BREAKING: Thad Cochran Campaign busted for illegal vote buying operation

[Nutz]

If that is not acceptable to you...to bad...I have already posted tons of evidence all about this forum, so the idea of not wasting my time sounds great.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Come back at 8pm EDT. I am watching soccer (blah, but it is the World Cup) then I have to run some errands. Then I will show you how the teaper movement is racist in nature.

LMAO You want to set an appointment with me regarding your proof?

I can't make 7pm.. Shall we decide on another time, perhaps after watching Reality TV?

I guess what I am saying is that showing you the truth and knowing you are going to ignore it is not as important as what I have to do. Unlike most Teapers, I support America and would like to see them win this match...even though I think soccer is ridiculously stupid. On top of that, you are not as important as me having to take care of my family. So if you want a response, I will be back around 8.

LOL Take care of your family.. I never implied I was important or more important, etc..

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

If that is not acceptable to you...to bad...I have already posted tons of evidence all about this forum, so the idea of not wasting my time sounds great.

Link to that evidence?

 

[Nutz]

US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - Search Forums

 

[TemplarKormac]

If I were in their camp, I would have ignored it.

I can't help it if campaigns don't take my psychic advice.

Of course not. But the hit dog always hollers first, Doc.

First, you claimed that the fact that the campaign didn't comment on it was suspicious. Now, they're suspicious for commenting.

Come on, man.

Well, I'm using your logic Doc. You say silence doesn't always imply complicity, but imply that acknowledgement would be a mistake by the Cochran campaign.

So, which one is it? A denial is only a denial unless they can completely disprove the entirety of the allegations. And since they came out denying it, then the burden lies on them to disprove it, right? Acknowledging an accusation with denial creates suspicion. Now all eyes are on them.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - Search Forums

I'm not going to search through the entire forum for something YOU claim is there.. for something YOU alone charged against an entire group of people.. It is your responsibility to prove your assertion, your claim.. not the other way around..Now you've wasted enough of my ******* time with your anal bullshit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - Search Forums

Not an answer. You can't provide any evidence, can you?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Of course not. But the hit dog always hollers first, Doc.

First, you claimed that the fact that the campaign didn't comment on it was suspicious. Now, they're suspicious for commenting.

Come on, man.

Well, I'm using your logic Doc. You say silence doesn't always imply complicity, but imply that acknowledgement would be a mistake by the Cochran campaign.

So, which one is it? A denial is only a denial unless they can completely disprove the entirety of the allegations. And since they came out denying it, then the burden lies on them to disprove it, right? Acknowledging an accusation with denial creates suspicion. Now all eyes are on them.

I don't think you are understanding what I'm talking about.

I thought that denying it was a bad PR move for the campaign. The fact that the campaign disagreed with me doesn't imply anything at all about whether the allegations are true - the more information that comes out, the less believable this story gets.

Perception and reality are two different things.

 

[Dad2three]

If that is not acceptable to you...to bad...I have already posted tons of evidence all about this forum, so the idea of not wasting my time sounds great.

Link to that evidence?

. A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. "The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"—25 percent, to be exact—"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race."


These results are bolstered by a recent New York Times/CBS News surveyfinding that white Tea Party supporters were more likely to believe that "the Obama administration favors blacks over whites" and that "too much has been made of the problems facing black people."


http://www.newsweek.com/are-tea-partiers-racist-70695


The tea party movement is rife with racists. It’s also, despite assertions to the contrary, a structured movement with direct ties to white nationalist groups that’s growing and here to stay. These are the findings of a 94 page report released last week by The Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights, which was backed by the NAACP. The only part that’s shocking is that the report is necessary to establish such plain truths.



...The authors are clear that it would be “a mistake to claim that all tea partiers are nativist vigilantes or racists of one stripe or another, and this report manifestly does not make that claim.” Some, the report says, are just concerned with the deficit and unemployment.

But these two things can’t really be separated.

The reality is that implicitly white supremacist politics are more ubiquitous now than they’ve been in a generation.

Yup, the Tea Party?s Racist, Study Finds (But It?s Not Alone) - COLORLINES

 

[LoneLaugher]

Doc, what were you just telling me about silence? You just told me that it would be stupid for the Cochran campaign to acknowledge these accusations, now they have come out denying it. They just lent more credence to them by speaking out in denial.

If I were in their camp, I would have ignored it.

I can't help it if campaigns don't take my psychic advice.

Of course not. But the hit dog always hollers first, Doc.

Shit. You were just saying the opposite. ******* lemming.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

according to this site,

lolz!

 

[Dad2three]

Why is this suddenly about my thought process when you made the ridiculous accusation to begin with? I think our society should be color blind, period. I've grown up in a mixed society where we date any race and think nothing of it.. it's the heart that matters but you leftists have destroyed even my generation's innocence with your hatred and constant labeling of anything and everyone racist who doesn't conform to your worldview or criticizes one of your own.. Ignorance is a learned behavior taught by those who have misplaced anger and resentment needing a constant audience and bad guy to pin all of their troubles on.. I'm sick to death of it and I won't play the leftist racist boogeyman game.. Now prove your assertion or shut the **** up already.

I am not a leftist...I am a pissed off conservative...pissed at racist nonsense spewed by the Tea Party and its following. I asked the questions because I am simply not going to waste my time trying to prove racism to people who don't believe racism exists. I have posted numerous threads on the topic, proving the Teaper movement is a racist movement. I have pointed out numerous posts by teapers on this very forum that are racist...but your comrades ignored it. I have asked the same questions over and over and you teapers refuse to answer it. So if you guys won't give me the common courtesy of answering a few questions, why should I spend my time trying to prove something that you are going to dismiss whether veritable or not?

You're a ******* moron libturd.

The only people I know who are calling the TEA party racists are imbecile left-wingers like you.

You haven't proved shit nor pointed out shit.

Who do you think you're fooling?

TP IS JUST AN UPDATED BIRCHER PARTY

A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. "The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"—25 percent, to be exact—"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race."


These results are bolstered by a recent New York Times/CBS News surveyfinding that white Tea Party supporters were more likely to believe that "the Obama administration favors blacks over whites" and that "too much has been made of the problems facing black people."


http://www.newsweek.com/are-tea-partiers-racist-70695

 

[TemplarKormac]

First, you claimed that the fact that the campaign didn't comment on it was suspicious. Now, they're suspicious for commenting.

Come on, man.

Well, I'm using your logic Doc. You say silence doesn't always imply complicity, but imply that acknowledgement would be a mistake by the Cochran campaign.

So, which one is it? A denial is only a denial unless they can completely disprove the entirety of the allegations. And since they came out denying it, then the burden lies on them to disprove it, right? Acknowledging an accusation with denial creates suspicion. Now all eyes are on them.

I don't think you are understanding what I'm talking about.

I thought that denying it was a bad PR move for the campaign. The fact that the campaign disagreed with me doesn't imply anything at all about whether the allegations are true - the more information that comes out, the less believable this story gets.

Perception and reality are two different things.

Exactly, bad PR. They made the wrong move by by speaking out. To me, even acknowledging these accusations could mean the Cochran campaign thinks there is some legitimacy to them. So far, all of the refutative information has come from the Cochran campaign. So, are you willing to trust only one side of the issue?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

If that is not acceptable to you...to bad...I have already posted tons of evidence all about this forum, so the idea of not wasting my time sounds great.

Link to that evidence?

. A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. "The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"—25 percent, to be exact—"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race."


These results are bolstered by a recent New York Times/CBS News surveyfinding that white Tea Party supporters were more likely to believe that "the Obama administration favors blacks over whites" and that "too much has been made of the problems facing black people."


http://www.newsweek.com/are-tea-partiers-racist-70695


The tea party movement is rife with racists. It’s also, despite assertions to the contrary, a structured movement with direct ties to white nationalist groups that’s growing and here to stay. These are the findings of a 94 page report released last week by The Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights, which was backed by the NAACP. The only part that’s shocking is that the report is necessary to establish such plain truths.



The reality is that implicitly white supremacist politics are more ubiquitous now than they’ve been in a generation.

Yup, the Tea Party?s Racist, Study Finds (But It?s Not Alone) - COLORLINES

I wonder why you failed to include this from that laughable study???
Surveyers asked respondents in California and a half dozen battleground states (like Michigan and Ohio) a series of questions that political scientists typically use to measure racial hostility. On each one, Tea Party backers expressed more resentment than the rest of the population, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology. When read the statement that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites," 73 percent of the movement's supporters agreed, while only 33 percent of people who disapproved of the Tea Party agreed. Asked if blacks should work their way up "without special favors," as the Irish, Italians, and other groups did, 88 percent of supporters agreed, compared to 56 percent of opponents. The study revealed that Tea Party enthusiasts were also more likely to have negative opinions of Latinos and immigrants.


...The authors are clear that it would be “a mistake to claim that all tea partiers are nativist vigilantes or racists of one stripe or another, and this report manifestly does not make that claim.” Some, the report says, are just concerned with the deficit and unemployment.

But these two things can’t really be separated.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

There we have it.. Some obscure "STUDY" where "SURVEYORS" whoever the **** that entails, called liberally bent states and asked some questions. ROFLMAO


And at the end.. they clarify- The authors are clear that it would be “a mistake to claim that all tea partiers are nativist vigilantes or racists of one stripe or another, and this report manifestly does not make that claim.” Some, the report says, are just concerned with the deficit and unemployment.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Well, I'm using your logic Doc. You say silence doesn't always imply complicity, but imply that acknowledgement would be a mistake by the Cochran campaign.

So, which one is it? A denial is only a denial unless they can completely disprove the entirety of the allegations. And since they came out denying it, then the burden lies on them to disprove it, right? Acknowledging an accusation with denial creates suspicion. Now all eyes are on them.

I don't think you are understanding what I'm talking about.

I thought that denying it was a bad PR move for the campaign. The fact that the campaign disagreed with me doesn't imply anything at all about whether the allegations are true - the more information that comes out, the less believable this story gets.

Perception and reality are two different things.

Exactly, bad PR. They made the wrong move by by speaking out. To me, even acknowledging these accusations could mean the Cochran campaign thinks there is some legitimacy to them. So far, all of the information has come from the Cochran campaign. So, are you willing to trust only one side of the issue?

I don't know if they made "the wrong move". It's not the move I would have made, but it remains to be seen who's "right".

You say that this makes you believe the accusations more - yet a few posts ago you were claiming that the fact they hadn't said anything made you believe the accusations more.

How do you wrap your head around that cognitive dissonance?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Not to mention, there are plenty of reasons to disbelieve this story that don't come from the Cochran campaign.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

We have one dolt after another charging the Tea Party with being the new Slave Masters of this century and NONE OF THEM can prove it.. LMFAO Bwhahahahahahahaha


Such horrible racists these "Teapers" are that no evidence exists to assert that claim..Amazing isn't it?? < grins >

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't think you are understanding what I'm talking about.

I thought that denying it was a bad PR move for the campaign. The fact that the campaign disagreed with me doesn't imply anything at all about whether the allegations are true - the more information that comes out, the less believable this story gets.

Perception and reality are two different things.

Exactly, bad PR. They made the wrong move by by speaking out. To me, even acknowledging these accusations could mean the Cochran campaign thinks there is some legitimacy to them. So far, all of the information has come from the Cochran campaign. So, are you willing to trust only one side of the issue?

I don't know if they made "the wrong move". It's not the move I would have made, but it remains to be seen who's "right".

You say that this makes you believe the accusations more - yet a few posts ago you were claiming that the fact they hadn't said anything made you believe the accusations more.

How do you wrap your head around that cognitive dissonance?

First, you said silence doesn't imply guilt. Okay fine. But then you went on to infer that speaking out would be a bad move, to me, speaking out can infer guilt. When a pointed accusation is met with silence, that can also infer guilt. To think that either one can imply innocence only is misguided. If you are silent for too long, people will start to wonder. If you speak out too much, again, people will start to wonder. People will get curious.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Exactly, bad PR. They made the wrong move by by speaking out. To me, even acknowledging these accusations could mean the Cochran campaign thinks there is some legitimacy to them. So far, all of the information has come from the Cochran campaign. So, are you willing to trust only one side of the issue?

I don't know if they made "the wrong move". It's not the move I would have made, but it remains to be seen who's "right".

You say that this makes you believe the accusations more - yet a few posts ago you were claiming that the fact they hadn't said anything made you believe the accusations more.

How do you wrap your head around that cognitive dissonance?

First, you said silence doesn't imply guilt. Okay fine. But then you went on to infer that speaking out would be a bad move, to me, speaking out can infer guilt. When a pointed accusation is met with silence, that can also infer guilt. To think that either one can imply innocence only is misguided. If you are silent for too long, people will start to wonder. If you speak out too much, again, people will start to wonder. People will get curious.

I understand the PR. That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about how you're responding to the PR.

You want this story to be true, so you accepted the campaign's silence as an admission of guilt. Then, when they denied it, you decided to take that denial as an admission of guilt, because you still wanted the story to be true.

You can make anything "imply" what you want to be true, if you try hard enough.