South Carolina Senate: Graham 50% Conley 41%

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/south_carolina/election_2008_south_carolina_senate


The first Rasmussen Reports poll of South Carolina’s United State Senate race shows Republican Senator Lindsey Graham attracting 50% of the vote while Democratic challenger Bob Conley earns 41%.

Graham, who was first elected to the Senate in 2002, is viewed favorably by 52% of the state’s voters. Thirty-eight percent (38%) have an unfavorable view. Before serving in the Senate, Graham had been a member of the House of Representatives from 1994 to 2002.

Conley is viewed favorably by 42%, and unfavorably by 32%. Twenty-five percent (25%) have no opinion of him. Although he is running for the Senate as a Democrat, he had previously served on the Horry County Republican Committee and supported Ron Paul for President. Conley won the Democratic nomination is a close primary election on June 16.

[psalm82x3]

wish I lived there so that I could help...

I just donated. Go Conley!


This email confirms that you have donated Friends of Bob Conley $17.76 USD

http://aimhighwithbob.com/

[nate895]

It looks very good for Conley with these numbers. All he needs is enough money to contact at least 10% (preferably enough to contact 15%-20%, however) more of the voters, and he will be ahead of Graham.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Conley is riding on Obama's coat tails lol

[AJ Antimony]

That's amazing! Months ago Conley was down like 20% points.

[Jeremy]

I think that means only 32% are die-hard Graham supporters! =o

[Razmear]

Please support the Bon Conley Money Bomb going on right now.
You do not need to be a SC resident to donate, so you can help psalm!

Please donate what you can , even if it's just $5 at:
http://aimhighwithbob.com/


Then post your receipt at:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=157156

One man in the Senate can make a bigger difference than a 3rd party candidate getting 7% of the vote.

eb

[MRoCkEd]

Conley is riding on Obama's coat tails lol
Haha. Conley just needs all the democrats to vote for him simply because he is a democrat, and for just enough graham-hating republicans to vote for him so he can propel to victory.

[nate895]

Haha. Conley just needs the democrats to vote for him simply because he is a democrat, and for republicans to vote for him because he is more conservative than grahamnesty.

D+Conservative Rs=surefire victory.

[Razmear]

Conley is riding on Obama's coat tails lol

Conley is actually getting no support from the DNC because he refused to endorse Obama!

eb

[Menthol Patch]

Does Conley support legalizing all drugs?

[nate895]

Does Conley support legalizing all drugs?

He supports it being made a state issue, since he supports the Constitution, and that is how the Constitution would deal with the problem.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Conley is actually getting no support from the DNC because he refused to endorse Obama!

eb

Doesn't matter. People that see that "D" next to him name are going for him.

[AJ Antimony]

Haha. Conley just needs all the democrats to vote for him simply because he is a democrat, and for just enough graham-hating republicans to vote for him so he can propel to victory.

You know, this is really smart. I think of it as using the system against itself. The system we have now works by registered Democrats only voting for Democratic candidates and registered Republicans only voting for Republican candidates. Everyone else votes in each election for the other party during bad times and the same party during good times. So if we really wanted more Ron Paul Republicans in Congress, we'd have a much greater chance this year if our candidates were Democrats.

Under this system we have today, I'm convinced if Adolf Hitler was the Republican nominee and Joseph Stalin was the Democratic nominee, one of them would win the election. Easily.

[Menthol Patch]

He supports it being made a state issue, since he supports the Constitution, and that is how the Constitution would deal with the problem.

That's not true.

The right to use our body how we see fit is a basic right. It's more of a basic right than the "Bill of Rights."

The Federal Government has the duty to interfere in the states if the Bill of Rights is being violated so the federal government has a duty to interfere when someone's right to control their own body is being violated.

If you don't have the right to control your own body you have no rights at all.

[Jeremy]

Does Conley support legalizing all drugs?

I'm sure you wouldn't really care either way MP, even though you're a one-issue voter. I mean when we were talking about BJ Lawson's moneybomb you said you wouldn't do it because "his website doesn't have anything about the war on drugs." The same week you said that he released a series of videos attacking the war on drugs (out of all of his videos, he chose this exact topic you claimed he didn't address). He has also been continuously blogging against the war on drugs... so Menthol Patch, that's why you wouldn't care about the answer someone gave you. So frankly, I'm not even going to consider doing research for you... you don't know how to read or use your head, so what's the point?

[Razmear]

Doesn't matter. People that see that "D" next to him name are going for him.

Bonus for us if they do!
Thats another reason why we can actually win this race and get one of us in the Senate! And one Senator has about the same pull as 5 house members when it comes to voting NO on unconstitutional measures.

eb

[Menthol Patch]

I'm sure you wouldn't really care either way MP, even though you're a one-issue voter. I mean when we were talking about BJ Lawson's moneybomb you said you wouldn't do it because "his website doesn't have anything about the war on drugs." The same week you said that he released a series of videos attacking the war on drugs (out of all of his videos, he chose this exact topic you claimed he didn't address). He has also been continuously blogging against the war on drugs... so Menthol Patch, that's why you wouldn't care about the answer someone gave you. So frankly, I'm not even going to consider doing research for you... you don't know how to read or use your head, so what's the point?

You are an absolute liar about the following. I'm not a one issue voter. I have made it clear that I do not support any candidate that does not support abolishing the IRS and replacing it with nothing, abolishing the FED, ending the war in Iraq, and ending the war on drugs.

Got a link to those videos about the war on drugs?

[nate895]

That's not true.

The right to use our body how we see fit is a basic right. It's more of a basic right than the "Bill of Rights."

The Federal Government has the duty to interfere in the states if the Bill of Rights is being violated so the federal government has a duty to interfere when someone's right to control their own body is being violated.

If you don't have the right to control your own body you have no rights at all.

No it doesn't. No where in the US Constitution does it say that. The only time the US Government can do anything to a state, that is doing anything, according to our constitution is if it isn't maintaining a republican form of government.

[Flash]

Bob Conley has a better chance of winning than BJ Lawson. How did that happen?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

When Conley was back over 20 percentage points, I wrote this race off. But now that he is within single digits, I'm starting to think if Conley has enough money, he can win. He won't have Graham money, but if he can get enough to get his message out I think he has a shot. He can pull in democrats, independents and anti-Graham republicans.

If Conley can secure that Buddy Witherspoon (Graham's primary opponent who got 33% of the vote) vote and have the democrats vote for him at the normal rate, he can win.

[nate895]

Bob Conley has a better chance of winning than BJ Lawson. How did that happen?

If I had to pick between the two, it would definitely be the possible Senator as opposed to the possible Congressman.

[Razmear]

Menthol, please take your flame war out of this thread.

No candidate for anything in SC is going to publicly say he supports legalizing ALL drugs.
Also, any candidate that is pro-constitution knows that all they can do is decriminalize at the federal level then let the states make up their own minds.

This is about the 10th time you've posed your same question today, move on to something more important please. You can still score your drugs on the street corner while we try to fix the rest of the country's problems.

eb

[Highland]

go Conley Go!

[Menthol Patch]

Menthol, please take your flame war out of this thread.

No candidate for anything in SC is going to publicly say he supports legalizing ALL drugs.
Also, any candidate that is pro-constitution knows that all they can do is decriminalize at the federal level then let the states make up their own minds.

This is about the 10th time you've posed your same question today, move on to something more important please. You can still score your drugs on the street corner while we try to fix the rest of the country's problems.

eb

If he will not publicly state that he supports legalizing all drugs then he is not worth supporting and should lose.

[Jeremy]

You are an absolute liar about the following. I'm not a one issue voter. I have made it clear that I do not support any candidate that does not support abolishing the IRS and replacing it with nothing, abolishing the FED, ending the war in Iraq, and ending the war on drugs.

Got a link to those videos about the war on drugs?

http://takingthepulse.blip.tv/
http://takingthepulse.blip.tv/#1241499 <- LEAP
http://takingthepulse.blip.tv/#1236289 <- TROSA

A video series against the war on drugs by BJ Lawson! Not to mention that this is airing on TV. It's not just related to his congressional run but he's spending this time to educate people. Yet there you were... spreading false information.

You can also see in his blog he has countless things about this, including long write-ups with those videos (still being posted every few days).

Then you have stuff like this: http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/07/25/america-land-of-the-free-home-of-the-imprisoned/

and this:

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/06/30/how-the-war-on-drugs-interferes-with-real-wars/

Then you have the fact that he's in the NORML group on Facebook, etc.

[Razmear]

Bob Conley has a better chance of winning than BJ Lawson. How did that happen?

People down here really don't like Graham after he called us all bigots for not supporting his amnesty plan.

Please give Bob some of the Revolution Love that we gave Ron, we can win this one and I don't want to bust my ass for another 2 months for nothing!

eb

[nate895]

If he will not publicly state that he supports legalizing all drugs then he is not worth supporting and should lose.

Commit political suicide, wonderful idea. Have you ever heard of code language. The man says he supports the Constitution and the tenth amendment, that's code for "I personally think we should probably ban/legalize x, but since it's unpopular, to take the position I'd take on banning/legalization in my state/party, I'm not going to say anything about that."

[Razmear]

If he will not publicly state that he supports legalizing all drugs then he is not worth supporting and should lose.

Fine, your opinion is noted.
Move along now.

eb

[Menthol Patch]

I'm not going anywhere.

I will check out his videos to see if he specifically states all drugs should be legalized because everyone has the right to put whatever they want into their own bodies.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Conley is the only protectionist I'd support this election cycle. Why? No alternative. Is the LP even running a senator this year in GA?

[Flash]

http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/09/we-can-have-a-pat-buchanan-ron-paul-senator-in-2008/#comments
Great Buchanan.org article

[Flash]

If I had to pick between the two, it would definitely be the possible Senator as opposed to the possible Congressman.

BJ Lawson even has more money than Conley and not doing as well as him in the polls. damn.

[nate895]

Conley is the only protectionist I'd support this election cycle. Why? No alternative. Is the LP even running a senator this year in GA?

He is running in South Carolina, and no, they aren't running anyone (unless it's a write-in).

[Menthol Patch]

http://takingthepulse.blip.tv/
http://takingthepulse.blip.tv/#1241499 <- LEAP
http://takingthepulse.blip.tv/#1236289 <- TROSA

A video series against the war on drugs by BJ Lawson! Not to mention that this is airing on TV. It's not just related to his congressional run but he's spending this time to educate people. Yet there you were... spreading false information.

You can also see in his blog he has countless things about this, including long write-ups with those videos (still being posted every few days).

Then you have stuff like this: http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/07/25/america-land-of-the-free-home-of-the-imprisoned/

and this:

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/06/30/how-the-war-on-drugs-interferes-with-real-wars/

Then you have the fact that he's in the NORML group on Facebook, etc.

I read those two articles (the videos did not work) and no where does he state that drugs should be legalized because people have the absolute right to put whatever they want into their own body.

Ron Paul stated that people have the absolute right to put whatever they want into their own body, but it seems like neither Bob Barr or this guy is willing to say that.

[nate895]

I read those two articles (the videos did not work) and no where does he state that drugs should be legalized because people have the absolute right to put whatever they want into their own body.

Ron Paul stated that people have the absolute right to put whatever they want into their own body, but it seems like neither Bob Barr or this guy is willing to say that.

Now we have to agree on the REASON, OMG, there is only one person you will agree with that on on the six issues you mentioned: you.

[Menthol Patch]

Now we have to agree on the REASON, OMG, there is only one person you will agree with that on on the six issues you mentioned: you.

No. Ron Paul.

[nate895]

No. Ron Paul.

Then go onto that thread (or this one) and state your exact reason for supporting the measure, and where Ron Paul has said he agrees with you.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Is the LP even running a senator this year in GA?

This is South Carolina. And no.

But in Georgia, yes. They're running the same loser who ran for Senate in 2004. :rolleyes:

[Knightskye]

Aim higher. :)

[scandinaviany3]

If he will not publicly state that he supports legalizing all drugs then he is not worth supporting and should lose.

hope you like serfdom with your drugs...sure you will be given that option when they check all your medical insurance etc and see that drugs will shorten your life span under the new medical systems the NWO will surely put in place.

Lets worry about taking back our freedom to be free the details within will come but only if we focus on the big picture...