Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
TULedHead

The Next President of the USA will be?

Who will win the Presidency in 2008?  

282 members have voted

  1. 1. Who Wins in 2008?

    • Hillary Clinton
      47
    • Rudy Giuliani
      9
    • John Edwards
      7
    • Mike Huckabee
      7
    • John McCain
      42
    • Barack Obama
      136
    • Ron Paul
      21
    • Mitt Romney
      9
    • Bill Richardson
      1
    • Fred Thompson
      3


Recommended Posts

What you blokes don't realize is that Ron Paul is still in the game...

The Revolution is finally here! :hippy:

-TYG

As big of a fan of his as I am, he's done bud. Sad but true.

Theres always 2012 I guess :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A question for all the gay marriages supporters.

If we will allow gay marriages, will you allow restrictions. Like

Anybody can refuse to marry any couple based on their moral beliefs of marriage of a man and a women and not be sued or fired?

Do you believe if we allow gay marriages, will it be a gateway to polygamy?

Will you allow that gay couples can not file joint tax returns for the first year of marriage for a limited time. or be denied for one year any insurance benefits for a limited time. Just so the insurance companies can get there act together before the wave of dependents. Not forever, but maybe the first five years, so gay marriages can be eased into public.

Moral-yes,but the state will have to marry any couple.

Polygamy-HOW?

Insurance-Why exactly?Elabourate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how Paul was recently asked why he remains in the Republican Party when he clearly is a liberatrian. He said, "So I can debate with the rest and bring up things they would never discuss infront of the American public."

What Democrats and Republicans fear most is that shaky ground in the middle, the independent. And the independent movement is continually growing every year. Why? Because its becoming more obvious to the casual politico and down right past the time to freshen things up in Washington and get those two parties in their current states out of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As big of a fan of his as I am, he's done bud. Sad but true.

Theres always 2012 I guess :D

I know...it's sad, too! I'm still a big supporter, though. And I love how he's the only one in the GOP who is against the war. Any thorn in the side of the Republican Party is okay in my book!

-TYG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like how Paul was recently asked why he remains in the Republican Party when he clearly is a liberatrian. He said, "So I can debate with the rest and bring up things they would never discuss infront of the American public."

What Democrats and Republicans fear most is that shaky ground in the middle, the independent. And the independent movement is continually growing every year. Why? Because its becoming more obvious to the casual politico and down right past the time to freshen things up in Washington and get those two parties in their current states out of power.

Good, it's about time that somebody brings a new philosophy to light in this country.

A third party (like the LIbertarian Party) needs more people like Paul invading the two parties we have and showing the country that there is more than just Republican or Democrat.

But sadly, it likely will not happen in the new future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you assuming this or do you have a direct quote, stating that he is against stem cell,not abortion.

McCain's "support" for stem cell research is limited to such degree that it falls within the guidelines advocated by the right wing so-called "pro-life" constituency.. a group McCain is clearly pandering to as he seeks the presidency. I say he's pandering because he used to support Roe v Wade but he changed his position on that issue, too, in an attempt to garner the support of right wing so-called "pro-life" groups. McCain's position on stem cell research is the exact SAME as George Bush's.. a position that has been criticized and rejected by scientists and researchers. Your suggestion that "both" McCain and Obama support stem cell research is, at the very least, misleading,.. but possibly (giving you the benefit of the doubt) simply ignorant.

-----------

"As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.

Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines." *source: JohnMcCain.com*

----------

[the bold text is a right-wing code meaning "don't worry 'pro-lifers', I'm with you"]. ;)

McCain: I am astonished that Mitt would think such a torture would be inflicted on anyone who we held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention. It's in violation of existing law. If we're going to get the high ground in this world and we're going to be the America that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years. We're not going to torture people. It's clear the definition of torture. [Water boarding] is in violation of laws we have passed.

*http://youtube.com/watch?v=fNlrDitKVlk*

-------------

*Maverick Fails The Test: McCain Votes Against Waterboarding Ban*

-------------

*McCain supports Bush veto of bill banning harsh interrogation

tactics. Doesn't want CIA limited to methods used by military.*

McCain backed Bush's veto of a bill that would have barred the CIA from employing those same techniques - or any others not authorized by the Army Field Manual - when questioning prisoners.

McCain feels "it's a good thing that (the CIA can use) enhanced interrogation techniques that are not revealed in your newspaper," Scheunemann said. He declined to identify methods that McCain believes should remain available to the CIA while being off-limits to military interrogators.

The Army Field Manual prohibits the use of force during interrogation. Among the techniques it forbids, in addition to waterboarding, are beatings, burns and electric shock; use of extreme heat; use of dogs; mock executions; forced nudity or sexual acts; hooding or taping a prisoner's eyes; prolonged sleep deprivation; and denial of needed food, water or medical care.

----------------

"Verschärfte Vernehmung"

"The phrase "Verschärfte Vernehmung" is German for "enhanced interrogation". Other translations include "intensified interrogation" or "sharpened interrogation". It's a phrase that appears to have been concocted in 1937, to describe a form of torture that would leave no marks, and hence save the embarrassment pre-war Nazi officials were experiencing as their wounded torture victims ended up in court.

Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I’m not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn’t-somehow-torture - “enhanced interrogation techniques” - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes. The punishment for them was death."

*source: Andrew Sullivan (republican)*

translationofmuellermemo.jpg

----------------------

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" and The Nazi Card

MAY 30, 2007

"..despite my utter horror at the current administration of the Federal Executive, I've avoided playing the Nazi card at all costs. Even though Bush's brand of American exceptionalism, preemptive military action, electoral manipulation, and an eruption in the power of the military-industrial complex all mark the closest America has come to our own brand of fascism since the movement swept Europe in the 1930s, there have always been better ways to make the point than just pulling out Mein Kampf at every opportunity. As bad as this Presidency has been, I always felt it had a ways to go before rising to the level to justify the Nazi card.

The process of the Nazi takeover of Germany was not a sudden one, but a slow creep that went from a democratically elected Nationalist Socialist party to a totalitarian state by small steps, and it so happens that we have documents of those steps available to us. And there's something about seeing the words "Verschärfte Vernehmung," which can be alternately translated as "sharpened interrogation" or "enhanced interrogation" atop a Gestapo memo describing ways of getting information out of prisoners. And it's quite another to see that this memo lays out many of the techniques authorized by our current administration, and even forbids some that we've now embraced as too inhumane.

Again—we've now reached a level of inhumanity that the Gestapo was hesitant to stoop to. And we're even using the same Orwellian phrase to dress it up to make it more acceptable.

I simply can't ignore it any longer. What we are faced with in this country is a political movement centered around the White House which may possibly be the closest to totalitarian fascism I will see in the US in my lifetime."

*source*

You have the source that says obama wants to close it, where is the source that McCain wants it open

See for yourself.. *HERE* ;)

As you saw, McCain clearly said that he'd close Gitmo on his first day as president. So yeah, I was wrong about his Gitmo position; turns out McCain wants close Gitmo and wants to bring the suspected terrorists from Gitmo to America and house them in Kansas.. at Ft Leavenworth.

Latest McCain campaign slogan:

"House the terrorists here.. so we don't have to house them over there!"

I'm sure republicans are gonna rally around him on this issue! :thumbsup:

Seriously though,.. I applaud McCain for wanting to close Gitmo. B)

Then again..

I'm not gonna be the least bit surprised when he (once again) sells out..

flip flops.. and suddenly decides that Gitmo really aint so bad afterall. :P

:beer:

Pb,.. when are you gonna learn how to use the quote tags? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So McCain wants to veto beer?

He's making quite the headway for himself.

No, no,.. he said he's going to veto "every single beer bill with earmarks".

*

Ya gotta admit.. that is the fiscally responsible position to take.

As long as lawmakers don't load up their beer bills with earmarks (like

subsidies for chips and salsa and whatnot),.. it's all good with McCain. ;)

:beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the top four people, that Repubs fear if picked for VP are

Ted Strickland

Jim Webb

Kathleen Sebelius

Joe Lieberman (for McCain)

Well Teddy Strickland said no way.

and I found this about Jim Webb.

Webb's rebel roots: An affinity for Confederacy David Mark

Barack Obama’s vice presidential vetting team will undoubtedly run across some quirky and potentially troublesome issues as it goes about the business of scouring the backgrounds of possible running mates. But it’s unlikely they’ll find one so curious as Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb’s affinity for the cause of the Confederacy.

Webb is no mere student of the Civil War era. He’s an author, too, and he’s left a trail of writings and statements about one of the rawest and most sensitive topics in American history.

He has suggested many times that while the Confederacy is a symbol to many of the racist legacy of slavery and segregation, for others it simply reflects Southern pride. In a June 1990 speech in front of the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, posted on his personal website, he lauded the rebels’ “gallantry,” which he said “is still misunderstood by most Americans.”

Webb, a descendant of Confederate officers, also voiced sympathy for the notion of state sovereignty as it was understood in the early 1860s, and seemed to suggest that states were justified in trying to secede.

“Most Southern soldiers viewed the driving issue to be sovereignty rather than slavery,” he said. “Love of the Union was palpably stronger in the South than in the North before the war — just as overt patriotism is today — but it was tempered by a strong belief that state sovereignty existed prior to the Constitution and that it had never been surrendered.”

Webb expanded on his sentiments in his well-received 2004 book, “Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America,” which portrays the Southern cause as at least understandable, if not wholly laudable.

“The venerable Robert E. Lee has taken some vicious hits, as dishonest or misinformed advocates among political interest groups and in academia attempt to twist yesterday’s America into a fantasy that might better service the political issues of today,” he wrote. “The greatest disservice on this count has been the attempt by these revisionist politicians and academics to defame the entire Confederate Army in a move that can only be termed the Nazification of the Confederacy.” As in the Confederate Memorial speech, Webb suggests in his book that relatively few Southerners were slaveholders and that the war was fought over state sovereignty, which in the eyes of many at the time included the right to secede from the national government.

“The states that had joined the Union after the Revolution considered themselves independent political entities, much like the countries of Europe do today,” Webb wrote. “The 10th Amendment to the Constitution reserved to the states all rights not specially granted to the federal government, and in their view the states had thus retained their right to dissolve the federal relationship.”

There’s nothing scandalous in the paper trail, nothing that on its face would disqualify Webb from consideration for national office. Yet it veers into perilous waters since the slightest sign of support or statement of understanding of the Confederate cause has the potential to alienate African-Americans who are acutely sensitive to the topic.

Ron Walters, director of the African American Leadership Center at the University of Maryland and a professor of political science there, said Webb’s past writings and comments on the Confederacy could dampen enthusiasm for the Democratic ticket, should he appear on it.

“Unless he is able to explain it, it would raise some questions,” Walters said.

Edward H. Sebesta, co-author of the forthcoming “Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction” (University of Texas Press), said Webb’s views express an unhealthy regard for a political system that propped up and defended slavery.

His book, in fact, will cite Webb as an example of the mainstreaming of neo-Confederacy ideas into politics, said Sebesta, a widely cited independent historical researcher and author of the Anti-Neo-Confederate blog.

“I don’t think people have thought through the implications of how his ideas have racial overtones, even if they are inadvertent,” Sebesta said.

Webb’s office declined to comment for this story.

Kristian Denny Todd, who served as communications director in Webb’s 2006 Senate campaign, said his remarks about the Confederacy should be viewed in the context of paying tribute to his Scots-Irish Southern forbears and his military sense of duty.

“He doesn’t defend the war at all or the practice of slavery. He does make arguments about why the South seceded,” said Denny Todd. “The individual Confederate soldier, for the most part, did not own slaves. They weren’t wealthy landowners. Webb simply talks about why these men — mostly poor and white — stepped up and answered the call to serve.”

The distinctions Webb makes, however, tend not to receive a full airing in the heat of political debate.

Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s praise for Southern Partisan magazine, a journal sympathetic to the Confederate cause, helped delay his confirmation early in the Bush administration.

Other issues related to the Confederate legacy have proved equally thorny for politicians on both sides of the aisle. Questions surrounding the Confederate flag contributed to the defeat of Gov. David Beasley (R-S.C.) in 1998 and Gov. Roy Barnes (D-Ga.) in 2002.

In the 2004 Democratic presidential primary campaign, Democratic candidates awkwardly struggled with an NAACP-led economic boycott of South Carolina that was designed to force the removal of a Confederate flag from the Statehouse grounds. Later in the campaign, Democrat Howard Dean drew criticism for claiming that he wanted to be the “candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.”

Four years earlier, in his first presidential run, Sen. John McCain wavered about the Confederate flag removal issue in South Carolina but later apologized for his equivocation. In advance of the South Carolina primary this year, he issued a full-throated call to take down the divisive symbol, joining the Democratic presidential candidates who took the same position.

Webb’s comments about the Confederacy already received some airing during his successful 2006 upset victory over then-Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), when a smattering of news outlets and blogs noted his past statements and writing about the Civil War era.

Most prominent was a May 2006 Richmond Times-Dispatch article revisiting Webb’s Confederate Memorial speech, which ran about a month before Webb’s Democratic primary victory and proved to be a one-day story.

In a different context, Webb’s record might very well have made a bigger splash. But it was largely overshadowed by other developments. At the time, it was widely perceived that Webb had more damaging exposure from his 1979 Washingtonian magazine article titled “Women Can’t Fight,” in which Webb, an ex-Marine, described one of the Naval Academy’s coed dorms as “a horny woman’s dream” and argued against allowing women to take combat roles.

Then the New Republic and other news organizations ran stories suggesting that Allen had his own racial insensitivity problems, featuring recollections by long-ago acquaintances of racial slurs, a noose that hung in his law office and a high school fascination with Confederate paraphernalia that continued into adulthood.

Webb generally remained silent during Allen’s Confederacy controversy, focusing instead on the Republican’s support for the Iraq war and other issues. Three months later, Allen’s caught-on-video reference to a Webb campaign volunteer as “macaca” took center stage and set in place a campaign narrative that dominated media coverage until his narrow defeat.

Webb won overwhelming support from black voters — 85 percent — who accounted for 16 percent of all voters, according to exit polls.

I don't think it's really important, since 85% of the blacks still voted for him and The only way I will truly call it a Obama win is if he wins the southern states, it may help. Im just saying ill be impressed if he pulls the southern states. Which the Blacks could make up 40% of the vote.

But it will give the Dems slogan for being the party for civil liberties and bad hit. and McCain has said he supports the descion of the confedrate flag, but has changed his mnd.

SO does this open the door for Kathy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moral-yes,but the state will have to marry any couple.

Polygamy-HOW?

Insurance-Why exactly?Elabourate.

The state, yes, they would have to find somebody willing to do it. but should you force the Mayor of a city, the Capitan of a ship. Should you force a church to do it. I know you can't based on separation of church and state.

If you allow a law that changes the meaning of marriage to include Man & Man and Women & Women. Couldn't you say that since the law changed to allow different marriages, that Polygamist could make the case saying that their morals are no different from Heteros and Homosexuals. There is law that defines marriage yet, but once you define it to include something else, how would Polygamist be any different. I think the court will rule in there favor.

If gay marriages were allowed tomorrow through out the country, how many people will be put on to the backs of insurance companies. Now they should changed, but should we force the changed so quickly. It could drive up the rates big time. I propose a one year wait on putting homosexual mates on there partners plans for a few years. During that time, i willing to bet, a good portion will break up, but if the insurance knows whats coming around the corner in a year, they can prepare.

I like the same for Tax returns too. Let lawmakers budget in, these cuts in revenue. just for the first year, after that, marry and file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The general election commercials have started to clog the airwaves where I live. It sucks living in a battleground/ swing state :( .

McCain seems to be self conscious about that big honkin bump on his jaw, it's in shadow on the ones I've seen anyhow. lol

Edited by Uncle Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good, it's about time that somebody brings a new philosophy to light in this country.

A third party (like the LIbertarian Party) needs more people like Paul invading the two parties we have and showing the country that there is more than just Republican or Democrat.

But sadly, it likely will not happen in the new future

This is what I've wanted for the last 40 yrs, I've given up hope of seeing it. Maybe you will see it in your day. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what I've wanted for the last 40 yrs, I've given up hope of seeing it. Maybe you will see it in your day. B)

You'll see i when I win the presidency for the Libertarian Party in 2012 B)

Trust me, it'll happen. I have connections ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The general election commercials have started to clog the airwaves where I live. It sucks living in a battleground/ swing state :( .

McCain seems to be self conscious about that big honkin bump on his jaw, it's in shadow on the ones I've seen anyhow. lol

I think I saw the same commercial.

btw, not to rub it in... but I found this on WisPolitics.com

Q15:

If the election for President were held today, for whom would you vote...

N = 506 100%

John McCain 186 37%

Barack Obama 255 50%

Undecided (DO NOT READ) 49 10%

Refused (DO NOT READ) 16 3%

http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=128513

The poll has some other really good questions.

Barack is in Kaukauna today for a Town Hall. I wish I could go, but I'm off to work....

Edited by allthekingshorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting quote from today's WSJ:

As for Mr. Obama, Mr. Johnson now joins an intriguing and growing list of Mr. Obama's ex-associates that includes the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, and former terrorist bomber William Ayers. We might call this list eclectic, except that there is a consistent pattern of bad judgment followed by an initial defense, then followed by rapid disassociation and regret that none of them were the men Mr. Obama "knew."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121322730344966113.html

I wonder which one of his growing list of ex-friends will be next to get thrown under the Obama bus?

:whistling:

underbus.jpg

Edited by cryingbluerain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,.. we now know one more person who won't be the next POTUS..

----------

Ron Paul to formally end campaign

GOP candidate to announce effort to elect libertarian-leaning Republicans

June. 12, 2008

AUSTIN, Texas - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul will end his campaign Thursday night and announce a new effort to help elect libertarian-leaning Republicans to public office around the country. Campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said the announcement, expected during a rally coinciding with the Texas GOP State Convention in Houston, was "not a disappointment at all. I think this is really exciting."

Paul's announcement will be a formality.

*source*

----------

So.. are you Ron Paul supporters now going to

support the Libertarian party candidate: Bob Barr?

bob-barr-cofcc.jpg

:whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well,.. we now know one more person who won't be the next POTUS..

----------

Ron Paul to formally end campaign

GOP candidate to announce effort to elect libertarian-leaning Republicans

June. 12, 2008

AUSTIN, Texas - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul will end his campaign Thursday night and announce a new effort to help elect libertarian-leaning Republicans to public office around the country. Campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said the announcement, expected during a rally coinciding with the Texas GOP State Convention in Houston, was "not a disappointment at all. I think this is really exciting."

Paul's announcement will be a formality.

*source*

----------

So.. are you Ron Paul supporters now going to

support the Libertarian party candidate: Bob Barr?

bob-barr-cofcc.jpg

:whistling:

Yeah probably ;)

Still, its unfortunate that the Repubs wouldn't even give Paul a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,WBD,.....

I said things like this before,most folks don't want change,they want the song to remain the same,...

Or do they?The next POTUS,is not going to have it easy,at least in 4-8 years,whom ever we elect is not going to have an good time of it.Unless of course,....

KB,be safe all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Hermit,all,

Didn't we know that a l-o-n-g time ago? :blink:

KB

Well.. yes, of course "we" did,.. but now its a stark reality that Paul supporters will have to come to terms with. [Dr. Paul's supporters are pretty rabid, not unlike Hillary's supporters. It'll be interesting to see if they accept defeat a bit more gracefully than Hillary's supporters.] :whistling:^_^

Yeah probably ;)

Bob Barr is for legalizing medical marijuana;

militarily he takes the position that "invading or initiating force against another nation based upon perceived threats and speculative intelligence is simply un-American. We are better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare";

he is staunchly opposed to domestic spying, saying he thinks it's "apparently a violation of federal laws";

and when it comes to waterboarding he takes the position that "Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has been employed for centuries as a tool with which to elicit information from prisoners. The fact that the technique often achieves the desired result—confessions—even as it leaves no obvious physical evidence accounts for much of its popularity by practitioners, from the time of the Spanish Inquisition to Nazi Germany. Waterboarding causes excruciating physical pain as the immobilized victim's lungs fill with water. At the same time, the process inflicts profound psychological pain by creating the very real impression in the victim's mind that he faces imminent death by drowning. Waterboarding is, in essence, a torturer's best friend—easy, quick, and nonevidentiary. It had always been considered torture by civilized governments such as ours—until, of course, this administration. This is not something of which we as Americans should be proud, and the use of torture will come back to haunt us in ways this administration apparently either doesn't realize or simply doesn't care about.."

So uhh..

how do Bob Barr's positions on those issues fit with your perception of yourself

as a "conservative".. let alone a "tough-on-terror conservative".. wanna be bud? :whistling:

:beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob Barr is for legalizing medical marijuana;

Fine by me ;)

militarily he takes the position that "invading or initiating force against another nation based upon perceived threats and speculative intelligence is simply un-American. We are better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare";

I agree to an extent.

Firstly, I wouldn't necessarily say that it's un-American.

Secondly, I'll say that pre-emptively attacking a country that had no threat to ourselves was stupid and wrong

Finally, it can be quite useful in some cases. WWII comes to mind...

he is staunchly opposed to domestic spying, saying he thinks it's "apparently a violation of federal laws";
I admit, I disagree here.

To me, it depends how far the spying goes...for example, if they spy on me and I start bitching about how rotten this country has become I don't want them to bomb me with made-up charges or something. But if it's stopping threats against the American public then I'm for it.

Moderation in all things B)

and when it comes to waterboarding he takes the position that "Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has been employed for centuries as a tool with which to elicit information from prisoners. The fact that the technique often achieves the desired result—confessions—even as it leaves no obvious physical evidence accounts for much of its popularity by practitioners, from the time of the Spanish Inquisition to Nazi Germany. Waterboarding causes excruciating physical pain as the immobilized victim's lungs fill with water. At the same time, the process inflicts profound psychological pain by creating the very real impression in the victim's mind that he faces imminent death by drowning. Waterboarding is, in essence, a torturer's best friend—easy, quick, and nonevidentiary. It had always been considered torture by civilized governments such as ours—until, of course, this administration. This is not something of which we as Americans should be proud, and the use of torture will come back to haunt us in ways this administration apparently either doesn't realize or simply doesn't care about.."

I fully agree

So uhh..

how do Bob Barr's positions on those issues fit with your perception of yourself

as a "conservative".. let alone a "tough-on-terror conservative".. wanna be bud? :whistling:

:beer:

It's been a while since we chit-chatted like this Hermit, but hey for old times sake, I'm willing :D

I'm not really the right-wing flag-waving kid anymore. This country needs change, no doubt (third parties, hint hint). That being said, WBD 2012 B)

Edited by wanna be drummer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...