...and I'm sure he still has armed bodyguards.

pretty right wing, isn't it. Lots of articles supporting the Tea Party and Republican conservative politicians. See lots of them critical of the President and Dems in congress.

Do you subscribe to it?

Your ignorance of the secondary source, and lack of comment on the substance, is noted, with interest.

Perhaps you don't like eggs?

what else don't you like about his politics? I'm not a supporter of his.

Posted on June 9, 2014
“The 100-year war for the soul of the GOP and how conservatives can finally win it.”
By Alan Caruba



Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/06/can-the-tea-party-take-over-the-gop/#ixzz3jrSqJFYL
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Attacks on Scott Walker Remind of Reagan

Posted on March 10, 2015
By Dr. Paul Kengor
Editor’s note: This article first appeared at The American Spectator.



Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2015/03/attacks-on-scott-walker-remind-of-reagan/#ixzz3jrT6pv41
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Attacks on Scott Walker Remind of Reagan

Posted on March 10, 2015
By Dr. Paul Kengor
Editor’s note: This article first appeared at The American Spectator.

Just a few articles from their web site. Why does the NRA spend more than 10 times the amount it does on Dems, on Repubs? Too bad the extremes don't cancel each other out.

He is not going anywhere other than on the East Coast. I saw no substance in the article.

Off the top of my head he has spent big money on gun issues in CO, WA and OR. He also was instrumental in getting Tea Partiers elected to Dem held Senate seats in AR and AK. He tried to get a third in MT but failed.

He has also spent $$$ on school board elections in CA and I believe NV. Isn't he a supporter of common core?

He is spreading his money far and wide- not all of it is benign; not that one should expect Mr. Stop-and-frisk to support the rights of the unwashed masses all of the time.

Tell me, what coast is Oregon (the state which the OP is about) on?

Even most gun owners, like myself, support expanded background checks on purchases.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/20/12534/nra-spends-record-money-lobbying-year

he NRA and its affiliate spent nearly $3 million on federal-level lobbying in 2012 — more than it has during any previous year, according to data maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, but spending during this year's first quarter puts it on pace to exceed that mark.

Such aggressive advocacy preceded a major legislative victory Wednesday for gun advocates, as the U.S. Senate defeated a proposal to expand background checks on guy buyers.

Do you think expanding background checks is extreme?

on edit: The nra spend roughly 3 times as much nationally as Bloomberg did in one state?


Put down the shovel.

Define, constitutional protected right.

Constitutional protected right:

A right generally protected by the constitution/and/or bill of rights, from governmental interference.

The NRA warned that Obama had a ten point secret plan to take away grandpa's shotgun. Again I ignored it when they doubled down on the second time he got elected. I tried to make bets with a few folks at the range that bought into it. A thousand dollars if the government tries to take away any gun you own legally while Obama is president. Funny, no one would take that bet.

Now I'll bet you that no one will have any gun they own taken away because of Bloomberg. How much?

Must have touch s nerve for you to go off like that. Rude, lower your self to name calling insults does your side no good. Anger and guns are a bad combo. I suggest an anger management class.

Last edited Tue Aug 25, 2015, 07:14 PM - Edit history (1)

And have taught anger management classes. When a discussion turns to name calling and general insults, well you know what that means. Sorry for causing you distress.

I did one of those, and not the other.

beevul: I guess we should just ignore bloombergs groups spokeswoman right {beevul then thinks he cites Shannon Watts} 'Bloomberg & I want guns gone. Period.'
beevul continues: If you believe Shannon watts is telling a lie about the intentions of Bloomberg and the demanding moms, state it loud and clear, right here. Tell us all how its just a lie, and we shouldn't pay any attention.

I will indeed state it loud & clear, beeful is the one telling the LIE, by attributing that tweet to gun control advocate Shannon Watts, who is simply reposting malicious tweets against her done by malicious gun nuts:

dec 27, 2014: .. that innocuous {Shannon watts} tweet became a platform to attack the Gun Sense advocate {Shannon Watts} by NRA supporters. The hashtag #ImBlockedByShannonWatts started trending on Twitter.​.. So Ms. Watts is retweeting some vulgar responses to her one tweet. http://www.alan.com/2014/12/27/nra-supporters-launch-vicious-misogynistic-twitter-attack-on-gun-reform-leader/#

.. it's incongruous to think Shannon Watts would speak for Bloomberg in such a manner. Beevul provided NO proof, NO link, that gun control advocate Shannon Watts herself tweeted that 'MikeBloomberg and I want guns gone. Period.' And what did the con man say to providing a link? he cons with 'its out there', followed by his load of blitherdumb, fabricating another lie:

beevul on Shannon watts link: Its out there. If I remember right, this is one she deleted almost immediately, like so many other 'tell' tweets shes made.. See, she does that when the mask slips and someone points it out to her..
Start post 34: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172167494#post40

If a reputable link is 'out there' beevul, it's incumbent upon YOU to post it, not just fabricate an illusion that it exists.
I suspect what happened, is that Shannon watts tweeted she was blocked by nra, using her personal tweet name, which was then replied to by angry & sick gunnuts, which were then copied & backpasted by Shannon, to expose the threats & insults made by those angry tweeting gunnuts:

When Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, was blocked by the NRA on Twitter yesterday, she tweeted it. It shall come as a surprise to no one ever that that was met with a slew of vicious misogynistic remarks by NRA supporters.
The mother of 5 frightens them that much. She’s a beautiful and intelligent woman, so naturally, she’s a threat.
Naturally, that innocuous {Shannon watts} tweet became a platform to attack the Gun Sense advocate by NRA supporters. The hashtag #ImBlockedByShannonWatts started trending on Twitter.​ The alleged human responsible for creating that hashtag is none other than Julie Golob, world shooting champion and author of the book “Shooting While Pregnant.” ​No, really.
So Ms. Watts is retweeting some vulgar responses to her one tweet.
http://www.alan.com/2014/12/27/nra-supporters-launch-vicious-misogynistic-twitter-attack-on-gun-reform-leader/#

4 to 3 to LEAVE...it is always a dangerous and brave business calling out all the not near clever enough distortions in the Gungeon. Folks at DU are catching on....read all alerts in the Gungeon very very carefully.

I salute you!

fred: 4 to 3 to LEAVE...it is always a dangerous and brave business calling out all the not near clever enough distortions in the Gungeon. Folks at DU are catching on....read all alerts in the Gungeon very very carefully.

That was pretty close 4-3, I'm surprised so close, for what? saying 'con artist' when it demonstrably applies?
Well as I understand it we get 5 'hides' per quarter, then must abstain until the next quarter (or perhaps 90 days later) comes about. This would've been my second for this quarter or 90 day period, so I'm not near fouling out yet, I'm still only at 1 (pending?). Once I get to 4 I'll transform into mr politeness man.
I notice we gun control advocates can be a bit more bold here since there's a built in bias for gun control; as long as we first post an offending attack by our adversary, so that our response becomes a 'parry' or counterattack, which are deemed far more admissible rather than just a baseless ad hominem, we have a finer chance of being acquitted.
Also, democrats support gun control (& thus GC advocates by association) by a wide margin, around 75% to 20%, so that rule of thumb should generally apply here on DU as well; so make it clear you support gun control & you should have a built in bias. I'm sure I've gotten 'alerted' on dozens of times & obviously most all of them have failed (as per maybe 6 hides in 5 years).
Plus, you can select a jury blacklist which prohibits 5 (regular) to 15 (star) DU members of your choice from appearing on juries to adjudge your alerted upon posts - called the 'jury blacklist'.

"LOUD & CLEAR, beevul is LYING"

This was probably the reason for the alert. Pretty mild, given what passes for discourse in the "Gungeon", but I've understood accusing someone of lying is quite often viewed as a personal attack.

I wasn't on the jury but would not have voted to hide.

That tweet is not in the article.

Also the date on the "want guns gone" tweet is 10 June 14. Per the article, she wasn't block from the NRA unti December 26 of that year. That is when she started receiving the disgusting tweets and reposting.

Can you explain the date discrepancy?

sarisataka: That tweet is not in the article. Also the date on the "want guns gone" tweet is 10 June 14. Per the article, she wasn't block from the NRA unti December 26 of that year. That is when she started receiving the disgusting tweets and reposting. Can you explain the date discrepancy

The Bloomberg/Shannon alleged tweet already existed for 6 months, she perhaps was already familiar with receiving bogus quotes ascribed to her. The nrablock escapade simply highlights the practice of it.
Neither Everytown nor Moms (combined now) ever wanted to ban all guns; it's incongruous that Shannon watts wrote that tweet that both she & Bloomberg wanted all guns gone, to put herself as a spokesman for bloomberg.
It is more conceivable that Shannon watts reposted a bogus tweet herself, than that she actually ever tweeted the original version - OR - it is a bogus quote altogether falsely attributed to her.
Feel free to provide a reputable link which corroborates that Shannon watts wrote that, & that it's not a repost of a malicious tweet or a bogus tweet.

I consider it a dumping ground for narcissists and a place to express regret for your "bad judgement" after losing your job for making a stupid comment to the world. I prefer to only say dumb things to people within earshot- I have to apologize less.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I could see if the comment can be verified via twitter.

I don't see why you find it so incredulous that Ms Watts would act as a spokesperson for Bloomberg. Since he "merged" MAIG and MDA into Everytown they have a business relationship. Spokesperson is a better descriptor for her than stay at home mom:

sarisataka: I am not twitter savvy ... Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I could see if the comment can be verified via twitter.

Verified as bogus you mean? if it was just the one tweet, any investigation would need contravene privacy details perhaps. But it's incongruous Shannon watts would do what beevul says she did. She's not a stupid lady, as your dossier showed, & she's not gonna put words like that in a notable cohort's mouth.
I think it so implausible that beevul's link to Shannon watts 'alternate' twitter mail account is valid. Beevul evidently thinks she created it & quickly deleted it 'just' to post the 'want guns gone' remark. How convenient for beevul, but most probably a lame excuse as is his forte when cornered.
Using the underscore to deviously duplicate another email address or twitter address is not uncommon - it can generally fool some of the people some of the time, as it did beevul & a bunch of others, and is generally a far rightwing tactic to smear & decieve. But once it is exposed the address should be discounted as valid & deemed a probable plant until proved otherwise. It should not be given credibility as beevul is pathetically doing, simply by his sayso that it sounds like something Shannon watts would say, or that she quickly deleted it to avoid detection (barf). This man is mainly here to disrupt & smear.

sari: I consider it a dumping ground for narcissists and a place to express regret for your "bad judgement" after losing your job for making a stupid comment to the world. I prefer to only say dumb things to people within earshot- I have to apologize less.

I think I mostly agree (not just for narcissists); tweets mostly seem more like flitting thoughts entering one's head which who gives a rats behind? They are mostly non binding, require little thought, usually prove nothing, and can be air-headed.

sari: I don't see why you find it so incredulous that Ms Watts would act as a spokesperson for Bloomberg. Since he "merged" MAIG and MDA into Everytown they have a business relationship.

I didn't say that she shouldn't act as spokeswoman for the merge. I said that it is far fetched she would say that particular contention about 'wanting guns gone' & attributing it to Bloomberg.
Was the linkedin dossier on SW supposed to reveal something sinister about her? seemed OK to me.

to back my statement that spokesperson is a better description.

After a very successful 19+ year career in corporate communications she took about 6 months off. I find it odd that she is described as a stay at home mom. All of her children are in their teens, likely fairly self sufficient.

Is she ashamed of her accomplishments in the business world?

sarisataka: That tweet is not in the article. Also the date on the "want guns gone" tweet is 10 June 14. Can you explain the date discrepancy?

I just noticed something more.
In the 'want guns gone' tweet, allegedly by Shannon watts, Shannon's tweet address seems to be:
Shannon@_shannonwatts
post 15 http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172174824

In my link where she reposted malicious tweets to herself, her tweet address is:

Shannon@shannonwatts
http://www.alan.com/2014/12/27/nra-supporters-launch-vicious-misogynistic-twitter-attack-on-gun-reform-leader/#

See what inspector clouseau is getting at?
.. now it's time for you & beevul, to explain that. Two accounts?

You've asserted its fake.

YOU prove it.

beevul: You explain it. You've asserted its fake. YOU prove it.

I suspect it is a fake address but I didn't assert it.
You asserted several times that the Shannon@_shannonwatts address is valid. Using your own reasoning, prove it. You're trapped into complying or being hypocritical.

Google: Shannon@_shannonwatts -- I got nothing to come up with that address. Is it defunct by you? perhaps by youse, she deleted it immediately after using?

I wrote: You asserted several times that the Shannon@_shannonwatts address is valid.

beevul wrote: No assertion I made ever specifically addressed anything about the address being a valid one or not.

You did make an assertion that the link was valid by a subsequent comment, your post 32 on this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=156114


beevul, referring to Shannon's above 'tweet': "Well, they do want to take your guns though, Shannon sez so."

You asserted that 'Shannon sez so', thus you must have believed the address in the Shannon 'tweet' is valid. Or are you now backtracking & concede you might have been wrong?
You've also asserted it's validity directly or indirectly several times elsewhere.

What are you doing anyway? acknowledging that the Shannon@_shannonwatts link might indeed be bogus? You must adhere to it being 'valid' for your argument to make any sense whatsoever. You contradict yourself.
(Shannon's valid tweet address is apparently Shannon@shannonwatts).

Yet, this is also still a fact:

No assertion I made ever specifically addressed anything about the address being a valid one or not.

beevul, +emph: No assertion I made ever specifically addressed anything about the address being a valid one or not.

Yet you have contended for at least the past year that Shannon watts, via her twitter address Shannon@_shannonwatts, has claimed that both she & Bloomberg 'want guns gone'; and you have CONSISTENTLY defended your position during that year, prior to my recent revelation that the twitter address you provided is not her official address, which is Shannon@shannonwatts (without the underscore prior her name).
Now you pathetically backslide that you never specifically addressed the twitter address itself. How utterly pathetic a tapdance. Beevul's lame excuse is that he never specifically contended 'the Shannon@_Shannonwatts twitter address is Valid'.

Yes yes your honor, I did send secret information to ISISdotcom, but I never thought it was specifically a valid email address for specifically the terror group, I just thought they wanted explosive material software to open up mine caves like they said.

beevul: That tweet meshes well with her and her groups actions. I believe, this being the case, that its real.

There you have it folks. In spite of the probability that the Shannon twitter address was a fabrication by an evil minded rightwing online opponent, a bogus account to deceive that Shannon was the writer, we are supposed to believe beevul's smear that Shannon watts, spokeswoman for 'Moms demand action against gun violence', actually wrote it, BECAUSE THE ALL KNOWING BEEVUL THINKS SO.

beevul: You explain it. You've asserted its fake. YOU prove it.
No proof to support your conclusions. Case closed.

How does this work in beevul-land? You post the link for a year, stand behind it & defend it & even bump your contention that it's valid, then I expose the twitter address discrepancy & ask you to explain, and I'M supposed to prove it's a fake?
No, you posted the link & the dubious twitter address, it's incumbent upon YOU to prove it's valid from SW; I've already exposed your link as suspect & probably a plant, I've done my part - there is preponderance of the evidence that beevul is dishing out a pile of BS.

'Shannon watts' at the dubious twitter address: Bloomberg and I want guns gone. Period.
beevul: Thats the "gunsense" that they want to see enacted in "everytown". From the horses mouth. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172151090#post67

Straight from the horses mouth, says da beeve.
Oooh, but he never specifically said 'from Shannon watts mouth', eh?

beevul: Evidence that points to the tweet not being made by watts? Zip zero nadda.

Are you blind? or wake up stupid this morning? In the 'want guns gone' tweet, allegedly by Shannon watts, Shannon's tweet address is different from her official tweet address available online:

Shannon@_shannonwatts <<<< note the underscore prior to full name.
post 15 http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172174824

In the link where she reposted malicious tweets to herself, her (official) tweet address is:

Shannon@shannonwatts <<<<< note the lack of an underscore
http://www.alan.com/2014/12/27/nra-supporters-launch-vicious-misogynistic-twitter-attack-on-gun-reform-leader/#

Adding an underscore to an e-address is a notorious way of creating a bogus fake email or twitter address, and then using the bogus address to impersonate another poster. Duh, this is news to beevul? this constitutes "Zip zero nadda" evidence to beevul that watts did not make the tweets? then beevul should have his head examined.
Adding the underscore or a period often goes unnoticed, as it does not affect the ID letters & numbers; sometimes the address is reduced or obscure; observe:

phantom man 2234 phantom man 2234.
phantom_man 2234
phantom man 2234_
phantom man_2234

beevul: Evidence that points to it being made by watts? Plenty, even if circumstantial, is still more than none.

Post a few reputable sources which support you, if they're so plentiful, not just rightwing gun blogs. So far you have no real solid evidence whatsoever in light of the underscore difference.

beevul: I've seen it a hundred times or more, doing searches on the esteemed mrs watts

You've only seen the very same tweet from the very same altered twitter address, hundreds of times, reposted.

Last edited Mon Aug 31, 2015, 12:46 PM - Edit history (2)

Why is this 'beevul' character allowed to post here on DEMOCRAT UNDERGROUND, when he 1) consistently posts far rightwing ideology, 2) slanders & slurs democrats who support gun control efforts 3) has posted at least 9 posts on DU accusing gun control advocate & democrat Shannon Watts of what appears to be a false quote, two of which are OPs, and refuses to post a reputable source link for his ugly contention. 3) does not support background check legislation which over 95% of democrats do support, and uses far right nra reasoning to justify. 4)He sometimes posts misleading information which puts liberal & democrat cities & people in a bad light, when it comes to gun violence, thus tending to glorify red states with scant gun control.
A true democrat does not do these things with such venom & consistency as beevul does.

How do we regulars here at DU expose someone who posts far rightwing ideology? 'Alerting' simply puts a post before a jury, often which does not 'hide' the post due freedom of speech concerns or uncertainty, without realizing the underlying violation of tos.
What is the methodology to complain about a poster's violation of democrat principles of fairness & integrity on DU?

BEEVUL: Except we have her {Shannon watts} and MDAs {Moms Demand Action} proven lies, dishonesty, and verified anti-gun status, and you have no evidence that she was not running that twitter account.

I have no evidence? I have evidence that the tweet you posted is an altered version of Shannon's official tweet address.
I have asked you to post a LINK to the tweet you post from Shannon Watts, where she allegedly says "Mayor Bloomberg and I want guns gone. Period." And yet I have not seen one source link from you. You continue to spew lies & filth about a fine decent DEMOCRAT who is the spokeswoman for 'Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense', as if she were something to be abhorred.

I asked beevul to post a link: where's the reputable link to the tweet? Where is the reputable link to what you contend Shannon watts tweeted? - MikeBloomberg and I want guns gone. Period. Where is the reputable link? You apparently posted something from a gun blog;

Beevul's pathetic reply which evades & ducks the question: Its out there. If I remember right, this is one she deleted almost immediately, like so many other 'tell' tweets shes made.
POSTS 35 and 37: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=168148

In other words, BEEVUL provides NO reputable link that Shannon watts ever wrote that tweet - just that "it's out there" in internet land where WE should have to find it; he pathetically conjectures that she 'deleted' the address after posting.
The tweet address from the 'want guns gone' tweet is NOT Shannon watts official tweet address, but appears to be a bogus tweet address made by an impersonator adding an underscore (_) to her official tweet address.

beevul, posting no reputable source link: That's the "leader" of moms demand action, the group you and your dishonest buddies in the anti-gun camp are and have been desperately trying to sell to the American people as "reasonable", and she states point blank what the intentions of her lobbying group are, http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=168148

Here are at least 9 beevul posts where he slurs Shannon watts, but without posting a source link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=155400
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172159084
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=157519
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=156160
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=157549
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172159084
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172160038
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=168141
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=174857

beevul: Its different now, but that doesn't prove anything. You have no evidence that she was not running that twitter account.

And where, beevul, is YOUR solid evidence that Shannon watts posted that tweet? where is YOUR solid evidence that the 'Shannon@_Shannonwatts' twitter address is valid, since it is not her official address? (Shannon@shannonwatts)

There is ample evidence that the tweet has been done by a vindictive impersonator, to smear Shannon watts, yet beevul does not seriously consider it possible, and he continues to dispense misinformation on about a weekly basis.
Why is this far right wing character beevul allowed to post amongst us fairer minded democrats? I have seen rightwing gun trolls blocked for far less violations, coke machine, ex cop law student, and beevul makes Hansberry look like a saint.

OK, thanks, I will post it in entirety in 'ask the adminstrator' as a complaint even tho they don't care for that route.
I also altered the post title in light of your helpful hint.

...in light of your helpful hint.

...and it's the height of arrogance for you to declare two Democratic US Senators not
to be "true democrats".

Working against Democrats is working against Democrats, and no amount of bafflegab will
change that

icon: ...and it's the height of arrogance for you to declare two Democratic US Senators not to be "true democrats".

Height of arrogance is you contending the above, for when they vote against the will of over 95% of what American democrats want, YES THEY ARE NOT TRUE DEMOCRATS, but servants of the special interest group which influenced them or paid them, in this case the gun lobby.

icon: Working against Democrats is working against Democrats, and no amount of bafflegab will change that

Huh? translation please. You make my point regarding begich & pryor. As far as MDA goes, they're under no obligation whatsoever to support democrats if they oppose the very principles they (MDA) stand for.
And, for your information, democrats work against democrats quite frequently mostly to limited degrees, in primaries & in congress; that is actually one reason which differentiates them from lock step republicans.

icon: Ahem. This is DEMOCRATIC Underground, not Gun Control Underground...

MDA does not post on DU that I know of.

The iran nuclear inspection agreement does not have 95% support from democrats (as bg checks do), only 61% support vs 36% oppose, so Senators like Schumer who oppose it are not in the same position as begich & pryor. Schumer is still a 'true democrat', since he represents a significant minority view, not the lunatic fringe view.

CNN/ORC Poll. July 22-25, "As you may know, Congress must approve the agreement the United States and five other countries reached with Iran that is aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons before it can take effect. Do you think Congress should approve or reject the deal with Iran?"
Approve Reject Unsure
ALL 44 52 5 Democrats 61 36 4
Independents 40 55 6 Republicans 31 66 3

Mark Begich- pro-choice, supported marijuana legalization, oppoes death penalty, wants repeal of Patriot Act, beliee humans are cause of climate change, opposed background check legislation, voted for Obamacare, supports raising minimum wage, extending unemployment benefits, supports same sex marriage and supports cost of living veteran benefits increase.

Dan Sullivan- Sullivan opposes abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother; he also has voiced his opposition to same-sex marriage. He opposes the Affordable Care Act and believes it should be repealed and replaced. Sullivan is against granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, and is a proponent of an "all-of-the-above" energy policy, including increased drilling for oil

Mark Prior- Pryor voted to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (usually called "Obamacare&quot in December 2009, avor of the expansion of embryonic stem cell research. He voted against restricting UN funding for population control policies, prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion, and barring Health and Human Services grants to organizations that perform abortion, In 2004 Pryor voted to extend the "Assault Weapons Ban". In 2013, Pryor voted against a measure that would have required background checks for all firearms purchases. In March 2013, Pryor cosponsored a bill that would flag individuals attempting to buy guns who have used an insanity defense, were ruled dangerous by a court, or had been committed by a court to mental health treatment

Tom Cotton- Cotton voted against the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, Cotton voted against federal student loan legislation in Congress. Cotton said that his vote was based on his opposition to the nationalization of the student-loan business which he wrote had been a component of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Cotton has stated his support for the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Cotton voted in favor of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, voted for the Federal Pay Adjustment Act, which prevents a 0.5% pay increase for all federal workers from taking effect, voted for the Federal Pay Adjustment Act, which prevents a 0.5% pay increase for all federal workers from taking effect, Cotton wrote and sent a letter to the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran, signed by 47 of the Senate's 54 Republicans, attempting to cast doubt on the Obama administration's authority to engage in nuclear-proliferation negotiations with Iran

sarisataka: so two radical Tea Party Republicans holding senate seats for six years is acceptable because "true Democrats" will always vote for any gun control proposal.

I'll ask you to not put your stupid insulting words in my mouth, or the inane thoughts from your head as emanating from mine.

in post #49

You describe Begich and Pryor as "some Democrats" who "voted with rightwing republicans" and "MDA did not withhold support from two true democrats, they withheld support (if so) from two senators with diametrically opposing positions to theirs who voted against the very ideals the MDA group stood for."

"true democrats {sic}" that "voted with rightwing republicans" on a single issue

"To think that Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense would support those two who voted against their very principles & what they stand for, is somewhat absurd."- a group that supports Democratic candidates and principles would have stayed out of the race. A single issue group will step in and people who are single issue voters will place that issue over political allegiance and support the group regardless of secondary consequences.

I voted for Amy Klobuchar- Extend the ban on assault weapons. (Jan 2006)
Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets. (Apr 2013)
Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. (Apr 2009)
Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
Ban large-capacity ammunition. (Jan 2013)

and Al Franken- Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets. (Apr 2013)
Ban large-capacity ammunition. (Jan 2013)

because they, and I, are Democrats. I will freely oppose and condemn any "pro-gun" group that tries to unseat them because I support them as Democrats.

I wouldn't make lame excuses about them having different opinions than I do on one issue.

sar: So what is your point ... I wouldn't make lame excuses about them having different opinions than I do on one issue.

You implied I was for two tea party republicans rather than their democrat opponents:

sari wrote: .. so two radical Tea Party Republicans holding senate seats for six years is acceptable because "true Democrats" will always vote for any gun control proposal.

Now present some evidence where I actually said that. Or inferred it. Or hinted at it. Or go soak your head.
How did all this go over your head?: My points were that

1 Those two democrat senators begich & pryor voted with rightwing republicans to help defeat a democrat sponsored bill for background checks. Begich & Pryor voted against the democrat bill and against 95% of American support for the bill,
2 MDA did not withhold support from two true democrats, they withheld support (if so) from two senators with diametrically opposing positions to theirs who voted against the very ideals the MDA group stood for.
3 Do you actually think MDA withholding support (financial or what?) did anything to defeat pryor who lost by ~15 pts? both pryor & begich ran in two heavy republican red states, Arkansas & Alaska.
4 To blame MDA or any of the groups for withholding support is irrelevant & a red herring, & both begich & pryor reaped what they sowed with gun control groups, where it's their prerogative to do with their opinions & money what they want.

I wrote: "YES THEY ARE NOT TRUE DEMOCRATS, but servants of the special interest group which influenced them or paid them, in this case the gun lobby."

they also tried to prevent simple DEBATE: Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), joined the majority of Republican Senators who tried to prevent debate, much less a vote, on the bill.

2013: Pryor had a C- nra grade at time of vote; .. Mark Begich, Alaska (NRA Rating: A) at time of vote begich had A-, or AQ, unclear... http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/17/1463981/meet-the-nra-backed-senate-democrats-who-op
http://www.mediaite.com/online/21-nra-a-rated-senators-part-of-68-31-vote-to-defeat-filibuster-of-background-check-bill/pose-obamas-gun-violence-prevention-plan/

sari: I voted for Amy Klobuchar- Extend the ban on assault weapons. (Jan 2006)

What *you* did is irrelevant to anything, & is countered inter alios here on DU apparently by va mtn man, & others I'm sure.
To think that mda withholding support from begich & pryor was instrumental in their defeat is ludicrous; for, to Alaskans & Arkansans to some extent, Shannon watts MDA giving begich & pryor their support would've been more like a kiss of death. I doubt begich & pryor were too upset that MDA didn't support them. Tho perhaps they missed their dollars, eh?

sari: A single issue group will step in and people who are single issue voters will place that issue over political allegiance and support the group regardless of secondary consequences.

Obama stayed out of several congressional races, refusing to endorse or campaign or even appear in the state, for fear of 'single issue' progun backlash (as well as unpopularity in red states). Many politicians stay away for fear of poisoning the well. MDA did not poison the well for begich & pryor, that they were democrats in two red states was poison enough.
No, in pro gun states, MDA supporting a pro gun democrat candidate would be more like a kiss of death; to withhold support would more likely be viewed as HELPING a democrat candidate in a red state, than hurting him.

Those two democrat senators begich & pryor voted with rightwing republicans to help defeat a democrat sponsored bill for background checks. Begich & Pryor voted against the democrat bill and against 95% of American support for the bill,
I wrote: "YES THEY ARE NOT TRUE DEMOCRATS, but servants of the special interest group which influenced them or paid them, in this case the gun lobby."

To think that Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense would support those two who voted against their very principles & what they stand for, is somewhat absurd.

icon: Shannon Watts was the titular head of what, at the time, was Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (now Everytown for Gun Safety) Some 'democrat'...

JTO:Shannon Watts is a fine democrat,

sari: So "true Democrats" don't vote against gun control- ok fine

I asked you already not to put stupid & insulting words in my mouth.
I clearly specified that they voted against background checks which had 95% democrat support. Democrats can vote against gun control, but not when it has 95% support from their own party. Try reading my posts twice for better comprehension & stop with the stupid.

sari: You can head a special interest group that will work against Democrats to get a Republican elected in their place and still be a fine Democrat- sorry we part ways here. A fine Democrat would not help a Republican, especially a radical Tea Party Republican

Since this is an utterly ridiculous false premise you try to pin on me (MDA did not work against pryor or begich to get a republican elected), I have to slip you down another notch, from civil neutral, to unfriendly, and now to antagonistic. Next stop, hostile. Go away bother somebody else.

an 85% "good" Democrat over a Republican is antagonistic, color me antagonistic. I haven't seen you, or any other strict gun control proponent say "Yes, I'd rather have a pro-gun Democrat in Congress rather than give up the seat to a Republican. I have seen people say "So what, we don't need those kind of Democrats".

"MDA did not work against pryor or begich to get a republican elected"

I wrote: "MDA did not work against pryor or begich to get a republican elected"

sarisataka linked: "This is about building a foundation," Watts says, "and it can't be built on whether you have Democrats or Republicans in office. Many Democrats have shown that they are just as in the pocket of the NRA as their Republican counterparts. This has to transcend political labels."

I don't know what you think you proved. MDA did not work against pryor or begich to get a republican elected, as I said.

your link: To that end, Bloomberg created a super pac, Independence USA..
Factcheck: Independence USA is a super PAC that focuses largely on helping to elect candidates who support stricter gun-control laws. It was founded in October 2012 by Michael Bloomberg,
Independence USA largely spends its money backing candidates who support gun control and opposing those who don’t. It spent a total of $3.3 million to help Democratic challenger Gloria Negrete McLeod upset longtime Democratic Rep. Joe Baca in California’s 35th Congressional District http://www.factcheck.org/2014/02/independence-usa/

Provide a link between MDA & Independence USA providing financial support, not just being friends & coworkers with Bloomberg.

Bloomberg contributed to the Senate Majority PAC $2,500,000 July 2013. Since July 2013 {to 2104 elections}, the Senate Majority PAC has spent $1,690,083 opposing candidate Tom Cotton (R-AR).

thinking that Bloomberg's Independence PAC, MAIG, MDA and Everytown on not all heads of the same hydra, who am I to burst your bubble?

6/2013: In an interview, Mr. Begich, who faces re-election next year, said he was unbowed by the threat of a Bloomberg-led attack. Indeed, he seemed to almost relish the thought of one. “In Alaska, having a New York mayor tell us what to do? The guy who wants to ban Big Gulps?” Mr. Begich asked incredulously. “If anything, it might help me,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/nyregion/bloomberg-urges-no-gifts-to-democrats-who-blocked-gun-bill.html

Begich himself said that Bloomberg's 'opposition' would IF ANYTHING, be as much likely to help his campaign, not hurt it. Kiss of death & all that.

sarisatak: I voted for Amy Klobuchar- Extend the ban on assault weapons. (Jan 2006)
Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets. (Apr 2013)
friendly_iconoclast-- I voted for Ed Markey and Liz Warren, both quite vocal gun control supporters

Let me guess. Sarisatak is from Minnesota, icon from Massachusetts. Is Shannon Watts from Alaska? Arkansas?
Do you both actually believe Shannon Watts or MDA contributed to Begich's republican opponent who also had an A rating from nra & rec'd contributions over 100k from nra? Rob pro gun peter to pay pro gun paul?
Do you both actually believe Watts or MDA contributed to democrat Pryor's opponent? when Pryor had a C- nra rating while repub cotton had a 92% rating?

sarisatak: .. a group that supports Democratic candidates and principles would have stayed out of the race. A single issue group will step in and people who are single issue voters will place that issue over political allegiance and support the group regardless of secondary consequences.

Did MDA ever say to democrat voters to vote for republicans Cotton or Sullivan? No. MDA withheld support for the two democrats who voted against MDA's very principles, which is MDA's prerogative. MDA was under NO obligation to support begich or pryor, either financially or politically. And yes I am & was well aware of the MDA & MAIG merger.

icon's very link, note that begich & pryor are the one who worked AGAINST a democrat position: In a letter sent to Cindy Horn the groups urged her to cancel the fundraiser, or, in the alternative, that they instead raise funds for Senate candidates in tough races who voted for the background checks, including Landrieu (D-La.), Hagan (D-N.C.), Shaheen (D-N.H.) Udall (D-Colo.)... wrote to Horn that “when Senators from far-flung places come to California to fuel their campaigns, we hope that you will remind them that you’re not their personal ATM. You have a right to ask why they deserve their support. “In particular, you have every right to ask why they helped a Republican minority defeat a Democratic majority and a Democratic president and vice president who worked their heart out on this chance for reform — which may not come again for years.”

sari: I will freely oppose and condemn any "pro-gun" group that tries to unseat them because I support them as Democrats.

How much did you two gun enthusiasts contribute to the Alaskan campaign of Begich? the Arkansas campaign of Pryor? Did you two oppose the recall election in Colorado where two dems were recalled & replaced by repubs? pls link.
As money and national attention poured into Colorado .. the races became a symbol of the nation’s bitter fight over gun control, with one side bolstered by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York and the other by {NRA}... gun-control advocates far outspent their opponents. A range of philanthropists, liberal political groups, unions and activists raised a total of $3 million to defend Mr. Morse and Ms. Giron. Mr. Bloomberg personally gave $350,000.

Mayor Bloomberg, in a sharp escalation in the battle over gun control, is seeking to punish Democratic senators by taking away the one thing they most need from New Yorkers: money. Mr. Bloomberg will send a personal letter to hundreds of the biggest Democratic donors in New York urging them to cut off contributions to the four Democratic senators who helped block a bill in April that would have strengthened background checks on gun purchasers. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/nyregion/bloomberg-urges-no-gifts-to-democrats-who-blocked-gun-bill.html

Well ladeedah, Bloomberg wanted to keep new York money in new York, rather than send it to 4 pro gun red states. I don't blame him a bit, since dems in those 4 states were up against the odds anyway.
So what you say now? you think it OK to donate $2 million to 4 red states rather than keep the money in New York where it would do more good electing democrats?

To keep control of the Senate; Bloomberg worked personally and though his organizations against that.

...and I don't give a flying fuck why, only that they did, and *you* are defending that

Being that the *only* pro-gun control candidate in either election was a Green in
Arkansas who got a whopping 1.98% of the vote and Alaska was close-fought,
any move against Begich or Pryor was de facto aid to the Pubbies.

Your careful parsing is a distinction without a difference.

Last edited Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:45 PM - Edit history (1)

how with GCs 95% support and $50 million {thank you Lord Bloomberg} they failed to elect a single Democrat over a Republican incumbant in a national race.

You should just celebrate that they got rid of two false Democrats- ignore the Tea Partiers now sitting in their old seats.

its nobody's business on how many guys i buy.

ammoland: .................... Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund that spent $764,232.35 .. How much did ALL the pro-Second Amendment groups spend? Ready? It was a grand total of $88,000.

beevul asks: Why does Bloomberg have to spend nearly ten times as much in lobbying money as the pro-gun lobby, if this is what the voters wanted in the first place?

Do you need be spoonfed? Your question is specious & sophomoric. It wasn't that Bloomberg needed spend 10 times more than the gun lobby promoting private sale bg checks in Oregon, it was that the gun lobby realized it would be throwing away money on a likely defeat, so that it limited itself to a relatively minor financial involvement. Bloomberg set a limit for involvement - that the gun lobby opted out realizing it was a forlorn hope, does not imply Bloomberg intentionally outspent the gun lobby 10 to 1.

Everytown spent nearly $600,000 on the 2014 election — $450,000 in contributions to candidates and committees, and $110,000 on other grassroots efforts. Part of that was devoted to strengthening the Democratic majority in the state Senate, the key battleground. Democrats ended up expanding their majority by two seats to 18-12 in the Senate.
The {democrat} party holds a stronger majority in the House. Gov. John Kitzhaber, a Democrat, is a longtime supporter and is expected to sign the bill if it passes.

With solid majorities in the state house & senate & a democrat governor, why would the nra invest much to try to defeat the gun control proposal?

beevul: Why does Bloomberg have to spend nearly ten times as much in lobbying money as the pro-gun lobby, if this is what the voters wanted in the first place?

Do you need be spoonfed? voters wanted background checks in 2013 after newtown by nearly 90%, yet republicans in the senate defeated the measure by filibuster. Voters wanted bg checks 'in the first place' yet they didn't get them thanks to the republican senate.
Bloomberg wanted to ensure legislature awareness of WHAT the voters wanted, & voter awareness to keep up the pressure on state legislators, to make sure what happened in the US senate did not happen in Oregon.

I know that from folks who worked on the ground, who were at the last minute putting out a lot of campaign flyers, posters, etc. that were funded at the last minute by these folks that helped Chuck Riley and Sarah Gelser get seats for the Democrats to win a majority in the state senate, which before was pretty much even even with a majority when one Democrat was constantly voting with Republicans.

So yes, that and some races in the legislature helping the Democrats there helped perhaps push gun legislation in the state offices here, and also helped push for subsequent petitions for recalls of Riley and some other Democrats here by the gun lobbyists too. There's a big battle in this state for gun rights that I see happening around us. Don't forget that we had a mall shooting in Clackamas earlier in the week a few days before the Sandy Hook shooting that seems to get forgotten a lot when those two events happened right next to each other.

It's also important to note that Bloomberg ALSO tried heavily along with an oil billionaire tried to heavily finance getting open primaries passed through referendum in the same election too in 2014, which failed miserably here, after I think grass roots in all parties here started to realize that it was an attempt by billionaires to buy keeping and growing their influence over elections here.

http://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/237435-103417-two-billionaires-give-to-oregon-top-two-primary-effort

So campaign spending is a double edged sword. We can thank Bloomberg for a state majority of Democrats here growing, but we can also see by Bloomberg's own behavior on the Top Two primary referendum, that we really can't afford to be dependent on spending of billionaires who we get elected to our governments. We need to fix this system to take money OUT of politics, even if some billionaires will spend money the right way on certain causes, because it is just as likely and arguably more likely that more billionaires will spend money on the wrong causes and people in office too.

It was up against significant opposition in Salem (the capital) despite polls running solidly in its favor. The opposition was largely among GOP legislators, but not so much from the pro-2nd Amendment groups, who as the article notes, didn't spend much on it (and some of the groups didn't oppose the bill at all). I'm not sure that there was such a huge need to spend that much on this bill, as it never really appeared that it would fail, but I suppose Bloomberg's organization wanted to be sure is was enacted (and to have a showpiece victory.

Making it illegal for two friends to target practice on their property...