Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Articulate_Ape View Post
    Amen. Besides, fuck 2012, it's a geological age away politically. We need to focus on Nov. 2010 or the rest is moot.
    Correct. Dummies would like us to take our eye off the ball and focus on 2012. If we do not put an ass whipping on Democraps and Rockefeller Repubs, we will be SOL in two and half more years.
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    6,381
    Quote Originally Posted by lacarnut View Post
    Correct. Dummies would like us to take our eye off the ball and focus on 2012. If we do not put an ass whipping on Democraps and Rockefeller Repubs, we will be SOL in two and half more years.
    Which is why DUmmy 128 is doing what he's doing.
    Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
     

  3. #13  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by mike128 View Post
    OK, I have one question...

    Who would you vote for if the 2012 presidential race is between Mike Huckabee and Barack Hussein Obama?
    Go read my post on the other thread.

    but i GUARANTEE you that Huckabee will NOT be the candidate. so you're little hypothetical is moot. He's a fraud, a RINO. I didn't like him in 08 (I backed Fred Thompson). I'll worry about 2012 next year when the candidates start postioning themselves.

    honestly, I have no idea why you don't like Daniels, he's pretty much spot on and inline with your views http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=34336 a link to his positions. I think you watch Hucks show too much and thats why you're so infatuated with him. Daniels actually DID stuff to turn his state around where Huck spent more than Clinton did. He also supports amnisty and is extremely lax on immigration.
     

  4. #14  
    Beaten Last Dead Horse
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by fettpett View Post
    Go read my post on the other thread.

    but i GUARANTEE you that Huckabee will NOT be the candidate. so you're little hypothetical is moot. He's a fraud, a RINO. I didn't like him in 08 (I backed Fred Thompson). I'll worry about 2012 next year when the candidates start postioning themselves.

    honestly, I have no idea why you don't like Daniels, he's pretty much spot on and inline with your views http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=34336 a link to his positions. I think you watch Hucks show too much and thats why you're so infatuated with him. Daniels actually DID stuff to turn his state around where Huck spent more than Clinton did. He also supports amnisty and is extremely lax on immigration.
    I backed Fred Thompson too. It's too bad his campaign never took off in 2008. I didn't start supporting Mike Huckabee until long after Fred Thompson ended his campaign.

    As far as Mitch Daniels is concerned, you don't go putting an issue like abortion on the 'back burner' if you are truly pro-life. Abortion puts 1.6 million children to death each year. True pro-lifers believe that children in the womb are just as valuable, and worth saving as you and me. Therefore, saving those lives should always take precedence over any fiscal or economic issue. By making that 'truce' statement, Mitch Daniels basically said let the children continue to die until we fix the economy. Understand?
     

  5. #15  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by mike128 View Post
    I backed Fred Thompson too. It's too bad his campaign never took off in 2008. I didn't start supporting Mike Huckabee until long after Fred Thompson ended his campaign.

    As far as Mitch Daniels is concerned, you don't go putting an issue like abortion on the 'back burner' if you are truly pro-life. Abortion puts 1.6 million children to death each year. True pro-lifers believe that children in the womb are just as valuable, and worth saving as you and me. Therefore, saving those lives should always take precedence over any fiscal or economic issue. By making that 'truce' statement, Mitch Daniels basically said let the children continue to die until we fix the economy. Understand?
    you also know that it wasn't going anywhere and he's backed off of that stance. Look, I don't like abortion, but it's not a pressing matter when people don't have jobs. THAT was his point. People vote with their pocketbook. Daniels was pushing a "ideal" situation, that we can put that stuff back, fix the economy THEN deal with social issues. But he backed off because in large part it's hard to separate the two due to the billions that are spent on social programs.

    this is also where it's important to have a good, conservative Pres, so they can possibly get a POS ruling like Roe v Wade thrown out. NOT because it'll stop abortions, but because the ruling they made was bad. That's where this whole right to life movement went wrong. Instead of moving to enact laws they jumped off the deep end and made themselves out to be religious fanatics.

    If abortion is made illegal, there are going to be more people going to the back alley doctors that are more likely to kill both the mother and baby than anything else. I DON"T AGREE WITH ABORTION, with a couple exceptions. But we do need to be practical and realize that woman will do a lot to keep from having a baby if they don't want one. I would much rather they went and gave the kid up for adoption than kill it.

    You're quite funny, you sit there and rag on people for supporting Whitman, yet you admit that you supported McCain (who Whitman was his National co-chair for his campaign) and talked about making her his Sec of Treasury. You jump down peoples throat for supporting a RINO when she's better than the Nutter the Dems are running.
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Minneapolis MN
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by Articulate_Ape View Post
    Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin are quilted from the same flag. Both are indispensable spokes-models for the Tea Party and Conservatives at large. They are superb in that role. Neither, however would I want to be President of the United States. Not because they are women, but because they are spokes-models; and each of them know that. That is what makes them smarter than the folks who think either one of them should be POTUS.
    Bachmann just happens to be my Congresswoman, and I agree with your take on her and Palin.

    Personally I want Michelle to stay where she is at and fight the battle from the inside where she is most needed.
    Liberals are proof that evolution is only a theory. Nothing that stupid could evolve past a monkey.
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by lacarnut View Post
    Correct. Dummies would like us to take our eye off the ball and focus on 2012. If we do not put an ass whipping on Democraps and Rockefeller Repubs, we will be SOL in two and half more years.

    Please don't call them Rockefeller Republicans. I have a personal issue with that. It embarrasses me.
    I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •