ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Wasserman Schultz cries ‘v**er suppression’ in Colorado recall, naturally
September 12, 2013 by Cheryl Carpenter Klimek 59 Comments

wasserman-schultzDemocratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was not happy about Tuesday’s recall e******n of Colorado’s anti-gun state Sens. Angela Giron and John Morse, releasing a scathing statement in response.

”The recall e******ns in Colorado were defined by the vast array of obstacles that special interests threw in the way of v**ers for the purpose of reversing the will of the legislature and the people,” Wassserman Schultz said in the statement. “This was v**er suppression, pure and simple.”

While Colorado v**ers heralded the decision as a v**e for the will of the people, the DNC chairwoman blamed the process for the results.

“Colorado v**ers are used to casting their b****ts by mail, but because of lawsuits filed by opponents of common sense gun reform, v**ers were not mailed their b****ts in this e******n,” she said. “Those who intended to v**e in person did not learn their polling locations until less than two weeks before E******n Day. Tuesday’s low turnout was a result of efforts by the NRA, the Koch brothers and other right wing groups who know that when more people v**e, Democrats win.”

Wasserman Schultz noted that the National Rifle Association did not get what it wanted, because Democrats still control the Colorado House, Senate and Governor’s Office, and gun laws already passed will remain in force.

“The Democratic Party has already bolstered its effort to expand v****g rights through the National V***r R**********n Project, an outgrowth of our belief that when more citizens are involved in the political process, the better it is for the country,” Wasserman Schultz said. “I have faith that the outrageous events in Colorado will bring more activists to join our cause, because the American people understand that the right to v**e is a fundamental feature of citizenship that must be protected against assault.”

larry

The recall e******ns in Colorado were defined by the vast array of obstacles that special interests threw in the way of v**ers for the purpose of reversing the will of the legislature and the people,” Wassserman Schultz said in the statement. “This was v**er suppression, pure and simple.”

Why in the state of things today, would anyone want to mess around with the pursuit of Happiness allowed by the second amendment. It is a good thing, when dissatisfied citizens take their untrained representatives to task. When the people who are supposed to do as the people desire take it upon themselves to flaunt their power instead of their service, they should be chastised and if possible removed from that arrogant position.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Have you read this well written piece about that e******n? It even calls out Wasserman-Schultz in fine order.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2013/09/13/the-epic-meltdown-of-the-gungrabbers-n1699056?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

They rejected Giron's sneering at grassroots organizers as "special interests." They didn't buy that their birth control would disappear. They weren't swayed by shooting victim Rep. Gabby Gifford's husband's emotional appeals or distracted by Bill Clinton's last-minute robocalls.

"What happened?" The reasons these petty tyrants lost are as simple as ABC: arrogance, bitterness and contempt for the people. As more and more self-empowered citizens are learning, you can't fix this stupid hubris. But you can v**e it out.

These are the last two paragraphs of the piece and there are many others just as good.

The part of both these pieces that I dislike most is that no mention is made about the amount of money from the Mayors
Against Guns and the NRA. One gave $360,000 and the other $350,000. Of course, the NRA must have negated Mayor "Bloomers".

larry

”The recall e******ns in Colorado were defined by the vast array of obstacles that special interests threw in the way of v**ers for the purpose of reversing the will of the legislature and the people,” Wassserman Schultz said in the statement. “This was v**er suppression, pure and simple.

Who ever believes v**er suppression was the reason, has bugs in his ears. It was the Democrats in this assembly that ruled the day. There were more Democrats v****g than any one else. What kind of suppression is that. The suppression was against the idea, the people dedicated to freedom just didn't like the idea.

rumitoid

When the rules are changed for one e******n, it is of course suspicious. The rest is democracy in action.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Did the lady mention the fact that, as usual in that part of Colorado most of those who v**ed were Democrat?

Her attempt to make a change in the rules was at the best nothing but sickening. I know that v****g by mail has been pointed out as very susceptible to people v****g more than once and of course that is what Democrats have to have.

Poco624

Wow, you are so giddy about not preventing another Columbine, Aurora, or Sandy Hook that you are piddling in your Depends. You may not have long to wait since Florida Police Chief Steve Bracknell thinks George Zimmerman could be the next Sandy Hook. Then you can run out and stock up on more weapons.

If Australians boycott American because of our gun culture and other nations follow you will have yourselves to blame for the loss our $10 billion annual tourism business. Their former PM Tim Fischer said you are 15 times more likely to be shot in America than in Australia. Yeah, I saw some of your post where you said that since the Aussie's banned guns that only the criminals had them, that was so funny that I had to pick myself up off of the floor. One of my girlfriends moved to Australia two and a half years ago because of the gun violence in Texas and she also found that to be humorous.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

I find neither you nor your girlfriend to be 'humorous'. I pray that neither of you are ever in a position of danger and unable to defend yourselves with a weapon (gun).

Poco624

Well, thank you for your concern. But really, the reasons for taking someone's life has become trivial, a man died in my city over a card game. As far as I am concerned that is no reason to k**l someone.

It use to be fight it out verbally or with your fist, now it is with a gun.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Poco if someone was attacking me, a member of my family, or even a total stranger and I had the wherewithall to stop him I would. If the assailant was threatening with a lethal weapon I would 'reply' in a like manner. If it were his life or any of the above, I would, perhaps, reluctantly take his.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Anti-gunnies really aren't at all reasonable and Poco may be one of the worst of them. I wonder if she doesn't know that fists k**l very close to as many people in this country as guns do. Naw, they don't know about fists.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Nor baseball bats, clubs, knives, auto's, axes, hatchets or by strangulation and drowning. It doesn't fit their narrative.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I am willing to put fists at the top since we have seen so many outright attacks by mobs on people. I used fists there because they were the things Poco seemed to think fit best as the way arguments used to be settled. Of course, they still are but when you need an excuse to use against guns they come in handy.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Perhaps they should heed the Demo's that suggested one could appeal to their better nature by 'talking' them out of physically harming you. Or rape. Where do those clowns come from?