Lollar's got my vote...

[Bann]

"Bann" you've already made the sale , you can stop pitching now.
Do all of you realize that this may be a historic night! I am fairly new to the forum, but can any of you O.G's remember a political thread that went for almost three pages where everyone was in agreement?
I think we should get a petition going so that "Dipstick" can vote in our district. Then we can call the board of elections to tell them this race has been decided here(finished, done, finito), and that we think would be a waste of our money to let it go any farther.
Finally, we can all draw straws to see who gets to call Stenny, and give him the bad news.

Just correcting Mr. Libertarian about my point - as he did with me. But thanks for the permission to post as I please.

As to your point about the "sale" being made - I don't consider this race over until Lollar wins the Primary. Then, it will be on to winning the General Election.

 

[ImnoMensa]

"Bann" you've already made the sale , you can stop pitching now.
Do all of you realize that this may be a historic night! I am fairly new to the forum, but can any of you O.G's remember a political thread that went for almost three pages where everyone was in agreement?
I think we should get a petition going so that "Dipstick" can vote in our district. Then we can call the board of elections to tell them this race has been decided here(finished, done, finito), and that we think would be a waste of our money to let it go any farther.
Finally, we can all draw straws to see who gets to call Stenny, and give him the bad news.

If we win this November, poor Nancy Pelosi will be terribly hard to console.

She will lose her Speakers job and at the same time, the suckerfish, named Steny, that has been attached to her backside for the last four years.

She may even have to get her botox surgeon to remove the large Hickey he will leave there.

 

[Themis]

If we win this November, poor Nancy Pelosi will be terribly hard to console.

She will lose her Speakers job and at the same time, the suckerfish, named Steny, that has been attached to her backside for the last four years.

She may even have to get her botox surgeon to remove the large Hickey he will leave there.

 

[chernmax]

I want nothing more than to see Steny Hoyer kicked to the curb so I can watch Nancy Pelosi carry her own purse...

 

[Themis]

I want nothing more than to see Steny Hoyer kicked to the curb so I can watch Nancy Pelosi carry her own purse...

Steny will have to buy his own.

 

[chernmax]

Voting Lollar!!!

 

[bresamil]

Mmm, not trying to argue. But when you say "they change because..." I just figured I'd add in that Lollar isn't going to be that way. He isn't now and he won't be in the future.

I am voting for Lollar. I hope he can withstand the pressure and actually live up to his promises.

But it is impossible to say what he will do in the future. There is no way you can guarantee his actions or those of anyone. None of us can be 100% certain what our own futures are, so we most certainly cannot predict that of others.

 

[Baja28]

With a name like Lollarcrat and only 2 posts I guess you would vote for him.

and

I would say this was KILLER SPAM but I'm voting for him too so I'll let it go

How is this killer spam? He's not selling anything.

 

[Bann]

I am voting for Lollar. I hope he can withstand the pressure and actually live up to his promises.

But it is impossible to say what he will do in the future. There is no way you can guarantee his actions or those of anyone. None of us can be 100% certain what our own futures are, so we most certainly cannot predict that of others.

No, no one can guarantee anything, I'll grant you that.

I can honestly say I am 100% certain that Lollar can withstand the pressure. He's a marine - he's fought tougher battles than this.

I am as certain as I can be that he will honor his word & live up to the promises he's made. His promise is simple - he will listen to the people of the 5th district and vote the way they want him to.

 

[Rommey]

Voting Lollar!!!

Voted Lollar.

Took advantage of the early voting this year and walked right in today and was out in minutes. Of course I got inundated by all the electioneers trying to hand me all sorts of propaganda. My standard answer to all of them: "Not gonna happen" as I walk right past them.

 

[Pushrod]

I have a problem with Lollar now. He was sent a survey on gun rights by a collaboration of Maryland Shall Issue, The Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, The Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association and The Washington County Federation of Sportsmen. Lollar's campaign neglected to answer the survey, and therefor, I have to consider him anti-Second Amendment.

Maryland Shooters - View Single Post - Maryland Shall Issue - Candidate Survey Results for 2010 Primary Election

Some notes from MSI:

Some notes on these recommendations are in order.

These recommendations are based solely on our assessment of the candidates' positions on the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. While we know that most of you are not single issue voters, we hold the belief that you depend on us to give you the best information possible with regards to gun issues without them being distorted by other aspects of the candidates' platform. With all four groups working together, you can be assured that there are no personal beefs being taken out on candidates and that there's no agenda at work here except to give you the tools to make an informed decision.

All registered candidates were mailed a survey in early August with a requested return date of August 19th. Those candidates that returned their surveys were evaluated based on their responses to the questionnaire. Incumbents who did not return a survey but had a verifiable track record on our issues were evaluated on the best information we had for them.

The link talking about Lollar not answering the survey:

Maryland Shooters - View Single Post - Maryland Shall Issue - Candidate Survey Results for 2010 Primary Election

Lollar did not return a survey. This is the second occasion that we've tried to work with their campaign and received no response.

Because of this I will have to change my voting preference to Bailey. Lollar has lost thousands of Maryland votes by not responding to this survey!

 

[Bann]

I have a problem with Lollar now. He was sent a survey on gun rights by a collaboration of Maryland Shall Issue, The Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, The Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association and The Washington County Federation of Sportsmen. Lollar's campaign neglected to answer the survey, and therefor, I have to consider him anti-Second Amendment.

All registered candidates were mailed a survey in early August with a requested return date of August 19th. Those candidates that returned their surveys were evaluated based on their responses to the questionnaire. Incumbents who did not return a survey but had a verifiable track record on our issues were evaluated on the best information we had for them.

Because of this I will have to change my voting preference to Bailey. Lollar has lost thousands of Maryland votes by not responding to this survey!

You're kidding me, right? This group(these groups) has/have it's panties in a wad because they sent a survey out expecting a reply within a couple of weeks - and because they got no reply they will assume the candidate is ANTI-2nd Amendment?

Seriously? They think that Charles Lollar, a former USMC Veteran, and currently serving as a USMC Reservist (whom, by the way, has been completing his required service time ahead of time so that when he is elected it will have been fulfilled) THAT Charles Lollar is ANTI-2nd Amendment?

Not only that, they're writing him off as not worthy of voting for? Just because of some survey he & his campaign didn't send back?

All they had to do was check his website. :shrug: And that's all the sheeple on the "Maryland Shall Issue" forum had to do, too. It only took 5 seconds to find this on his website:

As your next Congressman I will defend your right to keep and bear arms.
Charles Lollar for Congress 2010 // Maryland

 

[itsbob]

I have a problem with Lollar now. He was sent a survey on gun rights by a collaboration of Maryland Shall Issue, The Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, The Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association and The Washington County Federation of Sportsmen. Lollar's campaign neglected to answer the survey, and therefor, I have to consider him anti-Second Amendment.

Maryland Shooters - View Single Post - Maryland Shall Issue - Candidate Survey Results for 2010 Primary Election

Some notes from MSI:



The link talking about Lollar not answering the survey:

Maryland Shooters - View Single Post - Maryland Shall Issue - Candidate Survey Results for 2010 Primary Election



Because of this I will have to change my voting preference to Bailey. Lollar has lost thousands of Maryland votes by not responding to this survey!

Jesus fn Christ. REALLY??

He didn't answer ONE survey so you won't vote for him?? And you'll chose who to vote for on a SINGLE ISSUE?? You're as much a loon as the pro-lifer/ pro-choice mental cases.

Well, now we know how Obama got elected.

So if Lollar wins the Primary, you're saying Hoyer will get your vote in the election because Lollar didn't fill out the survey?

Because if Bailey wins the primary it won't matter who you vote for. MilkToast Bailey doesn't have a PRAYER against Hoyer.

So lets place your single issue over and above the needs of the country..

 

[Lollarcrat]

Lollar's stance on 2nd Amendment

Second Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. ~ The Second Amendment

In the recent Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Its ruling settled the question of whether the bill of rights grants you and I the personal liberty to keep and bear arms for our own defense in the affirmative.

While the 2nd amendment also provides a role for government to regulate in this area, the government cannot act in a manner that would disarm, or deny through onerous regulation the right of law-abiding citizens to exercise their second amendment rights.

The possession of a firearm by law-abiding citizens is not inherently evil. Legislation, which seeks to disarm law abiding citizens for their own protection, only leaves them disarmed and at the mercy of the criminal population. But the right to arm oneself also bears with it the obligation to keep others safe from your action. Having chosen to arm oneself, you are then personally responsible for the manner in which those arms are used, stored or transferred.

In cases where guns are used to terrorize communities and shed innocent blood, I would be a fierce advocate for bringing the perpetrators to justice and ending their reign of terror. But I would not favor or support legislation that disarms law-abiding citizens and leaves them at the mercy of that same criminal element.

As your next Congressman I will defend your right to keep and bear arms

 

[Bann]

Second Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. ~ The Second Amendment

In the recent Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Its ruling settled the question of whether the bill of rights grants you and I the personal liberty to keep and bear arms for our own defense in the affirmative.

While the 2nd amendment also provides a role for government to regulate in this area, the government cannot act in a manner that would disarm, or deny through onerous regulation the right of law-abiding citizens to exercise their second amendment rights.

The possession of a firearm by law-abiding citizens is not inherently evil. Legislation, which seeks to disarm law abiding citizens for their own protection, only leaves them disarmed and at the mercy of the criminal population. But the right to arm oneself also bears with it the obligation to keep others safe from your action. Having chosen to arm oneself, you are then personally responsible for the manner in which those arms are used, stored or transferred.

In cases where guns are used to terrorize communities and shed innocent blood, I would be a fierce advocate for bringing the perpetrators to justice and ending their reign of terror. But I would not favor or support legislation that disarms law-abiding citizens and leaves them at the mercy of that same criminal element.

As your next Congressman I will defend your right to keep and bear arms

If the OP couldn't be bothered to look this up on Lollar's website himself - OR couldn't be bothered to clink on the link I provided - he probably won't read your post. A citizen who doesn't even bother to do his own research shouldn't even vote in the first place because they are ignorant by their own choosing.

 

[ImnoMensa]

If the OP couldn't be bothered to look this up on Lollar's website himself - OR couldn't be bothered to clink on the link I provided - he probably won't read your post. A citizen who doesn't even bother to do his own research shouldn't even vote in the first place because they are ignorant by their own choosing.

I wonder if Steny filled out the survey.

 

[Vince]

I'm not going to vote for Bailey based on Lollar not filling out some survey for Maryland Shall Issue. That's ridiculous. He's pro Second Amendment.

 

[bcp]

I have a problem with Lollar now. He was sent a survey on gun rights by a collaboration of Maryland Shall Issue, The Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, The Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association and The Washington County Federation of Sportsmen. Lollar's campaign neglected to answer the survey, and therefor, I have to consider him anti-Second Amendment.

Maryland Shooters - View Single Post - Maryland Shall Issue - Candidate Survey Results for 2010 Primary Election

Some notes from MSI:



The link talking about Lollar not answering the survey:

Maryland Shooters - View Single Post - Maryland Shall Issue - Candidate Survey Results for 2010 Primary Election



Because of this I will have to change my voting preference to Bailey. Lollar has lost thousands of Maryland votes by not responding to this survey!

One issue is enough for you to discount a candidate? WOW.
so, if he agreed with you on every singly point except the second ammendment, you would vote for someone else?

Not exactly a well informed voter in my mind. The second is at a point that the Supreme Court is going to be forced to make a ruling on it in the next few years. Change takes time. I dont think Baily has what it takes to beat Hoyer, and that is what counts in the end. Firing Hoyer. Getting the dems back out of power, watching the new Republican speaker of the house telling pelosi to yield the floor and sit the F down. This is what matters.

I dont actually agree with a few of Lollars stances, but I agree less with Hoyer. and I think that Lollar would actually try to work for the people. I cant let one issue alone determine my decision.

Problem is that in order for me to vote for Lollar, I have to count on registered Republicans to get him to the polls in November. As a registered non affiliated, I can not do anything for him until then.
And, I refuse to swtich back to a party based on one candidate. Now if there were a bunch of lollars running for office, or a bunch of Lollars already in office, I would consider changing back.

 

[Bann]

Problem is that in order for me to vote for Lollar, I have to count on registered Republicans to get him to the polls in November. As a registered non affiliated, I can not do anything for him until then.

Well, I'm certainly doing MY part!

 

[Pushrod]

One issue is enough for you to discount a candidate? WOW.
so, if he agreed with you on every singly point except the second ammendment, you would vote for someone else?

Not exactly a well informed voter in my mind. The second is at a point that the Supreme Court is going to be forced to make a ruling on it in the next few years. Change takes time. I dont think Baily has what it takes to beat Hoyer, and that is what counts in the end. Firing Hoyer. Getting the dems back out of power, watching the new Republican speaker of the house telling pelosi to yield the floor and sit the F down. This is what matters.

I dont actually agree with a few of Lollars stances, but I agree less with Hoyer. and I think that Lollar would actually try to work for the people. I cant let one issue alone determine my decision.

Problem is that in order for me to vote for Lollar, I have to count on registered Republicans to get him to the polls in November. As a registered non affiliated, I can not do anything for him until then.
And, I refuse to swtich back to a party based on one candidate. Now if there were a bunch of lollars running for office, or a bunch of Lollars already in office, I would consider changing back.

Actually, yes I would, if that other person more supported all of my beliefs. I want someone who is faithful to the original intent of the entire Constitution. I'm not saying Lollar isn't, but it makes him suspect when he doesn't reply to the biggest Second Amendment rights groups in Maryland. I still think Lollar has a better chance of beating Hoyer than Bailey, but he needs to get in touch with MSI and let them know his stance, they represent a huge voting block in Maryland, and Lollar needs every vote he can get!