I Hucka-voted in Ohio by Hero

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

I Hucka-voted in Ohio

POSTED BY: HERO
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 12:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1462
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, March 4, 2008 8:41 AM

Though ya'll would like an AAR from here on the frontlines of Democracy:

Lots of turnout...and rain.

Very efficient. In and out. Voted for Huckabee and Huckabee (we get to pick him twice...once for the local delegate and once for the 'at large'). Machines worked fine.

Also voted against a sales tax increase for Metro Busing (I buy stuff and own a car...do the math) and declined to vote for the unopposed Sheriff (cause he and I are not good buddies).

On the way out I obstructed an old lady with a Hillary button, told a disabled Vet Ron Paulie that the voting location was on the other side of the street and then had an Obama car towed (it was at least a 1/4 inch into the fire lane). Not being malicious...just keeping in shape for this fall.

Also bought some cookies at the bake sale. God bless the USA!

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 4, 2008 8:51 AM

ANTIMASON

now what makes Huckabee the better choice over Paul?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 4, 2008 10:56 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
now what makes Huckabee the better choice over Paul?

Two reasons.

1. Ron Paul reminds me too much of the crazy talkers I deal with every now and then...the freemen, "yer flag is an Admiralty flag and yer court don't gots no jurisdiction over my Uniform Commericial Code Rat to refuse to accept a ticket."

2. I disagree with Ron Paul on nearly every issue and agree with Huckabee on a fair number. I note for the record that this is a fairly good way to pick a candidate. Support the ones you support...don't support the ones you don't.

Now I will say that Ron Paul had one of the best commercials on TV here in Ohio. Only saw it once. It was a lower quality production, not slick stylish of Hillary and Obama...but it was just as good on both visuals and message and might play very well in Rust Belt politics. I still say Ronnie was on the wrong ballot.

Now if your asking a purely political question of why Huck is a better candidate then Ronnie...I'd answer that Huck is a fairly successful former governor of a southern state and is an evangelical conservative who is pro life, pro border control, and pro war, meaning he could and did play well with many conservative and Christian voters, especially in the south.

Ron Paul is a po-dunk (technical term) from somewhere...not sure exactly...who nobody heard of and who nobody can figure out what he's doing on a Republican stage. He talks good, not real good...kinda like your old man neighbor or crazy great-uncle, but he's prone to crazy talkin and ideas that 'just aint right. His ideas reflect little or no support among conservative or moderate Republicans but do attract a variety of fringe interest among libertarians, anti-Bush independents, and other crazy talkers (meaning a peak of 3-5% nationwide). As a Presidential candidate he brings nothing to the table, again being marginal at best, lacking the broad support needed to mount a national campaign. As a VP choice he would be completely non-effective at best (bringing no real money, since his is outside money that likely would not be available in a general election, and inspiring no interest among larger Republican formations...thus bringing no states to balance the ticket). At worst he'd be out of control, a distraction, or a cause for severe damage given his history of wild statements, racism, and anti-semitism.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 4, 2008 3:19 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
Two reasons.

1. Ron Paul reminds me too much of the crazy talkers I deal with every now and then...

well.. the truth comes off abrasively some times, especially when youve been conditioned to believe lies. thats certainly your perception, ill grant you that, but understand it goes both ways; most of us dont agree with the illegal wars and unconstitutional welfare programs, but nobody seems to care anymore

ive been on this board awhile, and i can remember being called paranoid and crazy, repeatedly, when we talked about the north american union agenda, the amero, and federal reserve scam.. well now it appears that it was all pretty much true, and not just "crazy talk." im confident that as time progresses, this elitist intellectualism being sold to you as conservatism, will be revealed as fallacious and antithetical to real conservatism (ie libertarianism)

Quote:
2. I disagree with Ron Paul on nearly every issue and agree with Huckabee on a fair number.

ive noticed.. the difference being ROn actually has a plan, as a conservative, to downsize government. when youre trillions and trillions of dollars in debt, the removal of any redundant, defunct or failed agencies becomes a necessity, wouldnt you agree??

well apparently not, as you and the rest of the neo-con party have indicated; its better to print money out of thin air then it is to balance a budget. if you want to keep the welfare/warfare state intact, then Huckabees your best bet.. because true to his globalist CFR membership, he has pledged to eliminate ZERO government agencies, save the IRS(which will only be replaced by another monstrous tax beaurocracy under the fair tax). not all that conservative... considering Ron has atleast half a dozen agencies he would eliminate, like the departments of Education and Energy, to list two. but then, that would be putting your money where your mouth is... a bit too much substance for todays voter

Quote:
Now if your asking a purely political question of why Huck is a better candidate then Ronnie...I'd answer that Huck is a fairly successful former governor..

thats fair.. but that doesnt qualify him for president; Bush was a governor, and the guys about as conservative as Keith Olbermann

Ron frequently introduces legislation aimed at restoring the constitution, rather than undermining it. he's got a few bills out now, including a sanctity of life law(returning authority to the states), and a constitutional way to pursue Bin Laden and Alqaeda, beyond nation building.. and a few others. i dont think anyone in congress understands the constitution like Ron does... so in this respect he is far more qualified then Huckabee to be president

Quote:
[Huckabees] an evangelical conservative who is pro life, pro border control, and pro war, meaning he could and did play well with many conservative and Christian voters, especially in the south.

how can you stop immigration without removing the incentives? you cant.. which proves again how in-adequate Huckabee(and McCains)plans to deal with this issue will be- yet a few more republicans in title and not deed. he wont stop immigration without eliminating the welfarism that draws them here

and the war, this is the irony: republicans who are FOR interventionism have the nerve to call themselves "foreign policy CONSERVATIVES!"!! as if spending trillions of dollars overseas and borrowing billions a day from foreigners to fight illegal global wars of pre-emption is the "conservative" thing to do. actually, sounds pretty liberal to me

there is something called the "just war" theory, it is the christian philosophy on war.. and the bible says you may only make war as an act of self defense, in protection, period. no Arab nation has ever directly attacked us. the war on terror is a war on criminal behavior; its unwinnable! and the war in Iraq is in all actuality socialism, socially engineering an entire region, but whats worse is thousands of innocent people have died over something that didnt have to be. its creating criminals. its so illegal and unjustified that it blasphemes the name of Jesus, and undermines everything that our nation has stood for

Quote:
Ron Paul is a po-dunk (technical term) from somewhere...not sure exactly...

Texas, he actually represents a very large rural district, despite his opposition to farm subsidies, and has miraculously managed to get reelected 10 times; shows that there are still some real small government republicans notyet displaced by the neocon goosesteppers

Quote:
who nobody heard of and who nobody can figure out what he's doing on a Republican stage.

hes what you might call a Jefferson Republican, which we now call libertarianism. McCain and Huckabee are republicans? maybe in the classic Nixon CFR globalist tradition, the 'new deal' republicans

Quote:
His ideas reflect little or no support among conservative or moderate Republicans but do attract a variety of fringe interest among libertarians, anti-Bush independents, and other crazy talkers (meaning a peak of 3-5% nationwide).

thats not true, on social conservative issues no one can disagree with him; theres no reason our government should be this big or intrusive. its non-interventionism that his party disowns him for, because the elite want perpetual warfare. that 3-5 is more like 15-20 percent, and we're whatr left of the free thinkers who arent easily swayed by gov/media propaganda and disinformation agents

Quote:
As a Presidential candidate he brings nothing to the table.... At worst he'd be out of control, a distraction, or a cause for severe damage given his history of wild statements, racism, and anti-semitism.

he brings constitutional wisdom and the power of a veto; thats all we could ever ask for. then, we might actually get a reign on spending.

hes not an anti-semite. it doesnt make him a jew hater to say tha we shouldnt be giving aid to Israel(or any other nation for that matter). more importantly, he doesnt follow the destructive self-fullfilling prophecy of the Left Behind series, and the rapture/Armageddon view of Israel. the artificial nation that exists today is not Gods Israel of end times prophecy, the enemy is not Islam but secularism and socialism. your external boogeyman Islamic terrorism is but a distraction from the real crime occurring(secular totalitarianism)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 8:40 AM

ANTIMASON

while we're on the topic... looks like ol' Huckabee dropped out last night. there was just something about him i didnt trust... couldnt put my finger on it, but its irrelevant now because he conceded to McCain. now, lets just hope that McCains lack of economic experience and centrist views become a red flag to the "conservative" base, and becomes mired in scandal and controversy to the extent that his viability unravels before the party. then, at the convention, the delegates can decide for themselves, in that moment, who the better republican is: John McCain, or Ron Paul. in essence, the future of the party will be established right there.. it would(will) be a significant moment

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 7, 2008 6:58 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

So, Hero, for all your jokes about Ron Paul and his chances at the nomination, in the end you cast your vote for someone with exactly the same chance.

If Paul's supporters are "crazies", then where does that leave you?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 7, 2008 7:15 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM

K,
haven't you heard... Huck's going to be McCain's running mate - actually they're getting the band back together.... you know "Bombing to the Oldies"

They may even reprise that great old standard... Fred Lowery Whistles Your Gospel Favorites......

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 7, 2008 8:17 AM

ANTIMASON

is it fatalistic to believe that our countries future depends on this election? in my estimation, we will have an enormous crisis, before we survive 4 more years of debt/inflationary spending. not that i dont believe some very good things will come out of this exposure, that both parties have been propping up a house of cards... but given the remaining candidates positions(excluding Ron), there seems to be no attempted reversal in sight.

its an outright shame that this country is being brought down from the inside... reminds me of a quote from honost Abe: 'America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 7, 2008 9:15 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So, Hero, for all your jokes about Ron Paul and his chances at the nomination, in the end you cast your vote for someone with exactly the same chance.

If Paul's supporters are "crazies", then where does that leave you?

I disagree.

For one thing Huckabee earned 20x the delegates that Ron Paul did.

Now lets list the State Primaries and Caucuses won by each candidate:

Mike Huckabee...Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kansas, and Louisiana. He also had 22 second or third place finishes.

Ron Paul...none...except: Denial, Disbelief, Confusion. He had 3 2nd place finishes (inculding the Northern Mariana Islands) and 14 3rd place finishes (most coming in ignored races or AFTER the campaign became a 3-man race).

Huckabee won his states on a tenth of the money raised by his opponants, including Ron Paul, making his the most economical campaign in recent history.

Reasonable analysis of the Republican field saw a number of potential conservative standard bearers who were likely to emerge. However the front loaded primary process gave no time to shake out the conservative also rans to allow support and money to merge under a single candidate. Huckabee was forced to split the conservative vote with Romney for Super Tuesday and Thompson cost him South Carolina (which would have greatly increased his momentum going in, escpecially since McCain was polling not much better then he did eight years ago when faced by a single conservative candidate). Also Republicans made many of their largest states 'winner take all'. If the Republicans had all proportional representation, like the Democrats, McCain would maintain a large lead...but the margin would be closer, also McCain likely would still be seeking enough delegates to secure the nomination.

On the other hand, while Ron Paul did receive a spark in fund raising, likely mostly from independents and anti-war liberal radicals, that never translated into real votes. Also, Ron Paul has no chance of being asked to join McCain's ticket or to come back in four years for a second round at the Presidency. Voting for Huckabee is a vote to consider him for the VP slot, a place in the administration, or to make sure that he's a potential front runner four years from now (like Ronald Reagan in 1976).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 7, 2008 10:42 AM

KWICKO

Relax, champ, I'm just needlin' ya.

Quote:
For one thing Huckabee earned 20x the delegates that Ron Paul did.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your math is off. Huckleberry actually had more than SEVENTY times the delegates of Paul, last I checked (something along the lines of 287 to 14, or some such ridiculous number).

Still, though, by the time you voted, Huckleberry couldn't win the nomination if every Republican (both of them) left in the country voted for him. So his chances were EXACTLY the same as Ron Paul's: ZERO.

'Course, those same odds likely won't stop you from voting for McCain in Novemeber... ;)

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 7, 2008 11:46 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Still, though, by the time you voted, Huckleberry couldn't win the nomination if every Republican (both of them) left in the country voted for him. So his chances were EXACTLY the same as Ron Paul's: ZERO.

Your wrong about that. Had Huckabee swept the remaining contests (including Texas and Ohio...two large and diverse states) by a large enough margin then McCain would not have had enough delegates to win. That means a brokered convention...as the GOP had in 1976.

Winning the remaining contests outright by such margins would have left him in second place by a fair margin but given him tremendous momentum. He could have made a fight at the convention and possibly walked away with the nomination. This is especially true given his charisma advantage over McCain and his lack of money (winning without money is damned impressive in today's political world).

Winning by such margins was not beyond imagination as McCain lost by such margins to George Bush in 2000.

The Huckabee strategy failed because he alienated the Limbaugh wing of the party with his moderate economic policies and a petty dust up with Rush. Had he maintained relations with them it is likely he would have unified the conservative base since the Limbaugh wing has even less love for John McCain then they did for Huck. This would have freed up a lot of money for him (at a time when McCain is up against contribution limits). A unified base and more realistic money means more appearances, commercials, and face time. With his charisma he would have run a totally positive campaign and perhaps come out looking the best of the four candidates (including Barrack and Hillary) going into the convention.

And there is Chuck Norris.

All of this was a reasonable strategy based upon past events that justified his staying in as long as he did. Ohio and Texas was a natural exit for him because it was now apparent that the hoped surge in momentum had not come. Simply put he needed to get a feel for the post-Romney portion of the race, one that could never be fully realized until Texas and Ohio had voted.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 12:01 PM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
ive noticed.. the difference being ROn actually has a plan, as a conservative, to downsize government. when youre trillions and trillions of dollars in debt, the removal of any redundant, defunct or failed agencies becomes a necessity, wouldnt you agree??

Yes, I would, if one of those agencies he wants to remove to relieve debt wasn't the IRS, our governments source of income with which to pay off our debt. Ron Paul is an idiot, clinging to ideals that simply don't work in a heavily industrialized society. The U.S. has already tried the type of small government Ron Paul advocates, and it didn't work! That's why we have taxes and a fairly large Federal Government in the first place.

And as for Huckabee? I wouldn't have voted for him even if he had won the Republican nomination because he's a Christian fundamentalist. The man wants to change the constitution to conform to the Bible! Regardless of the fact that he wouldn't be able to in the first place, just the fact that he would if he could makes me rank him along with Hillary and Obama as one of the worst possible candidates.

----------------------------
"O' course, ya couldn't buy an invite with a diamond the size of a testicle, but luckily I got my hands on a couple." -Badger

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:46 PM

ANTIMASON

its actually been established that without the income tax, we would still have enough revenue to sustain our federal government as we had under the Clinton administration. of course, new bureaucracies like Homeland Security, and programs like No Child Left Behind would have to be scrapped... but im not sure any of you psuedo-conservatives will put your money where your mouthes are. how did we ever function before 1913(or was it 1917)? how did we function without all the wellfare programs and socialists pet projects? a lot more freely id imagine...

Ron is not a cook, you people who cannot see the intrinsic value of freedom and self responsibility are the crazy ones..

and as for Huckabee changing the constitution.. you sure it wasnt in regards to the income tax, or abortion "rights"? outside of that, the constitution(and bill of rights) are already consistent with the ten commandments, there really is no need for amendment

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:01 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
And as for Huckabee? I wouldn't have voted for him even if he had won the Republican nomination because he's a Christian fundamentalist. The man wants to change the constitution to conform to the Bible! Regardless of the fact that he wouldn't be able to in the first place, just the fact that he would if he could makes me rank him along with Hillary and Obama as one of the worst possible candidates.

Huck wanted to get rid of abortions and protect marriage. Thats hardly a wholesale change of the Constitution to codify the Bible. In fact, both of those issues are a big part of the Republican Platform (and I'm sure there are Democrats out there that would welcome legalized gay marriage and abortion on demand as fundamental rights as well).

As for the Constitution, it is subject to change if enough folks want it. A number of well-meaning people advocate a number of changes none of which are likely to happen but all of which are legitimate social and political positions from various sides of the spectrum. What these people do is continue to push their agendas and advocate their causes in the public arena, and there is nothing wrong with that...its kinda how its all supposed to work.

You have every right to not vote for Huckabee if you don't agree with him. He has every right and perhaps a responsibility to run for office to enact the things he believes in. I hardly think that his position on those issues makes him a bad candidate. Similarly Hillary and Obama are both good candidates who I would never vote for because I am exercising my right to disagree with them.

I think if this election has proven one thing its that Huckabee is one of the best candidates we've had in a long while. He ran a strong, legitimate campaign with a decent chance of winning (at least till South Carolina) on a shoestring budget. Likely if he'd had real money it would be a horserace right now like the Democrats are stuck in. Compare him to Ron Paul who ran a weak almost laughable campaign with little voter support but with a crapload of money (or Rudy who spent the most per/delegate in history but despite this ran a more legitimate campaign then Ron Paul).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:48 AM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Huck wanted to get rid of abortions and protect marriage. Thats hardly a wholesale change of the Constitution to codify the Bible.

Okay, the stupidity of his idea of "protecting marriage" aside, thats not unreasonable. But that isn't what I'm talking about. I've seen video of some of his speeches. In one of them, he said something along the lines of: "It's easier to change the constitution than it is to change the laws of God, so we should change the constitution to conform to those laws." Several times he has specifically advocated changing the U.S. constitution to conform to what I see as a strict interpretation of the Bible.

There is a very good reason that the founding fathers (despite the fact that most of them were Christians) separated Chuch from State. They knew that religion could not be relied on to protect the rights of the people, because it is too easily twisted to serve the purposes of demogogues and despots.

Huckabee's outspoken desire to eliminate that separation, in my mind, dishonors the sacrifice of every American man and woman that has died to keep us free from tyranny of both the religious and secular varieties. That is why I would never vote for Huck.

----------------------------
"O' course, ya couldn't buy an invite with a diamond the size of a testicle, but luckily I got my hands on a couple." -Badger

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:16 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
Okay, the stupidity of his idea of "protecting marriage" aside, thats not unreasonable.

First of all 'protecting marriage' is hardly a stupid idea. Marriage has as much a foundation in law as it does in religion. In fact, religion aside, marriage is the act of union between a man and a woman. It is not discrimination to deny that union to gay people since they remain free to marry persons of the opposite gender, just like straight people. Likewise straight folks can't marry persons of the same gender, so there is no conflict or denial of rights. As a both a lawyer and a Christian I see no reason to redefine a system that is not broken. Likewise I see no reason we can't create a new legal status that addresses the concerns of those folks who are seeking a recognized legal union with same-sex partners with rights and privilages akin to marriage...Civil Unions.

Regardless of your position on the subject, its hardly a stupid idea. Its just an idea, some support it, some don't, and most don't really care...but everyone has a right to take a side and advocate it.

Quote:

But that isn't what I'm talking about. I've seen video of some of his speeches. In one of them, he said something along the lines of: "It's easier to change the constitution than it is to change the laws of God, so we should change the constitution to conform to those laws." Several times he has specifically advocated changing the U.S. constitution to conform to what I see as a strict interpretation of the Bible.

No. What you cited was not "specifically advocated changing the U.S. constitution" it was a generalization. Like saying he wants to cut taxes. That does not mean he wants to eliminate taxes...you then look at the specifics to see what he intends to do. In this case Huck generally advocated amending the Constitution to conform to ideas that he supported and that just happen to be based on what he calls the laws of God. Specifically he, and the GOP platform, call for the protection of marriage and the ending of abortion.

I note for the record that the founders enacted the Bill of Rights based upon their own religious beliefs. Don't forget that they considered themselves endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. They were far more religous then the even Huckabee (except on Sundays).

And "seperation of church and state" is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The term was implied and applied more then 100 years later by the Supreme Court.

And a seperation of church and state does not necessarily seperate God from state. I would argue that the two are forever joined so long a mankind remains a part of either.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 1:13 PM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

First of all 'protecting marriage' is hardly a stupid idea. Marriage has as much a foundation in law as it does in religion. In fact, religion aside, marriage is the act of union between a man and a woman. It is not discrimination to deny that union to gay people since they remain free to marry persons of the opposite gender, just like straight people. Likewise straight folks can't marry persons of the same gender, so there is no conflict or denial of rights. As a both a lawyer and a Christian I see no reason to redefine a system that is not broken.

While I agree that there isn't any real discrimination, there is a percieved injustice. It's really an issue of semantics. Gays want to be "married" because calling it a "marriage" gives it an added legitamacy in the minds of ordinary people that "Civil Union" doesn't, and they're not going to shut up and leave us straight folks alone about it until we let them have legal "marriages". Since it doesn't affect the rest of us at all in any real way, why not just let 'em go for it, if only to shut them up?

Quote:

No. What you cited was not "specifically advocated changing the U.S. constitution" it was a generalization. Like saying he wants to cut taxes. That does not mean he wants to eliminate taxes...you then look at the specifics to see what he intends to do. In this case Huck generally advocated amending the Constitution to conform to ideas that he supported and that just happen to be based on what he calls the laws of God. Specifically he, and the GOP platform, call for the protection of marriage and the ending of abortion.

Okay, I can accept that. It just appeared to me that he meant that he would prefer strict conformity. I guess its a moot point now anyway, since Huck dropped out.

Quote:
And a seperation of church and state does not necessarily seperate God from state. I would argue that the two are forever joined so long a mankind remains a part of either.

Ah, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. That's an argument neither one of us is going to win anytime soon.

Well, I suppose I'll have to concede defeat on this one. Stimulating conversation, as always, Hero.

----------------------------
"O' course, ya couldn't buy an invite with a diamond the size of a testicle, but luckily I got my hands on a couple." -Badger

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 14, 2008 3:09 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
Well, I suppose I'll have to concede defeat on this one.

It would be so much easier if everybody would just start at this point. I keep running into Defense Attorney types who have this same problem. If they just conceded defeat at the outset then the system would work SO much better.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:40 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM

dude, wa's up wit the Huckmeister..bankin the beni-hana aciddrop wit that bigflip airwalk... dude, is'he gonna bail that backside alley-oop or nose bonk the jesusboard wit a old school ollie..!?!

yo, or he be pullin a shifty 9090 on that sick topsheet ?? mus be pullin a fullcab christ air wit that darkside mongo... gnarly..!

i mean, wha else the dude got todo..?

photo: darkblack...dood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:15 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:
dude, wa's up wit the Huckmeister..bankin the beni-hana aciddrop wit that bigflip airwalk... dude, is'he gonna bail that backside alley-oop or nose bonk the jesusboard wit a old school ollie..!?!

yo, or he be pullin a shifty 9090 on that sick topsheet ?? mus be pullin a fullcab christ air wit that darkside mongo... gnarly..!

I have no idea what you said. I'm fairly certain that it was a derogatory comment about Ron Paul...if so, then I agree.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:20 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM

only with goofyfoot Madolly.....!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 12:50 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
Hero- I have no idea what you said. I'm fairly certain that it was a derogatory comment about Ron Paul...if so, then I agree.

its really ironic Hero- you neo-cons made Ron Paul, possibly the only real conservative in congress, someone whos NEVER voted to raise taxes(or for an unbalanced budget), the enemy.. only to narrow the race down to two socialist democrats, and the liberal isle straddler McCain.

is this what you want? it must be, because it is your lot of entrenched establishment republicans willing to pull for anyone who will continue the Bush status quo

this, all the while knowing none of them are as honost or consistent as Ron Paul, ON A BAD DAY!

now, our economy and finances are on the verge of collapse and bankruptcy(nevermind ANY external threat).. and you people elect more of these same cheats, with the same flawed views, who got us in this horrible mess to begin with

it reminds me of a verse in scripture

"When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day." 1 samuel 8:18

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE