Post by: Bogie on January 27, 2008, 03:38:04 PM
Post by: grislyatoms on January 27, 2008, 04:38:01 PM
Either Huckabee or Romney, I guess. Blech.
I guess if I want a platform I agree with, I will have to run for President.
Post by: Scout26 on January 27, 2008, 05:03:07 PM
Can I be your president of vice, errr, I mean Vice President. How's you health by the way ?? The reason I ask is 'cause I really don't want your job.
I'll do the "go to state funerals of kinda, sorta, friendly heads of state" ribbon cutting ceremonies and any other gig where I just fly in on Air Force 2, hang out, shake hands and get a fancy free meal. I'll give whatever speech you want, to whomever you want. If you want I'll say one thing one day and another thing the next. I don't want to go to cabinet meetings or make any decisions. I want to be "out of the loop."
I guess what I'm saying is not that I want to be Vice President, what I really want to be is Former Vice President. The ultimate retirement plan.
Seriously....
Post by: Tecumseh on January 27, 2008, 05:45:16 PM
You poll is flawed. What if I want to vote for Ron Paul regardless as he is pro-2nd but not an official candidate?
Post by: Tecumseh on January 27, 2008, 05:46:38 PM
Post by: seeker_two on January 27, 2008, 05:52:20 PM
....which, the way it's looking now, will be a 3rd Party candidate.....
....and I'll be holding my nose to block out the quisling stench of those who'll still vote Republican even if it's for Hillary-lite........
Post by: Bogie on January 27, 2008, 06:25:15 PM
Post by: Bigjake on January 27, 2008, 06:34:49 PM
Quote
I voted Pro-2nd. I will be writing in Ron Paul.
theres a shocker.
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on January 27, 2008, 06:45:01 PM
Post by: Tecumseh on January 27, 2008, 07:10:18 PM
Quote
I voted Pro-2nd. I will be writing in Ron Paul.
theres a shocker.
Well at least he beat out Fred 'The fathead" Thompson. LOL It seems many people are eating crow. I seem to remember hearing on THR and a few other boards that Fred "The man who could eat 6 bowls of homecooked chili" Thompson was going to be the next Reagan. Sadly his campaign is deader than Reagan is.
Post by: Finch on January 27, 2008, 07:22:40 PM
I Ron Paul gets 10% of the Republican vote, and 5% of the Democrat vote, get used to saying "President Clinton." Again.
President Clinton, President Romney, Presidnet McCain, whatever. There are 8 people running for president and only one of them offers something different.
Post by: grislyatoms on January 28, 2008, 11:51:38 AM
Gris,
Can I be your president of vice, errr, I mean Vice President. How's you health by the way ?? The reason I ask is 'cause I really don't want your job.
I'll do the "go to state funerals of kinda, sorta, friendly heads of state" ribbon cutting ceremonies and any other gig where I just fly in on Air Force 2, hang out, shake hands and get a fancy free meal. I'll give whatever speech you want, to whomever you want. If you want I'll say one thing one day and another thing the next. I don't want to go to cabinet meetings or make any decisions. I want to be "out of the loop."
I guess what I'm saying is not that I want to be Vice President, what I really want to be is Former Vice President. The ultimate retirement plan.
Seriously....
Can I be your president of vice, errr, I mean Vice President. How's you health by the way ?? The reason I ask is 'cause I really don't want your job.
I'll do the "go to state funerals of kinda, sorta, friendly heads of state" ribbon cutting ceremonies and any other gig where I just fly in on Air Force 2, hang out, shake hands and get a fancy free meal. I'll give whatever speech you want, to whomever you want. If you want I'll say one thing one day and another thing the next. I don't want to go to cabinet meetings or make any decisions. I want to be "out of the loop."
I guess what I'm saying is not that I want to be Vice President, what I really want to be is Former Vice President. The ultimate retirement plan.
Seriously....
Sorry, I had Anne Coulter in mind for V.P.
I'll put you in charge of Vices, though, if you like.
Post by: Bigjake on January 28, 2008, 11:53:50 AM
Quote
LOL
Well at least he beat out Fred 'The fathead" Thompson. LOL It seems many people are eating crow. I seem to remember hearing on THR and a few other boards that Fred "The man who could eat 6 bowls of homecooked chili" Thompson was going to be the next Reagan. Sadly his campaign is deader than Reagan is.
Well at least he beat out Fred 'The fathead" Thompson. LOL It seems many people are eating crow. I seem to remember hearing on THR and a few other boards that Fred "The man who could eat 6 bowls of homecooked chili" Thompson was going to be the next Reagan. Sadly his campaign is deader than Reagan is.
Keep on talkin' there big guy, It rams home the fact you're every bit of age 12.
Post by: Bogie on January 28, 2008, 12:41:23 PM
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on January 28, 2008, 01:01:13 PM
But I am voting pro-2A and will not vote for a Rudy McRomney ticket at any point. It. Will. Not. Happen. GOP has been calling me incessantly asking for money, and I've told them after considerably fiery conversation that they will not get a red cent from me under a statist ticket. They tried the same HilBama scare tactics you present, and I keep bringing up Rudy's "Free Speech Zones", Romney's Chapter 40-Q and Mass AWB, and McCain's ritual slaughter of the 1A along with the Shamnesty.
Aside from the 2A, Democrats are better for civil liberties than the current crop of Neo Cons. But they won't get my vote either.
Paul isn't my ideal candidate either. His foreign policy is terrible. But I'd rather frak over the rest of the world than frak over the US.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 28, 2008, 01:13:12 PM
Must be kinda hard hanging around a bunch of conservative forums for 8 or so hours a day... Does each user always have the same pseudonym, or do you rotate?
Well I am waiting for my welfare check to get a big screen television.
Seriously though, I just have a lot of downtime in between my classes and not much homework yet. I do my reading and browse the forums.
Post by: Finch on January 28, 2008, 01:18:24 PM
Quote from: grislyatoms
Sorry, I had Anne Coulter in mind for V.P.
If there was a vomit smiley on this board I would have used it.
"Lets kill thier leaders and convert them to christianity RARHHG!! Yea Bush!! Down with Arabs" - Ann Coulter (paraphrased).
Post by: Tecumseh on January 28, 2008, 01:30:05 PM
Quote
LOL
Well at least he beat out Fred 'The fathead" Thompson. LOL It seems many people are eating crow. I seem to remember hearing on THR and a few other boards that Fred "The man who could eat 6 bowls of homecooked chili" Thompson was going to be the next Reagan. Sadly his campaign is deader than Reagan is.
Well at least he beat out Fred 'The fathead" Thompson. LOL It seems many people are eating crow. I seem to remember hearing on THR and a few other boards that Fred "The man who could eat 6 bowls of homecooked chili" Thompson was going to be the next Reagan. Sadly his campaign is deader than Reagan is.
Keep on talkin' there big guy, It rams home the fact you're every bit of age 12.
Seriously though, I seem to remember a lot of gunwoners crooning that Fred "I once ate 6 lbs. of Texas brisket in once sitting" THompson was going to reunite the GOP and teh country would swoon to his vision. What did he poll at percentage wise? Hmm... Let me check...
Quote
In Nevada Thompson had 8%. Paul had 13%.
In New Hampshire Thompson had 1%. Paul had 8%.
In Michigan Thompson had 4%. Paul had 6%.
In Iowa Thompson had 13%. Paul had 10%.
In South Carolina Thompson had 16%. Paul had 4%.
In Wyoming Thompson had 25%. Paul had >1%.
In New Hampshire Thompson had 1%. Paul had 8%.
In Michigan Thompson had 4%. Paul had 6%.
In Iowa Thompson had 13%. Paul had 10%.
In South Carolina Thompson had 16%. Paul had 4%.
In Wyoming Thompson had 25%. Paul had >1%.
And Thompson is not in the running anymore? Why? I thought with his Ronald Reaganesque qualities we would all be behind him. Surely his dropping out is part of some big strategy that will actually win him the election. Right?
Post by: Balog on January 28, 2008, 04:52:14 PM
I think of this as a lot like crime and self defense.
Every time a rapist gets away with it he's emboldened. Every time the 'pubbies bend me over with an anti-freedom candidate and get away with it, they grow bolder. So yeah, the dems are worse; but if we just keep electing anti-freedom candidates because they have an R next to their name, what will change?
Oh and Tecumseh...... do you hate all fat people or just Fred? Seriously, I could see making mocking captions if you had a pic of him looking esp fat. Just like we mock Hillary for looking like the shriveled old hag she is.... in the appropriate thread. Your entire position against Thompson seems to be "He's fat, hahaha."
Post by: seeker_two on January 28, 2008, 05:17:33 PM
As for Riley, he's just jealous that Social Security and Medicare Part D won't cover the Tums he'd need to eat brisket and chili.....
Post by: Bigjake on January 28, 2008, 06:12:51 PM
Quote
Your entire position against Thompson seems to be "He's fat, hahaha."
He isn't big on infant dieties either .
Tecumseh; all those stats mean is that Fred had the grace to move over, and Paul continues to be the Pubbies Kucinich.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 28, 2008, 06:22:37 PM
Your entire position against Thompson seems to be "He's fat, hahaha."
This may seem hard to believe, but he almost has a point about how Thompson was hyped without mercy, until he entered the race and then never went anywhere. But he seems to think this is to be blamed on Thompson's personality or platform. I find it more likely that his lackluster performance can be explained by his wasting the original excitement by waiting so long to enter the race.
Post by: Dntsycnt on January 28, 2008, 06:24:00 PM
Post by: Tecumseh on January 28, 2008, 06:32:39 PM
Your entire position against Thompson seems to be "He's fat, hahaha."
This may seem hard to believe, but he almost has a point about how Thompson was hyped without mercy, until he entered the race and then never went anywhere. But he seems to think this is to be blamed on Thompson's personality or platform. I find it more likely that his lackluster performance can be explained by his wasting the original excitement by waiting so long to enter the race.
I think this is part of the reason he did not take off. It is great to go to a chili cookoff but to campaign exclusively at these things because you want to show that you are a downhome type of guy seems assinine. His campaign was flawed by this strategy. I do think he could have made a fearsome opponent for Huckabee, Romney, and Guiliani in the Southern states and many of the Western ones but he blew it by bad campaign practices.
Plus he is fat. LOL
Post by: Tecumseh on January 28, 2008, 06:33:38 PM
Quote
Your entire position against Thompson seems to be "He's fat, hahaha."
He isn't big on infant dieties either .
Tecumseh; all those stats mean is that Fred had the grace to move over, and Paul continues to be the Pubbies Kucinich.
Post by: K Frame on January 28, 2008, 06:49:45 PM
This one starts going down the road of the "Less filling, tastes great" porcelain throne argument it, too, will be locked post haste.
Post by: Finch on January 28, 2008, 09:55:13 PM
Right up front folks...
This one starts going down the road of the "Less filling, tastes great" porcelain throne argument it, too, will be locked post haste.
This one starts going down the road of the "Less filling, tastes great" porcelain throne argument it, too, will be locked post haste.
I was kind of disappointed to see the other thread locked. While I can understand the locking of wayward threads over at THR, I thought APS was kind of an outlet. I didn't think that we necessarily had to stay on topic. As long as we are cordial with each other, what is wrong with threads straying? Honest debate will naturally stray.
Post by: K Frame on January 29, 2008, 02:58:52 AM
Arguments that cover the exact same ground as numerous previous threads, with the exact same results (which is NO results) other than venting of spleens, gnashing of teeth, beating of chests, are a waste of Oleg Volk's time and money.
Honest debate is always welcome here. Parrots squawking at each other is not.
Post by: Bogie on January 29, 2008, 07:10:28 AM
The only message a "protest vote" is going to send is "Gee, fellas, looks like we fragmented their voting blocks, including the gun people, pretty well, and negated their power in a national election - everyone gets the extra bonus! See you in three years!"
Post by: Finch on January 29, 2008, 09:40:04 AM
Well, I still haven't had someone tell me how four years of Barack Obama (who likely is a True Believer around gun control) is going to be better than four years of the _worst_ Republican running...
Because we are not just thinking about the next four years. Sure, we can look at it term by term, but that would be reckless. Sure, a NeoCon might not take your guns away...now. But how many more pieces of PATRIOT act like legislation will they sign off on? We will get Military Commissions Act part 3 under the next NeoCon president? Along your idea of voting for party instead of platform, there will never be a chance for change. We only only get the least worst. But they both get worse every year.
Post by: Bogie on January 29, 2008, 09:41:13 AM
And then the worst again?
And then the worst again?
Post by: Finch on January 29, 2008, 11:09:15 AM
So, it's better to have the worst?
And then the worst again?
And then the worst again?
And then the worst again?
And then the worst again?
No, how about working towards something that is actually good for our country? Instead of just "well, he won't screw me over as bad as she will". Either way you're still getting screwed.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 29, 2008, 11:41:56 AM
So, it's better to have the worst?
And then the worst again?
And then the worst again?
And then the worst again?
And then the worst again?
No, how about working towards something that is actually good for our country?
Why don't you? Voting for Ron Paul screws the country as much as any other option.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 29, 2008, 12:11:04 PM
So, it's better to have the worst?
And then the worst again?
And then the worst again?
And then the worst again?
And then the worst again?
No, how about working towards something that is actually good for our country?
Why don't you? Voting for Ron Paul screws the country as much as any other option.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 29, 2008, 12:15:33 PM
If we are only concrned about gun control, as many here are it seems,
Many have cited gun control as their primary concern. I don't know any who have said it is their ONLY concern.
Post by: Bogie on January 29, 2008, 12:53:18 PM
I'm not voting for someone. I'm voting against someone.
And a "symbolic protest" won't work to do that.
Post by: seeker_two on January 29, 2008, 02:44:41 PM
So, it's better to have the worst?
And then the worst again?
And then the worst again?
And then the worst again?
And then the worst again?
If the worst motivates change for the better.......YES.......
Post by: Finch on January 29, 2008, 02:53:21 PM
Why don't you? Voting for Ron Paul screws the country as much as any other option.
In your opinion. Not in mine. Ron Paul is leagues above anyone else running for president.
Post by: Balog on January 29, 2008, 03:57:05 PM
Well, I still haven't had someone tell me how four years of Barack Obama (who likely is a True Believer around gun control) is going to be better than four years of the _worst_ Republican running...
Well, since you specified "worst" I'll go ahead and assume McCain's gotten the nod. He's as bad or worse than Hil-bama on almost all issues I care about. Free speech suppression, borders, socialized medicine, global warming. He talks a good game on the 2nd but his actions aren't consistent.
Which leaves national security/Iraq. In this one area, I'll grant you he is better. But do you think the Democrat machine really wants us out of Iraq right now? Sure they say they do, but 'pubbies say they want to reduce spending and look how that's turned out. They could've stopped the war at any time, but they keep funding it.
"But Balog" you say "that just shows he'd be as bad as the dem. I wanna know how he'd be worse."
As I see it, either way the country is screwed, and the party in charge during the gang bang is going down. I'd rather that be them rather than us.
Post by: Bogie on January 29, 2008, 04:03:02 PM
And you almost NEVER get the right answer... You don't get Kennedy. You don't get LBJ, who _really_ ramped things up... You get Nixon, who got us out...
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 29, 2008, 04:13:56 PM
Why don't you? Voting for Ron Paul screws the country as much as any other option.
In your opinion. Not in mine. Ron Paul is leagues above anyone else running for president.
That's because you only think about his platform. In the real world, you also have to think about what he will get accomplished. Which is nothing. Believe me, I'd love to see most of his domestic policies enacted. But that won't happen, even if he is elected.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 29, 2008, 04:15:28 PM
Voting for someone with no chance of being elected sends only the message that the winning party maintained enough solidarity to triumph.
Not so. When a Rep. or Dem. loses because of a third party candidate, the major party has to move in that candidate's direction to get those votes back, next election.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 29, 2008, 05:42:50 PM
Voting for someone with no chance of being elected sends only the message that the winning party maintained enough solidarity to triumph.
I'm not voting for someone. I'm voting against someone.
And a "symbolic protest" won't work to do that.
Did you tell that to the Fred " I crapped a whole can of refried beans" Thompson people. Some people voted for him even though his name was not on the ballot.
I'm not voting for someone. I'm voting against someone.
And a "symbolic protest" won't work to do that.
Post by: Bogie on January 29, 2008, 05:48:42 PM
I don't think so... The Dems are generally going a bit more centrist, and so are the Republicans...
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 29, 2008, 05:55:45 PM
Quote
Did you tell that to the Fred " I crapped a whole can of refried beans" Thompson people. Some people voted for him even though his name was not on the ballot.
Didn't your Christian Upbringing? tell you not to keep regurgitating such stuff?
Li'l Baby Jesus weeps at your Fat Fred Thompson jokes.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 29, 2008, 06:06:03 PM
Tecumseh, what's your deal?
Didn't your Christian Upbringing? tell you not to keep regurgitating such stuff?
Li'l Baby Jesus weeps at your Fat Fred Thompson jokes.
He weeps cause he is laughing. Quote
Did you tell that to the Fred " I crapped a whole can of refried beans" Thompson people. Some people voted for him even though his name was not on the ballot.
Didn't your Christian Upbringing? tell you not to keep regurgitating such stuff?
Li'l Baby Jesus weeps at your Fat Fred Thompson jokes.
No my Christian upbringing (I dont know how to make the little trademark sign) did not tell me that. I am just using some of the nicknames I have heard amongst different people. I saw a great cartoon with Thompson sleeping on a hammock. I believe it is in one of hte other threads. Hilarious!
Post by: Bogie on January 29, 2008, 08:30:13 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 29, 2008, 08:54:49 PM
Post by: Bogie on January 29, 2008, 09:48:33 PM
Post by: Tecumseh on January 30, 2008, 11:50:37 AM
His kung fu is more transparent than an east-side "dancer's" costume...
I didnt know you frequented such places. I am not trolling by the way.
Post by: K Frame on January 30, 2008, 11:52:10 AM
HIGHLY dangerous ground upon which to tread.