Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $70,091
82%  
Woo hoo!! And now less than $15k to go!! We can do this. Thank you all very much!!

Posts by disraeligears

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Riddle me this (vanity): if you have a home invasion...

    01/10/2013 12:37:34 PM PST · 1 of 39
    disraeligears
    if you are limited to 10 rounds; jeesh!

    In this day and age, a regular old 1911 just might not be sufficient.

  • The Petraus Brief: with apologies to Grisham

    11/12/2012 8:30:24 PM PST · 5 of 19
    disraeligears to disraeligears

    Did Petraeus tailor his testimony in fear of being outed by the administration?

    Was the lack of a timely response to the Benghazi attack related to the alleged illegal detention center?

    Why is Petraeus really reluctant to testify? Is he lawyering up?

    Is tonight’s FBI search of Broadwell’s home in response to her disclosure of the alleged detention facility?

    Did Cantor being informed of Petraeus’s affair force the Administration’s hand in giving up Petraeus?

  • The Petraus Brief: with apologies to Grisham

    11/12/2012 8:13:06 PM PST · 1 of 19
    disraeligears
    Read the synopsis of the Pelican Brief on IDMB.com and compare it to what is known about Petraus and his disclosures to Congress, Broadwell's representations at the University of Denver, and tonight's FBI search of Broadwell's Charlotte house and consider the following:

    1. Why would Obama nominate Petraus, a potential rival to the Presidency, as CIA Director?

    2. Is it true,as it has been reported, that Obama knew of the Petraus-Broadwell affair at the time of the nomination?

    3. Did the affair leak inadvertently when Jill Kelly contacted an acquantiance who happened to work for the FBI regarding Broadwell's allegedly harrassing emails.

    4. Is this the same FBI agent who allegedly contacted Eric Cantor out of concern that the affair was being buried by the DOJ?

    5. Did Petraus tailor his September testimony to Congress backing up the now discredited "video" causation for the Benghazi attacks?

    6. Is it true, as Broadwell stated in her Denver appearance, that there was an illegal detention operation at the CIA annex in Benghazi?

    You can't make this stuff up.... unless you're John Grisham.

  • A Choice Between Satan and Beelzebub

    07/16/2012 10:56:07 PM PDT · 46 of 224
    disraeligears to HiTech RedNeck

    The first time I have ever heard about “magic underwear” was whe it was used to belittle Romney on this site. It has since been repeated countless times. Romney’s Mormonism has been cited to countless times.

  • A Choice Between Satan and Beelzebub

    07/16/2012 10:47:36 PM PDT · 41 of 224
    disraeligears to HiTech RedNeck

    Sorry, but I beg to differ. Or were you being sublimely sarcastic?

  • A Choice Between Satan and Beelzebub

    07/16/2012 10:39:14 PM PDT · 33 of 224
    disraeligears to KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

    It is ironic that apparent born again bigotry against Mormonism may cause additional harm to the unborn. Sorry folks, but if you don’t vote for Romney and you live in a swing State, your actions are, in effect, pro-abortion, pro infanticide. Romney is not perfect, but for the unborn, he is 1000 times better than Obama.

  • A Choice Between Satan and Beelzebub

    07/16/2012 10:16:44 PM PDT · 24 of 224
    disraeligears to HiTech RedNeck

    There are huge differences between Obama and Romney. Is Romney perfect? Heck no! But he is 100 times better than Obama. If abortion is your primary concern, think what will happen if Obama is re-elected and gets to replace 1 to 2 conservatives. Also, nominate someone as “pure” but without electability, then you get another Keyes-Obama blowout. Respectfully,
    Sometimes I feel like common sense is not quite so common.

  • Gingrich vows to press on after losing AL, MS

    03/14/2012 11:56:13 AM PDT · 58 of 85
    disraeligears to GulfBreeze
    I'd like to say that it is refreshing that both Santorum and Newt supporters have been civil with each other on this thread, and have stuck to arguments based on reason and facts and not ad homenin attacks.
  • AL Candidates Forum: Live at 6:30pm (ET) on C-SPAN (Santorum and Newt only attending)

    03/12/2012 7:43:54 PM PDT · 415 of 442
    disraeligears to PSYCHO-FREEP

    Just look at your past 100 posts. They are full of venomous personal attacks agaist Santorum. It is time you were called out for it. In response to my post, you call me a coward. Pathetic.

  • AL Candidates Forum: Live at 6:30pm (ET) on C-SPAN (Santorum and Newt only attending)

    03/12/2012 7:29:49 PM PDT · 409 of 442
    disraeligears to IM2MAD

    There is an old saying among old school barristers. It is best to argue the law. If the law is not on your side,then argue the facts. If the facts are not on your side, then bang your fists like hell on the table.

    Folks like PSYCHO have for weeks on this site, snidely, crudely and with despicable contempt, personally denigrated a fine conservate candidate and gentleman.

    This site is unfortunately, but inexorably, morphing into a rather hateful and unpleasant forum. It is a damn shame and does not reflect the fine qualities of another exemplary conservative gentleman, Jim Robinson.

  • NFL Quarterback Phillip Rivers endorses Santorum (AL Native)

    03/08/2012 4:30:53 PM PST · 8 of 33
    disraeligears to Rome2000

    Go Wolfpack! I am not surprised that Rivers is backing Santorum. Philip Rivers is one class individual. Look up his story and you will understand why he is making this endorsement.

  • Barack Obama’s Sole Article in Harvard Law Review Promotes Abortion

    03/07/2012 1:09:42 PM PST · 9 of 74
    disraeligears to jagusafr

    I looked at the article myself. Backing out the extensive footnote scribbling, it is about 3 and 1/2 pages long. Could have been written over a weekend, and this guy was the Editor?

  • Barack Obama’s Sole Article in Harvard Law Review Promotes Abortion

    03/07/2012 1:02:27 PM PST · 7 of 74
    disraeligears to buffyt

    I’ve been published in Law Reviews three times. I have never heard of a six page law review paper, article, comment, note or otherwise.

    If this is true, this is such a joke.

  • Poll: Santorum closes on Romney in Arizona

    02/26/2012 11:14:26 AM PST · 22 of 29
    disraeligears to MSF BU

    I personally don’t have anything against Newt. That said, for weeks I’ve been saying that Santorum is our best bet to beat Obama. Sure there have been votes and/or positions in the past which Santorum wished he had back, but nothing like Romey’s (Romneycare, holding pro-abortion positions) or Newt’s (individual mandate, sitting with Pelosi on a couch for AGW).

    What disturbs me is the number of folks here on FR who are so viciously deranged against Santorum. Disagree with a fellow Conservtive on their positions, but stop the malicious backbiting.

    Got my Santorum yard sign Friday and it is proudly planted today!

  • Rick Santorum on Meet the Press(kicking Gregory to the curb)...

    02/26/2012 8:07:12 AM PST · 4 of 35
    disraeligears to CainConservative

    Everybody who knows ANYBODY in Michigan, call them and tell them to vote for Santorum.

    If for nothing else, future Supreme Court Justices are in the balance. (Remember the fiasco with Geo. HW Bush and his nomination of David Souter?)

  • Rick Santorum wins Florida!

    01/27/2012 1:37:46 PM PST · 76 of 110
    disraeligears to AnnGora

    I agree that you should not compromise your vote.

    Voting for Romney because you think he can beat Obama is a compromise if you don’t agree with his positions which 99% of you don’t (and the vast majority of you don’t believe that he can beat him either!).

    Voting for Gringrich because you think he can beat Obama is a compromise if you don’t agree with his positions (and 99% of you don’t agree with most of his positions, i.e. healthcare mandate, global warming, big government, views on FDR, etc. and problem with keeping his marriage vows (if you want out of your marriage, get separated BEFORE you start fooling around... I’m glad he is right with G—, but I can’t see in his heart like the Lord can, so I don’t know if he is being honest about repenting)

    If everyone who is voting for Gingrich primarily because they think he can beat Obama would switch to Rick Santorum (whom I truly believe most of you agree with most of his positions, and he has been from all appearances, a good and faithful husband and father) then Santorum would beat Romney and then beat Obama.

    I’ve been a member of this board for over a decade and don’t understand the hatred displayed by many against Santorum, who seems to be a good guy, a true conservative (not perfect, but a better record than Gingrich), and showed that he can debate well on a consistent basis.

    Florida Freepers, given that Gingrich appears to be fading in Florida (behind Romney 7% RCP, and trending down while Romney is trending up), give another look at Santorum. It is not too late.

  • Rick Santorum turns heat on Newt Gingrich in Florida (pout alert)

    01/22/2012 5:26:02 PM PST · 27 of 170
    disraeligears to Scooter100

    If Santorum stays in, the greater the chance of a brokered convention... and guess who could get the nomination then: SP!!!

  • DRUDGE SIRENS: NETWORK TO AIR INTERVIEW THURSDAY ON NIGHTLINE

    01/18/2012 5:47:39 PM PST · 363 of 543
    disraeligears to butterdezillion

    After all the turmoil, litigation, press, etc. regarding Obama’s BC, if you honestly think that Santorum would run for President without being constitutionally qualified, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

    Yikes, I said I wasn’t going to dignify your pablum, but I did anyway. Doh!

  • DRUDGE SIRENS: NETWORK TO AIR INTERVIEW THURSDAY ON NIGHTLINE

    01/18/2012 5:41:31 PM PST · 357 of 543
    disraeligears to af_vet_rr

    I certainly understand asking for God’s foregiveness (in addition to my wife’s!).

    But Newt appears to be a serial adulterer.

    If there is a candidate without such baggage, then go for that candidate. Santorum appears to be the best of the bunch (although I know that isn’t necessarily saying much!)

    While not as quick as a debater as Newt, Santorum has acquitted himself well during the recent debates and gave a fantastic speech the night of the Iowa caucuses which reminded me of Reagan (who I had the fortune of hearing in person at a campaign rally in North Carolina)

  • DRUDGE SIRENS: NETWORK TO AIR INTERVIEW THURSDAY ON NIGHTLINE

    01/18/2012 5:36:41 PM PST · 353 of 543
    disraeligears to butterdezillion

    I won’t dignify your query further.

  • DRUDGE SIRENS: NETWORK TO AIR INTERVIEW THURSDAY ON NIGHTLINE

    01/18/2012 5:30:10 PM PST · 341 of 543
    disraeligears to longtermmemmory

    But if non-Paul conservatives rallied around Santorum, he’d demolish Romney.

    The only thing preventing that from happening is Newt’s meglomania. Gingrich simply wouldn’t win in the general even if he demolished Obama in the debates.

    Newt overall is not likeable, too much baggage, and reminds me of the smart ass kid in the front row at school, raising his hand, saying “ooh ooh, call on me, I know who was the first Caeser in the 2nd century BC who dumped his first 2 wives, before going to Tiffany’s to spend a half a mill for the third!!!”

    He would be eaten alive and ABC and his 2nd wife are doing us a favor by reminding us of that fact NOW!

  • DRUDGE SIRENS: NETWORK TO AIR INTERVIEW THURSDAY ON NIGHTLINE

    01/18/2012 5:14:51 PM PST · 308 of 543
    disraeligears to fatima

    I’ve posted this before. Several conservative, evangelical friends of mine have stated flat out that they could not vote for Newt due to his past morality and would sit out this election. That was before this latest rehash from ABC.

    Although the guy is brilliant, it is just too much baggage. Furthermore, all of you guys saying, in essence, “big whoop, an ex-wife has it against her husband”, wouldn’t be so dang cavalier if Newt was a dem (and sometimes it is hard to tell that he is a conservative, given his past slams against the Republican’s budget plan, sitting on the coach with Pelosi, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from Fannie Mae, etc.)

    While Santorum isn’t perfect either, the guy doesn’t have the baggage, is pretty dang conservative, and understands that we need to cut spending.

    Please consider Santorum before it is too late to matter.

  • DRUDGE SIRENS: NETWORK TO AIR INTERVIEW THURSDAY ON NIGHTLINE

    01/18/2012 5:14:40 PM PST · 307 of 543
    disraeligears to fatima

    I’ve posted this before. Several conservative, evangelical friends of mine have stated flat out that they could not vote for Newt due to his past morality and would sit out this election. That was before this latest rehash from ABC.

    Although the guy is brilliant, it is just too much baggage. Furthermore, all of you guys saying, in essence, “big whoop, an ex-wife has it against her husband”, wouldn’t be so dang cavalier if Newt was a dem (and sometimes it is hard to tell that he is a conservative, given his past slams against the Republican’s budget plan, sitting on the coach with Pelosi, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from Fannie Mae, etc.)

    While Santorum isn’t perfect either, the guy doesn’t have the baggage, is pretty dang conservative, and understands that we need to cut spending.

    Please consider Santorum before it is too late to matter.

  • New Paul S.C. ad hits Santorum on 'betrayal' [Drudge:RON PAUL SAVAGES SANTORUM AS 'CORRUPT'...]

    01/06/2012 2:25:38 PM PST · 26 of 152
    disraeligears to 2ndDivisionVet

    Paul is a mean, jerk who has no chance in hell of winning and if he did, G— help us all.

    If Romney gets the nomination, he’d probably beat Obama but would not substantially change DC (he is too centrist) and only slow down the country’s decline.

    If Santorum gets the nomination, he’d probably beat Obama and would make substantial change and substantially slow down the decline, possibly reverse it overtime. Santorum doesn’t care what people think if it goes to his core principles.

    I don’t think Gingrich could beat Obama. Too many of my conservative friends say they simply couldn’t vote for him with all the personal baggage and hypocrisy. Plus, even if he won I think he is too worried about his place in “history” and would be too accomadative to the media.

  • Jim Robinson: Taking stock of our dwindling conservative inventory

    01/06/2012 2:21:17 PM PST · 612 of 777
    disraeligears to Carry me back

    If Romney gets the nomination, he’d probably beat Obama but would not substantially change DC (he is too centrist) and only slow down the country’s decline.

    If Santorum gets the nomination, he’d probably beat Obama and would make substantial change and substantially slow down the decline, possibly reverse it overtime. Santorum doesn’t care what people think if it goes to his core principles.

    I don’t think Gingrich could beat Obama. Too many of my conservative friends say they simply couldn’t vote for him with all the personal baggage and hypocrisy. Plus, I think he is too worried about his place in “history” and would be too accomadative to the media.

  • Iowa Caucus Voters Choosing With Heads, Not Hearts

    01/03/2012 7:24:14 AM PST · 17 of 26
    disraeligears to Conservative Vermont Vet

    My wife and I had a couple over for a New Year’s Eve dinner we’ve been friends with for years. The couple are both southerners, strong fiscal/social conservatives, and steadfastedly evangelical.

    Both of them point blank said they would never vote for Newt Gingrich even though they detests Obama. She considers it a matter of principle. It is because of his three marriages (cheating on his wife). I tried making the lesser of the two evils argument and it was not pursuasive.

    They are both hoping that Santorum does well and are interested in hearing more about him.

  • Gingrich: Mitt Romney is a liar

    01/03/2012 7:22:06 AM PST · 20 of 83
    disraeligears to altura

    My wife and I had a couple over for a New Year’s Eve dinner we’ve been friends with for years. The couple are both southerners, strong fiscal/social conservatives, and steadfastedly evangelical.

    Both of them point blank said they would never vote for Newt Gingrich even though they detest Obama. She considers it a matter of principle. It is because of his three marriages (cheating on his wife). I tried making the lesser of the two evils argument and it was not pursuasive.

    They are both hoping that Santorum does well and are interested in hearing more about him.

  • Santorum receives big endorsement from the Duggars

    01/03/2012 7:20:09 AM PST · 6 of 10
    disraeligears to from occupied ga

    My wife and I had a couple over for a New Year’s Eve dinner we’ve been friends with for years. The couple are both southerners, strong fiscal/social conservatives, and steadfastedly evangelical.

    Both of them point blank said they would never vote for Newt Gingrich even though they detest Obama. She considers it a matter of principle. It is because of his three marriages (cheating on his wife). I tried making the lesser of the two evils argument and it was not pursuasive.

    They are both hoping that Santorum does well and are interested in hearing more about him.

  • Murdoch backs Santorum for US president

    01/03/2012 7:16:41 AM PST · 54 of 102
    disraeligears to SamAdams76

    My wife and I had a couple over for a New Year’s Eve dinner we’ve been friends with for years. The couple are both southerners, strong fiscal/social conservatives, and steadfastedly evangelical.

    Both of them point blank said they would never vote for Newt Gingrich even though they detests Obama. She considers it a matter of principle. It is because of his three marriages (cheating on his wife). I tried making the lesser of the two evils argument and it was not pursuasive.

    They are both hoping that Santorum does well and are interested in hearing more about him.

  • OK, so what am I going to use in "Jack and Cokes?" instead of Coke? (Vanity "plus")

    11/03/2011 1:03:07 PM PDT · 20 of 154
    disraeligears to VeniVidiVici

    I was a senior in high school when, with my Dad, we were visiting my brother who was a senior at Carolina.

    Brother ordered a bourbon and coke. Dad said “son, don’t ever ruin good bourbon with anything other than branch water.”

    I’ve been drinking Jack and water ever since (water being primarily ice)

  • Karl Rove on O'Reilly slamming Cain ... again!

    10/31/2011 5:34:07 PM PDT · 30 of 118
    disraeligears to Sarah Barracuda

    What slays me is that Rove defends his slams of Cain saying that Fox pays him to provide impartial opinions, but then he defends Romney against the WH attacks without conceding that Romney is a world class flip flopper.

    This is being odiously disingenious.

  • Karl Rove on O'Reilly slamming Cain ... again!

    10/31/2011 5:17:31 PM PDT · 2 of 118
    disraeligears to disraeligears

    and to hell with Ace, Red State and 90% of National Review.

  • Karl Rove on O'Reilly slamming Cain ... again!

    10/31/2011 5:15:47 PM PDT · 1 of 118
    disraeligears
  • A national Republican star is born

    09/08/2011 9:02:10 AM PDT · 84 of 116
    disraeligears to Cincinatus' Wife

    My wife’s philosophy is that taxes are in effect the government stealing a part of your life away. We literally spend months in servitude to the government by simply working solely to pay annual federal/state/local tax obligations.

    When the federal government takes more than is required for basic services rationally reserved for a central government (national defense, roads, regulation of “actual” interstate commerce), it in essence is reducing our God given life spans.

    This, at best, is slavery. At worst, blasphemy.

  • A national Republican star is born

    09/08/2011 8:39:57 AM PDT · 70 of 116
    disraeligears to Cincinatus' Wife

    I agree that we can’t whistle past the graveyard. But what we as citizens, and the government, have to do is expressly recognize social security for what it is:

    a system in which current payors are basically contributing to the retirements of current recipients.

    Once we recognize that reality then we can start substantially reducing the benefits without hurting current recipients (via age eligibility/means testing/reduced benefits for items not directly involving monthly payments), start reducing the FICA payments, and provide tax credits to enable us who are in our 50s and younger to better save for our own retirements (or, at the very least, have a large percentage of the FICA tax actually deposited in an IRA account in which the contributions are invested by court approved fiduciary/trustees for income/growth with the suitable investment mix dependent upon the individual’s age).

  • Vanity: a simple way to fix social security

    09/08/2011 8:20:00 AM PDT · 1 of 44
    disraeligears
    The Social Security system in my opinion is definitely a ponzi scheme. I am also against the Ryan plan because it fleeces those of us who are in our forties and early fifties, millions of Americans who have contributed to the social security system for 20 to 30 years and would be totally screwed by the government raising the eligibility age, reducing benefits, means testing, etc..

    However, there is a relatively easy way to fix the social security problem. For those of us in our early fifties and younger and who have contributed for 20 - 30 years into the “system,” it is apparent that we are not going to get out of social security what we put in.

    The government is either going to have to reduce benefits, means test benefits, or raise the age of eligibility or a combination of the three. These solutions are already being proposed and a combination of the three being enacted is a given.

    So go ahead and raise the retirement age, reduce benefits and means test. But in conjunction, a relatively equitable solution is for those of us who are ages 51 - 55, give us a lifetime future 70% federal income tax credit on federal income taxes owed on amounts up to $100,000 per year from now on so that we can start to save the difference now for our retirement years.

    Those younger than 51 can have the tax credit percentages staggered downward. For example: 46 - 50, 60%; 41 - 45, 50%; 36 - 40, 40%; 31 - 35, 30%; 26 - 30, 20%; 21 - 25, 10%.

    This way the federal government can go reduce and reduce its substantial entitlement obligation, but will forced to reduce its entitlement obligations in other areas given the immediate reduction in its tax revenue stream(unemployment benefits, medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc.).

    The benefits will be that the general tax burden will be decreased, spuring job growth and resulting in an eventual increased tax revenue stream from a healthy, growing economy, and people won’t be entirely deprived after having contributed up to 35 years into the social security ponzi scheme.

    With increased tax revenues from a growing economy we would hopefully be able to reduce and eventually retire the debt.

    However a fair tax and/or low flat tax would be necessary so the federal government doesn’t just enact the above referenced tax credits while raising taxes in general.

    Now this would be change we could believe in and would incentivize and reward the work ethic once again, while recognizing the reality that the Social Security system as we know it is broken and we can’t fix it without substantial restructuring.

    For those of us who are in our mid 50s and younger, we have to recognize that those Social Security “income projections” which we receive in the mail from the government are false promises and will never come to pass.

  • A national Republican star is born

    09/08/2011 8:15:14 AM PDT · 42 of 116
    disraeligears to Cincinatus' Wife

    The Social Security system in my opinion is definitely a ponzi scheme. I am also against the Ryan plan because it fleeces those of us who are in our forties and early fifties, millions of Americans who have contributed to the social security system for 20 to 30 years and would be totally screwed by the government raising the eligibility age, reducing benefits, means testing, etc..

    However, there is a relatively easy way to fix the social security problem. For those of us in our early fifties and younger and who have contributed for 20 - 30 years into the “system,” it is apparent that we are not going to get out of social security what we put in.

    The government is either going to have to reduce benefits, means test benefits, or raise the age of eligibility or a combination of the three. These solutions are already being proposed and a combination of the three being enacted is a given.

    So go ahead and raise the retirement age, reduce benefits and means test. But in conjunction, a relatively equitable solution is for those of us who are ages 51 - 55, give us a lifetime future 70% federal income tax credit on federal income taxes owed on amounts up to $100,000 per year from now on so that we can start to save the difference now for our retirement years.

    Those younger than 51 can have the tax credit percentages staggered downward. For example: 46 - 50, 60%; 41 - 45, 50%; 36 - 40, 40%; 31 - 35, 30%; 26 - 30, 20%; 21 - 25, 10%.

    This way the federal government can go reduce and reduce its substantial entitlement obligation, but will forced to reduce its entitlement obligations in other areas given the immediate reduction in its tax revenue stream(unemployment benefits, medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc.).

    The benefits will be that the general tax burden will be decreased, spuring job growth and resulting in an eventual increased tax revenue stream from a healthy, growing economy, and people won’t be entirely deprived after having contributed up to 35 years into the social security ponzi scheme.

    With increased tax revenues from a growing economy we would hopefully be able to reduce and eventually retire the debt.

    However a fair tax and/or low flat tax would be necessary so the federal government doesn’t just enact the above referenced tax credits while raising taxes in general.

    Now this would be change we could believe in and would incentivize and reward the work ethic once again, while recognizing the reality that the Social Security system as we know it is broken and we can’t fix it without substantial restructuring.

    For those of us who are in our mid 50s and younger, we have to recognize that those Social Security “income projections” which we receive in the mail from the government are false promises and will never come to pass.

  • NC4: Etheridge-D will call for recount in congressional race

    11/04/2010 7:58:13 AM PDT · 1 of 77
    disraeligears
    It is my understanding that Ellmers led by more than 2000 votes at the end of the night, which translated to a greater than 1.0% margin which put the race outside any statutory recount, and was declared the winner by AP.

    Then, in Etheridge's home area of Sampson County more than 450 votes were "found" - ALL FOR ETHERIDGE - thus dropping the winning percentage to just under 1% enabling Etheridge to call for a recount!

    This is statistically impossible, especially in consideration that U.S. Senator Burr was re-elected by 55% to 45% over NC Sec. of State Elaine Marshall.

    Let the Democratic public officials in charge of NC's electoral process know that the nation is watching them.

    Call or e-mail and voice your concerns regarding this statistically impossible discovery of 450+ votes for Etheridge to:

    Sec. of State Elaine Marshall (who just lost to Burr!, and is from the same neck of the woods as Etheridge): main number 919-807-2010

    Executive Asst. to Sec. Marshall: Jennell Baughman: jbaughman@sosnc.com

    Gen. Counsel to Sec. Marshall: Robert Wilson: rwilson@sosnc.com

    State Board of Elections Executive Director - Gary Bartlett (another Dem): (t) 866-522-4723; direct telephone line 919-715-0135 e-mail; elections.sboe@ncsbe.gov

    Don Wright, Gen. Counsel State Board of Elections: (t)866-522-4723 e-mail; elections.sboe@ncsbe.gov

  • JD Hayworth Launches $100,000 Money Bomb for Monday, Feb. 15 (Official Site is up)

    02/15/2010 1:23:57 PM PST · 125 of 159
    disraeligears to Mamzelle

    We should make every effort over the next few weeks to call into Hannity’s radio show and tell him to stop giving McCain credence as a conservative politician. While McCain may be characterized, at best, as moderate, he is in no way a conservative.

    Hannity needs to be fair about this election or he may himself become irrelevant like Scarborough.

  • Breaking-Sen Burr will vote YES on cloture re S. 1776! Call him, 202-224-3154, to vote NO!

    10/21/2009 12:17:24 PM PDT · 64 of 89
    disraeligears to ncalburt

    According to Ace of Spades blogger, cloture vote failed as follows:

    “Cloture Fails... by a lot. 47 vote yes on cloture, 53 against. (Former Klansman Robert Byrd returned to the Senate.)

    Not even 50 votes for it.”

  • Breaking-Sen Burr will vote YES on cloture re S. 1776! Call him, 202-224-3154, to vote NO!

    10/21/2009 11:58:45 AM PDT · 61 of 89
    disraeligears to bigjoesaddle

    Hey.... Dingy Harry!

    na na na na
    na na na na
    hey hey hey
    don’t let the screen door hit you on your a....

    (but keep calling Burr)

  • Breaking-Sen Burr will vote YES on cloture re S. 1776! Call him, 202-224-3154, to vote NO!

    10/21/2009 11:52:23 AM PDT · 59 of 89
    disraeligears to ncalburt

    Keep calling, but way be winning this one!!! See the following screen capture from Redstate (after reading this, pat yourself on the back, but keep calling Burr anyway!!!):

    Harry Reid Blames the AMA. Can’t Bring Himself to Blame RedState.

    Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

    Wednesday, October 21st at 2:40PM EDT

    No Comments
    We, RedState readers, have defeated Harry Reid today and delivered a significant blow to the potential passage of Obamacare.

    Harry Reid just ran to the Senate floor and cried that he cannot get enough votes to pass the doctors’ bribe to support Obamacare. He blamed the AMA for misleading him.

    He might actually want to look to RedState. Our readers have generated hundreds and hundreds of phone calls in 24 hours to pretty much every Republican Senator. Several who had considered voting for cloture backed down.

    And now the end run around Obamacare costs has been defeated.

    This makes it much more difficult for Obamacare to pass and virtually impossible for it to pass without significant deficit blowing cost additions.

    Well done activists!

  • Breaking-Sen Burr will vote YES on cloture re S. 1776! Call him, 202-224-3154, to vote NO!

    10/21/2009 11:07:24 AM PDT · 53 of 89
    disraeligears to ncalburt

    I just called the DC office, and the young guy would only say that Sen. Burr has not released a statement yet.

  • Breaking-Sen Burr will vote YES on cloture re S. 1776! Call him, 202-224-3154, to vote NO!

    10/21/2009 9:39:19 AM PDT · 46 of 89
    disraeligears to Man50D

    Keep calling Burr’s office! I just got off the phone with a staffer and NOW they are stating that there was a miscommunication within the office and that Sen. Burr has not yet reached a formal decision as to whether or not he is voting for or against cloture re 1776.

    The staffer tried to assert that 1776 and the Baucus bill were separate but I politely disabused her of that notion and explained that the Baucus bill achieves alleged budged neutrality by not counting the cost which is involved in S. 1776.

    I told her that if S. 1776 passes (and its 200+ billion dollar cost) separately, that will help pass Obamacare by giving the Dems the fraudulent talking point that that Obamacare is budget neutral when it is so clearly not.

    Keep calling!!! The calls to Sen. Burr’s office appear to be having an effect.

  • Breaking-Sen Burr will vote YES on cloture re S. 1776! Call him, 202-224-3154, to vote NO!

    10/21/2009 9:01:52 AM PDT · 31 of 89
    disraeligears to Drill Thrawl

    well by all means.... roll over and play dead.

    I’d rather go down fighting.

  • Breaking-Sen Burr will vote YES on cloture re S. 1776! Call him, 202-224-3154, to vote NO!

    10/21/2009 9:00:45 AM PDT · 30 of 89
    disraeligears to Cboldt

    Respectfully, Congress depends on anomolies re uptickes in phone calls protesting/supporting bills given that there will always be a minimum number of calls regarding each bill.

    Therefore, the only way to make yourself known regarding a bill is to either call, e-mail, vote, or send money.

    Not calling is not going to accomplish anything.

  • Breaking-Sen Burr will vote YES on cloture re S. 1776! Call him, 202-224-3154, to vote NO!

    10/21/2009 8:56:12 AM PDT · 25 of 89
    disraeligears to disraeligears

    Call Burr: at 202-224-3154 and tell him to vote NO on cloture. Call Burr: at 202-224-3154 and tell him to vote NO on cloture. Call Burr: at 202-224-3154 and tell him to vote NO on cloture. Call Burr: at 202-224-3154 and tell him to vote NO on cloture. Call Burr: at 202-224-3154 and tell him to vote NO on cloture. Call Burr: at 202-224-3154 and tell him to vote NO on cloture. Call Burr: at 202-224-3154 and tell him to vote NO on cloture. Call Burr: at 202-224-3154 and tell him to vote NO on cloture. Call Burr: at 202-224-3154 and tell him to vote NO on cloture. Call Burr: at 202-224-3154 and tell him to vote NO on cloture. Call Burr: at 202-224-3154 and tell him to vote NO on cloture. Call Burr: at 202-224-3154 and tell him to vote NO on cloture. Call Burr: at 202-224-3154 and tell him to vote NO on cloture. Call Burr: at 202-224-3154 and tell him to vote NO on cloture. Call Burr: at 202-224-3154 and tell him to vote NO on cloture. Call Burr: at 202-224-3154 and tell him to vote NO on cloture.

  • Breaking-Sen Burr will vote YES on cloture re S. 1776! Call him, 202-224-3154, to vote NO!

    10/21/2009 8:53:52 AM PDT · 23 of 89
    disraeligears to rwfromkansas

    Why not vote no on cloture and force the democrats to include it within the Obamacare bill. Make them produce an honest bill with an honest price tag!!!

    Republicans need to learn to play hardball and to also learn that for many, “perception is reality.”

  • Breaking-Sen Burr will vote YES on cloture re S. 1776! Call him, 202-224-3154, to vote NO!

    10/21/2009 8:48:24 AM PDT · 15 of 89
    disraeligears to perfect_rovian_storm

    The staffer was very specific and said that Burr was going to vote yes on cloture, that S. 1776 had nothing to do with Obamacare, and then pointedly said that Docs needed to get paid for providing care to Medicare patients.

    The staffer appeared to be well-informed re Burr’s intentions and the reason why Burr was voting for cloture and presumably for the bill.

    We need to flood Burr’s offices with calls!!!

  • Breaking-Sen Burr will vote YES on cloture re S. 1776! Call him, 202-224-3154, to vote NO!

    10/21/2009 8:46:14 AM PDT · 13 of 89
    disraeligears to Boiling Pots

    This is a screen capture from redstate nation (vote is set for 2:15 this afternoon!!!):

    Keep Calling: Cloture Vote on S. 1776 at 2:15 PM in Senate!

    Posted by Dan Perrin (Profile)

    Wednesday, October 21st at 10:32AM EDT

    10 Comments
    Just in from Freedom Works VP for Policy Max Pappas:

    “The Senate is going to vote cloture on S.1776 this afternoon around 2 pm.

    Today’s cloture vote is key–if they get this through, they will have come through in buying off the doctors and will keep lying about the overhaul reducing the deficit.”

    Here is the target list from Erick Erickson:

    Here are the big targets today. I’ll add to it as field reports come in from activists:

    Bob Bennett (UT) at 202-224-5444

    Richard Burr (NC) at 202-224-3154

    Jon Kyl (AZ) at 202-224-4521

    IF YOUR SENATOR IS NOT ON THIS LIST CLICK HERE

    Tell each one to oppose cloture on S. 1776. Supporting cloture is an endorsement of the Democrats’ strategy to pass Obamacare and will seriously increase the deficit
    (click to see group letter opposing cloture on S. 1776.)