you have been crushed in this argument...and all I had to do was use facts.
A few more of your lies:
1. "I've answer all that old crap before." The Specter-Reid stories just started this week and were just posted on this site yesterday.
2. "I have better things to do..." We all know that's a lie. You have virtually nothing worthwhile to do.
You've been hammered. It's sad to see how pathetic you are.
By the way, after you go down to "buy bait," why not explain why you lied about getting kicked off another blog? Or why you lied about never deceitfully using screen names? The proof is all there on Republican Michigander's blog, which means you can't manipulate it. But, heck, you can't even control yourself on your own blog.
Game. Set. Match. By your own admission.
In your dreams, brett.
1. Its spin, I have answered it, you have provided nothing to back up your claim and it doesn’t matter to me.
2. Doesn’t deserve an answer, brett.
Because it’s not true. When I find the time, I will knock it down again. That will make, how many times, brett? I’ve lost count too, but you are following the old Republican tactic that if you tell a lie often enough people get tired of debunking it and it gets accepted as true and you can claim stupid crap like, “Game. Set. Match.”
Oh, he doesn't "have time" to knock it down....because he can't.
Just a tip of the iceberg here.
May 31, 2006 on Republican Michigander: "I have the courage to use my name kevins."
June 16, 2006: "I use kevins as my screen name even though it's not my real name."
(He used his real name before he didn't use his real name...kerryesque, don't you think?)
Also, while he clearly admits to posting under kevins, he falsely claims he was kicked off when the blog creator quit allowing the use of "anonymous" screen names, a rule that didn't affect him and which he uses on this blog.
Amazingly he kept claiming he was kicked off the blog while he continued to post on it.
He also criticized the blog host for not letting him use the f-bomb. He also criticized the host for pulling posts that made personal and false attacks against a candidate's family. He said it didn't matter that the attacks were false as long as those attacked didn't prove they weren't false.
In that regard, Guru cannot prove that he has never molested children.
Once again you prove your ignorance. ACORN in Nevada is being charged along with two of their employees. Let me repeat. ACORN is being charged along with two of their employees.
Now today in Pennyslvania it's been announced that 7 ACORN workers are being charged with registration fraud.
I wonder which branch of ACORN in which state will be next.
ACORN is non-partisan?????? Oh crap, you have me laughing so hard my orange juice just came out of my nose!!!
Wow. I should have read the other posts before I posted. Kevins has you nailed down to a tee, with proof.
So guru complained about posts being removed from the blog when he posted? Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago that I got confused when he was answering something that I hadn't said, but then said he was answering Brett's post that he pulled off of his own blog? I can only wonder if it was the real Brett or any of the others of us that he calls Brett when someone dares point out the flaws (and lies) he puts out here.
That sounds like censorship to me, the very thing he complains about on other blogs, if he really did delete something that someone said.
Kevins, you have more information than I do about his activities and a much better memory than I when it comes to his past words, so I shall sit back and watch how he claims he's debunked you without any evidence as he always does.
http://liberalmedianot.blogspot.com/2009/05/law-enforcement-officer-responsible-for.html
There’s your answer, brett. I hope that will stop your lies, but I know better.
Also, I gave you at least your fifth warning about the child molester BS there, as well as a challenge; I’m also giving it here. Also, brett, cover your kid’s eyes: Fuck. Would that be an “f-bomb?”
That is correct, brett, ACORN is nonpartisan. The goal is to register as many people as possible to vote. Now, just because the majority of Americans hold ideals and beliefs more closely identified with the Democratic Party has nothing to do with it. Registering people to vote is nonpartisan. It’s not my fault the GOP is a minority party with no ideas.
ACORN workers being charged with registration fraud is old news, and I told you why. But, since you have a short memory I’ll do it again: they paid people by the registration, the more they collected, the more money they made. In fact, in Nevada, canvassers who turned in 21 new voter registrations earned a bonus of $5 per shift. There is a big difference between voter fraud and registration fraud.
Wow, it’s a little creepy to see you talk to yourself, brett. What proof are you talking about? I only see words.
Correct, I told you brett, if you want to post as your original name you know what you have to do. As for the deceit you are using to post as multiple people under different names, there’s not much I can do about it; dishonest and deceitful people like you will always find a way.
But, I warned you repeatedly before I deleted your comments. Now, you are claiming one of my comments was pulled from another blog because I used the word fuck in a direct quote from somebody else. Now, I don’t recall that, and you are such a liar I don’t believe a word you say unless you provide a link to it. But, it may have happened, I honesty do not recall. But I don’t believe I was warned before hand, but you can’t say the same thing.
It is amazing...and a little scary...to watch guru dissemble before our very eyes. "I see only words." Amazing. His gibberish is totally disoriented.
But here's a point. He specifically said on the Republican blog that it was okay to smear a person's family with a rumor as long as that person has not proved that the rumor is not true. So why does he get all ballistic (5th warning! f-bombs!) when I ask him to prove that he has never molested children? What's the difference? I'm not even making an accusation, like that other post did.
My point is clear to anyone with an ounce of sense. I surely am not suggesting that he is a child molester.
However, out of curiosity, I looked at the sex offender list on the Michigan State Police site. I was pretty interested in what I found. Want to comment about that, guru? Or would you rather I let that information rest in peace?
That is correct, brett, words. This is simple, when you make a claim, back it up with a reference and a link. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? I don’t even know what you are talking about with this claim of a “smear a person's family with a rumor.” Show it to me. Give me a link.
Like I said, and I’ll say it again, report me or shut up about the child molester shit – that’s an s-bomb, by the way.
Provide a link to the Michigan State Police sex offender list. No, I don’t want that “information to rest in peace.” Provide a link, I challenge you.
All this talk about links. Are you the missing link?
I don't need to show you a link. I gave you the blog and the date. Besides, you wrote it. Grow up.
I suspect you already know how to find the information on the sex offenders list. I can see why you wouldn't want it discussed.
I guess you can’t because you are lying as usual. No, I want it discussed. Go for it, and provide the link, the name, the address and the offense from the sex offenders list. Once again, I challenge you to do so. If you can’t produce it, then just shut up, brett.
Are you saying there is an offense on the sex offenders list that you know about? If so, why would I have to provide you the link?
Oh my God; please stop playing stupid; or are you playing?
Kevins. Oh my gosh! I just looked up the Michigan State Police sex offender list. I am really surprised. I probably shouldn't be, but I am!
Post a Comment