Because you refer to intraparty criticism as a "circular firing squad," which I take to be a centrist talking point that does not contribute to thought.
I do not desire to be on the list. I simply want to read all correspondence pertaining to the Cegelis campaign, as such correspondence, if it exists, has affected 600,000 people.
Are you able to support that assertion with incontrovertible evidence? If not, I remain convinced that a group of bloggers did everything within their power to derail those who attempted to alert the blogosphere of Cegelis and her campaign.
Actually, it is an ad hominem statement with a negative assessment of my personality. I fail to see how this person's opinion of me relates to anything I may write.
I have every reason to believe it was coordinated. A review of comments of those who support/ed Duckworth reveals a reliance on certain terms and phrases. There are also bloggers such as "riverred" who disappeared once Duckworth edged Cegelis in the primary. I must say there was a lot of suspicious behaviour. In fact, to not admit there was an immense amount of coordination and now subterfuge is tantamount to practicing bad faith.
jeromearmstrong Our Polarized and Money-Driven Congress: Created Over 25 Years By Republicans (and Quickly Imitated by Democrats http://bit.ly/ewXlXI #bblue
Because you refer to intraparty criticism as a "circular firing squad," which I take to be a centrist talking point that does not contribute to thought.
How many people protested the House bill? How many millions of people protested the Republican Party's immigration policy?
And now you are unfairly rating my comments. How is that productive?
You are the problem.
Given you have only posted in three threads, I do not believe I have stalked you.
You are very demanding for a troll.
I do not desire to be on the list. I simply want to read all correspondence pertaining to the Cegelis campaign, as such correspondence, if it exists, has affected 600,000 people.
Refrain from ad hominem statements, please.
Perhaps you need to reread the comment and the thread in which it is placed until you understand why I wrote what I did.
Thank you for the vapid talking points. Perhaps you should tell us something we do not already know. This may require you to think before typing.
You obviously do not understand why I posted the question. Perhaps I am asking you to address the concerns articulated in the diary.
By the way, you poorly represent the Missouri Democratic Party. And no, I do not endeavour to be a renowned blogger.
Must you project your desires onto others?
Are you able to support that assertion with incontrovertible evidence? If not, I remain convinced that a group of bloggers did everything within their power to derail those who attempted to alert the blogosphere of Cegelis and her campaign.
Actually, it is an ad hominem statement with a negative assessment of my personality. I fail to see how this person's opinion of me relates to anything I may write.
I have every reason to believe it was coordinated. A review of comments of those who support/ed Duckworth reveals a reliance on certain terms and phrases. There are also bloggers such as "riverred" who disappeared once Duckworth edged Cegelis in the primary. I must say there was a lot of suspicious behaviour. In fact, to not admit there was an immense amount of coordination and now subterfuge is tantamount to practicing bad faith.
One question: How is this related to the diary?
Also consider this link.
http://www.nancyskinner.campaignoffice.c om/
$1000 for two backstage passes to Joan Jett is a great deal.
I rated this comment a two, for you are attempting to invalidate my legitimate question with an unfair and unfounded personality assessment.