Super Tuesday

[PPGMD]

Well today nearly half of the delegates for both side are up for grabs, this could seriously decide who's going to be on the ballot on November.

Up for grabs today:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho (Democrat Only)
Illinois
Kansas (Democrat Only)
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana (Republican Only)
New Jersey
New Mexico (Democrat Only)
New York
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
West Virgina (Republican Only)
Utah

Democrat Delegate Total:
Hillary Clinton: 261 Delegates
She won Florida and Michigan, but we were both stripped of our Democrat delegates.
Barack Obama: 190 Delegates

This will be an interesting race, many of the states today the delegates are split up based on vote totals, so the Democrat side might not be decided today unless one gets a rather huge victory over the other.

Republican Delegate Totals:
John McCain: 93 Delegates
Mitt Romney: 77 Delegates
Mike Huckabee: 40 Delegates
Ron Paul: 4 Delegates

Unlike the Democrats the Republicans have nearly all winner take all states left. So one of them will like emerge as the winner and the end of the day unless the states are truly mixed.

So who do you think will win the nominations, or at least the most delegates today?

[DSG]

<------Crossing fingers Romney gets the nomination, however it looks to me like McCain and Hillary will get the nomination.

[Topless T/A]

McCain is going to get it because even the Republicans have noticed (even though they'd never admit it) that we need, at the very least, a somewhat liberal presence in the White House. Yesterday I would have told you that Hillary would get the Dem. nomination, but for some reason I have a feeling that it's going to be an extremely tight race between Obama, that he might even win.

[jabtay]

<------Crossing fingers Romney gets the nomination, however it looks to me like McCain and Hillary will get the nomination.
+1 Im sure Mccain is pulling some last minute smear tactics like he did here in Florida...it was completely shameful.

topless - the reason Mccain is winning is becasue of all the moderates that came over to vote for him. He is not what the party stands for (neither is Bush for that matter).

[Iroc Joe]

+1 Im sure Mccain is pulling some last minute smear tactics like he did here in Florida...it was completely shameful.

topless - the reason Mccain is winning is becasue of all the moderates that came over to vote for him. He is not what the party stands for (neither is Bush for that matter).

You must have McCain confused with Bush, and McCain confused with Romney.

Questioning his patriotism when the man cannot lift his arms above his shoulders from the 5 years of torture he endured is ludicrous. Not to mention he had an opportunity to go home, but he declined because he said it would severely ruin the morale of his fellow POWs if he was allowed to go free in exchange for Vietnamese POWs.

The Bush campaign smeared his name in Florida, and tried to discredit him, just as the Romney campaign is attempting to do. If McCain gets snubbed by the party again, due to bullshit tactics, I wouldn't blame him if he left the Republican party.

Reaching across party lines, compromising, to get legislature passed is what is necessary for anything to be accomplished in Congress. Saying otherwise shows complete ignorance for how the system works.

[jabtay]

Questioning his patriotism when the man cannot lift his arms above his shoulders from the 5 years of torture he endured is ludicrous. Not to mention he had an opportunity to go home, but he declined because he said it would severely ruin the morale of his fellow POWs if he was allowed to go free in exchange for Vietnamese POWs.
Where did I question his patriotism? Why does this ALWAYS come up when someone says something about the guy?

[Topless T/A]

topless - the reason Mccain is winning is becasue of all the moderates that came over to vote for him. He is not what the party stands for (neither is Bush for that matter).

that's kind of what I'm saying...a lot off Republicans have realized that America doesn't need what exactly the Republican party stands for right now.

[PPGMD]

that's kind of what I'm saying...a lot off Republicans have realized that America doesn't need what exactly the Republican party stands for right now.

I wouldn't call many of the people that are voting for McCain Republicans, McCain says he's a Republican but his voting records proves otherwise. He in Guiliani are both RINOs Republican in name only. Neither represent many of the core tenets of the Republican party like smaller government.

I don't believe Romney is a true Republican either, but he knows he serves at the pleasure of the people, where as McCain gets a false sense of security because Arizona has been going increasingly liberal (people escaping California) since he first got into office.

[blurboEK]

casting my vote when I get off work.

[DSG]

Where did I question his patriotism? Why does this ALWAYS come up when someone says something about the guy?

This is what I hate about McCain. You cannot question anything about him or his record without it comming back to your that you are questioning his military record. Also he cannot answer a question without twisting his answer into his stance in the war in Iraq.

[Iroc Joe]

Where did I question his patriotism? Why does this ALWAYS come up when someone says something about the guy?

You said his campaign resorted to smear tactics, when it has clearly been McCain who has been attacked in the past. Hence why I said if he is snubbed again due to Romney's bullshit campaign, I wouldn't blame him for leaving the Republican party. If you quoted my entire post, instead of two lines of it, we wouldn't be discussing this further.

[BAMF]

Hillary vs. McCain.

Hillary is a crazy socialist liar, and has no respect for rights and freedoms. She is as sneaky as her husband, but far more left-wing and far more dangerous.

McCain is the real deal, gentlemen. I have to say I trust my rights and freedoms with him, as well as I trust him to make decisions with the country's interests truly in mind, rather than the usual crap that goes down in the white house. The more I read into the man, the more I like him.

[Topless T/A]

crazy socialist liars FTW!

[BAMF]

crazy socialist liars FTW!

Sure, what good are rights and freedoms if everyone is equal and the government dictates, err, I mean..provides for every aspect of your life?

[Topless T/A]

Sure, what good are rights and freedoms if everyone is equal and the government dictates, err, I mean..provides for every aspect of your life?

If the Dems win this election, I want everyone to come back in 4 years and tell me how much their life sucks, how many guns they've had to give back, how many micro-chips they've had implanted in their brains, and how many illegal aliens the government is forcing them to house in their living room. Can you-all at least promise me that?

[BAMF]

If the Dems win this election, I want everyone to come back in 4 years and tell me how much their life sucks, how many guns they've had to give back, how many micro-chips they've had implanted in their brains, and how many illegal aliens the government is forcing them to house in their living room. Can you-all at least promise me that?

I can't, because I'll be dead before that happens to me.

[jabtay]

You said his campaign resorted to smear tactics, when it has clearly been McCain who has been attacked in the past. Hence why I said if he is snubbed again due to Romney's bullshit campaign, I wouldn't blame him for leaving the Republican party. If you quoted my entire post, instead of two lines of it, we wouldn't be discussing this further.
I dont get it, how does smear tactics take into account patriotism? I wish Mccain would leave the Republican party...hes a dem anyway. Hell the only true Conservative dropped out a while ago :mad:

[BAMF]

I dont get it, how does smear tactics take into account patriotism? I wish Mccain would leave the Republican party...hes a dem anyway. Hell the only true Conservative dropped out a while ago :mad:

Republicans call him a Democrat.
Democrats call him a Republican.


That means he is doing something right. ;)

[Iroc Joe]

If the Dems win this election, I want everyone to come back in 4 years and tell me how much their life sucks, how many guns they've had to give back, how many micro-chips they've had implanted in their brains, and how many illegal aliens the government is forcing them to house in their living room. Can you-all at least promise me that?

Well, let's judge from the last Democrat in office, coincidentally the husband of one of the current front runners. Signed into law a ban on "assault weapons," including but not limited to semi-automatic clones of the AK-47 and AR-15 firearms. In effect, the "ban" only banned cosmetic features of said rifles. Flash suppressors, collapsible stocks, and *GASP* bayonet lugs. That's right, apparently there were a tremendous number of drive-by bayonetings, so we must remove the ability for mere citizens to affix a bayonet to their rifle. Also, the ban included standard capacity magazines for any firearm designed with a magazine capacity greater than ten. In effect it only drove up the cost of standard capacity magazines that were produced before the ban went into effect.

Similarly, he signed an Executive Order to crush an untold number of M-14 rifles from military supply depots instead of offering the rifles back to the taxpayers who purchased them in the first place. Ironically, the M-14 has been re-instated in service due to multiple reasons, one being the shortage of available M16 rifles and M4 carbines for the war in Iraq.

So, based on this precedent, I will not sleep soundly with the knowledge a socialist will allow me to live my life, and spend my money as I see fit, within perfectly legally boundaries of the law.

[Topless T/A]

Well, let's judge from the last Democrat in office, coincidentally the husband of one of the current front runners. Signed into law a ban on "assault weapons," including but not limited to semi-automatic clones of the AK-47 and AR-15 firearms. In effect, the "ban" only banned cosmetic features of said rifles. Flash suppressors, collapsible stocks, and *GASP* bayonet lugs. That's right, apparently there were a tremendous number of drive-by bayonetings, so we must remove the ability for mere citizens to affix a bayonet to their rifle. Also, the ban included standard capacity magazines for any firearm designed with a magazine capacity greater than ten. In effect it only drove up the cost of standard capacity magazines that were produced before the ban went into effect.

Similarly, he signed an Executive Order to crush an untold number of M-14 rifles from military supply depots instead of offering the rifles back to the taxpayers who purchased them in the first place. Ironically, the M-14 has been re-instated in service due to multiple reasons, one being the shortage of available M16 rifles and M4 carbines for the war in Iraq.

So, based on this precedent, I will not sleep soundly with the knowledge a socialist will allow me to live my life, and spend my money as I see fit, within perfectly legally boundaries of the law.

just come back in 4 years and tell me how miserable your life is, that's all I'm asking.

[Iroc Joe]

just come back in 4 years and tell me how miserable your life is, that's all I'm asking.

The Second Amendment is the second Amendment for a reason. It is before protection of unreasonable search and seizure, trial by jury, cruel and unusual punishment, due process of law, etc. Now, if I cannot trust a politician to uphold a fundamentally important piece of legislation, why should I trust they will not make my life miserable?

It's quite simple really, if a politician cannot read and comprehend the document they take an oath to defend, why should they be placed in power?

[Topless T/A]

The Second Amendment is the second Amendment for a reason. It is before protection of unreasonable search and seizure, trial by jury, cruel and unusual punishment, due process of law, etc. Now, if I cannot trust a politician to uphold a fundamentally important piece of legislation, why should I trust they will not make my life miserable?

It's quite simple really, if a politician cannot read and comprehend the document they take an oath to defend, why should they be placed in power?

I've stated this before, and I really don't want to get into it again but.....the constitution is merely a framework to build upon, and in the year 2008 you can't take something that was written in 1787 EXACTLY word for word, as society has changed exponentially. You didn't lose your right to have guns, you just weren't allowed to have assault weapons.....which from any logical, common-sense view are quite frankly unnecessary unless you're planning on causing serious harm to somebody. So I don't see what the big uproar is about all of that is, but it certainly wasn't the end of everybody's life.

[PPGMD]

Actually the so called assault weapons are less lethal then shotguns in the 18 Century.

HR 1022 blows the AWB out of the water, it practically bans all semi-automatic guns.

[Billy]

.....which from any logical, common-sense view are quite frankly unnecessary unless you're planning on causing serious harm to somebody. So I don't see what the big uproar is about all of that is, but it certainly wasn't the end of everybody's life.

There are those words again....."logical" and "common sense". They get tossed around a lot.

So, since you did bring it up please tell me what the assault weapon ban of '94 really accomplished, other than feel-good legislation.

Banned...

http://www.mountsplus.com/miva/graphics/00000001/STT-MINI14-62160B.jpg

Not Banned...

http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/imgs/mini14.jpg

What is the difference between these two rifles that should make one illegal and much more feared than the other?




And a lot can change in 4 years, but it's also the idea of starting down a path that many of us don't want to see; paving the way for more things we don't want to see in the future.

[Iroc Joe]

I've stated this before, and I really don't want to get into it again but.....the constitution is merely a framework to build upon, and in the year 2008 you can't take something that was written in 1787 EXACTLY word for word, as society has changed exponentially. You didn't lose your right to have guns, you just weren't allowed to have assault weapons.....which from any logical, common-sense view are quite frankly unnecessary unless you're planning on causing serious harm to somebody. So I don't see what the big uproar is about all of that is, but it certainly wasn't the end of everybody's life.

No, the Constitution is not a framework to build upon. It is the supreme law of the land, which is what differentiated us from Europe in 1787. The just power of the government comes from the consent of the governed. John Locke so wrote, and his Second Treatise on Government is basically what founded our country. You cannot justify the undermining of the rule of law in the name of progress, when such an action would invalidate the rule of law to begin with.

Exactly what is logical and common-sense about banning a rifle? Please do answer that. Second, where is the provision in the Second Amendment allowing exceptions to the whole "shall not be infringed" thing based on emotionally driven personal concepts of what is necessary or not?
An interesting note here, you obviously are not very familiar with firearms, and obviously you do not enjoy them as a hobby. From what authority do you feel you may then chose what is appropriate for me to purchase with my hard-earned money?

Let's look at an analogy. The religious right likes to legislate morality, and favors censorship of what you may view in the privacy of your own home. I bet you would be pretty pissed if law was passed disallowing you to watch porn in your home because it's logical. I mean, it only degrades women, and is unnecessary, you should only view sex as a means of procreation. :roll:

Get off your high horse. YOU do NOT have any right to tell me what is necessary for MYSELF. I am perfectly capable of distinguishing what is necessary to spend my money on. If you do not like firearms, don't purchase them or support the industry. If you answer nothing else, please tell me where you believe it is the right of an individual to dictate the financial abilities of another, when neither party has broken a law, and especially when one has a Constitutional protection on their side?

[Billy]

To add to what Joe just said....the Constitution does not grant the right to bear arms, it simply acknowledges and protects it.

As the Supreme Court acknowledged in United States vs. Cruikshank; “The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”

[Iroc Joe]

^ Si. The Bill of Rights is not a list of privileges granted to the governed, it is a list of restrictions upon the government.

This, of course, being the seminal argument over the need, and ultimately the implication of a Bill of Rights.

[blurboEK]

Some info on "Assault Weapons" & Semi-Autos..

In the late 1980s, gun control supporters invented the slang term, “assault weapon,” to refer to semi-automatic firearms that look like modern military rifles. Since then, they have tried to ban virtually all semi-automatic and pump-action firearms as “assault weapons.” “Assault weapon” bans should be rejected because:

So-called “assault weapons” have never been used in more than 1%-2% of violent crimes reported by police and imprisoned felons,1 and in 0.25% of violent crimes reported by crime victims.2 Congress’ study found that the guns were used in “a modest fraction of all gun murders.”3 Knives, clubs and bare hands are used in about 22 times more murders.4

Guns don’t cause crime. There are more guns than ever, and the number rises by 4½ million a year.5 Meanwhile, the nation’s violent crime rate has fallen 38% since 1991.6 The FBI does not list guns or “gun control” as a “crime factor.”7 The CDC and Library of Congress report that there is no evidence that “gun control” reduces crime.8

Gun bans don’t reduce crime. After its 1989 “assault weapon” ban, California’s murder rate increased every year for five years, 26% overall. California banned more guns as of January 2000 and murder has since increased 13%, while it is unchanged in the rest of the country.9 Even the radical anti-gun group, Violence Policy Center, says, “You can’t argue with a straight face that the [federal] ban has been effective.”10

Gun bans can’t reduce crime. Guns are used in only ¼ of violent crimes reported to police, and in only 7% of those reported in victim surveys.11 Criminals can always get guns, and commit crimes with virtually any gun.

Millions of Americans use semi-autos and pump-actions for hunting and target shooting that would be banned under federal and/or state “assault weapon” bills.12 For example, the Remington Models 7400 and 7600, and Browning BAR are popular deer rifles. Remington’s Model 1100 and Beretta’s Model 391 shotguns are widely used for hunting and sport shooting. The Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A are the nation’s most popular rifles for marksmanship competitions. Ruger Ranch Rifles and 10/22s are popular hunting and plinking rifles.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says it can “in no way vouch for the validity”13 of Brady Campaign’s claim14 that the federal “assault weapon” law reduced crime. Brady mischaracterized BATFE’s firearm chain-of-commerce traces, which the Congressional Research Service says “are not accurate indicators” of criminal gun use.15 Most guns that are traced have not been used to commit violent crimes, and most guns used to commit violent crimes are never traced.

FBI reports16 contradict Violence Policy Center’s claim about “assault weapons” and the police.17 FBI incident summaries indicate that the guns are rarely used to kill police officers.

“Gun control” supporters are wrong, in trying to exploit the D.C. “sniper” and Columbine crimes. The gun used in the D.C. crimes, and three of the four guns used in Columbine, were not “assault weapons.” Also, in each of the D.C. crimes only one shot was fired, and in Columbine the killers fired slowly, moving casually between victims. The guns used in these crimes had no bearing on their outcomes.

Semi-automatics are not machine guns. Machine guns, which fire continously as long as the trigger is depressed, are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. By comparison, semi-automatics, like other guns, fire only one shot at a time.

Semi-automatics are not “more powerful” than other guns. Semi-auto rifles and shotguns use the same ammunition as other guns. Semi-auto pistols use ammunition comparable to, but shaped differently than, revolver ammunition. The AK-47, which anti-gun groups call “high powered,” is less powerful than the modestly-powered .30-30 Winchester, the most popular deer rifle in American history.

“Pistol grips” have nothing to do with how a gun fires. Claims that “pistol grips” are designed for “spray-firing from the hip” are nonsense. No gun is designed to be held at “the hip,” and the shape of a grip has nothing to do with a gun’s firing mechanism.

AK-47s and Uzis,” constantly mentioned by “gun control” supporters, did not become legal to import when the federal “assault weapon” law expired. As noted by Congress’ study, those guns were prohibited under federal firearm importation law in 1989.

Source : http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=160&issue=019

References:
1. Police reports: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns, 1997; Dave Kopel, “Rational Basis Analysis for ‘Assault Weapon’ Prohibition,” (www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/rational.htm). Felon surveys: Bureau of Justice Statistics: “Survey of State Prison Inmates 1991” (3/93), “Guns Used in Crime” (7/95), “Firearm Use by Offenders” (11/01) (www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pubalp2.htm).
2. Victim surveys: Kleck, p.112. National Crime Victimization Surveys identify many crimes not reported to police.
3. Roth, Koper, et al., Urban Institute, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,” 3/13/97 (www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/aw_final.pdf).
4. FBI, Crime in the United States 2006, Table 7 (www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/index.html). Knives, 12%; clubs, 4%; hands, 6%.
5. BATFE, Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002 and Commerce in Firearms in the United States 2002 (www.atf.gov/pub/#Firearms).
6. FBI and BJS (http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm).
7. FBI, (www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/about/variables_affecting_crime.html).
8. CDC, “First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws,” Oct. 3, 2003. Library of Congress, “Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries,” May 1998.
9. Note 6.
10. Rick Montgomery, “Clock ticking on assault gun ban,” Kansas City Star, May 2, 2004.
11. FBI and NCVS (www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0204.pdf) (Table 66).
12. The anti-gun Legal Community Against Violence’s “model law” for state and local “assault weapon” bans defines “assault weapon” to include detachable-magazine pump-action center-fire and rimfire rifles.
13. Torsten Ove, “Assault weapon ban’s effectiveness debated,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 3/26/04.
14. Brady Campaign, “On Target” (www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/200403/on_target.pdf).
15. Report for Congress:“Assault Weapons”: Military-Style Semi-Automatic Firearms Facts and Issues, 5/13/92.
16. FBI, annual Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted reports (www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#leoka).
17. Violence Policy Center, “Officer Down” (www.vpc.org/studies/officecont.htm).

Must be bias since it's from the NRA and not a more reputable source like the Brady Campaign though.. :roll:

[DSG]

No, the Constitution is not a framework to build upon. It is the supreme law of the land, which is what differentiated us from Europe in 1787. The just power of the government comes from the consent of the governed. John Locke so wrote, and his Second Treatise on Government is basically what founded our country. You cannot justify the undermining of the rule of law in the name of progress, when such an action would invalidate the rule of law to begin with.

Exactly what is logical and common-sense about banning a rifle? Please do answer that. Second, where is the provision in the Second Amendment allowing exceptions to the whole "shall not be infringed" thing based on emotionally driven personal concepts of what is necessary or not?
An interesting note here, you obviously are not very familiar with firearms, and obviously you do not enjoy them as a hobby. From what authority do you feel you may then chose what is appropriate for me to purchase with my hard-earned money?

Let's look at an analogy. The religious right likes to legislate morality, and favors censorship of what you may view in the privacy of your own home. I bet you would be pretty pissed if law was passed disallowing you to watch porn in your home because it's logical. I mean, it only degrades women, and is unnecessary, you should only view sex as a means of procreation. :roll:

Get off your high horse. YOU do NOT have any right to tell me what is necessary for MYSELF. I am perfectly capable of distinguishing what is necessary to spend my money on. If you do not like firearms, don't purchase them or support the industry. If you answer nothing else, please tell me where you believe it is the right of an individual to dictate the financial abilities of another, when neither party has broken a law, and especially when one has a Constitutional protection on their side?

I like the way you think. The liberals/socialist of today think that the Govt will always know better than ourselves how we should be running our lives.

[BAMF]

I like the way you think. The liberals/socialist of today think that the Govt will always know better than ourselves how we should be running our lives.

In some cases, thats true. I can name a few people here, but I won't. But look for them.

[TampaDude]

Republican Delegate Totals:
John McCain: 111 Delegates
Mitt Romney: 94 Delegates
Mike Huckabee: 47 Delegates
Ron Paul: 6 Delegates


Fixed it for you.

[Topless T/A]

Listen, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I know more about guns than the obvious die-hard gun owning club here on TF...I've never claimed to either. Just like I know more about environmental issues than most of you, I'm sure that a lot of you know more about guns than I....what I do know however, is how I feel guns are viewed and how I feel guns need to be handled. There's statistics from both sides of the argument that we can sit here and argue until we're blue in the face about, but fact of the matter is we're not going to come to an agreement on it. Do I think many of you are radical and slightly paranoid about it?...yes...do those same people that I think are radical think that I am a socialist who's just out to take away everyone's rights?...most likely...MY political views are shaped upon what I think are the most important issues for the betterment of society, as I don't think that the need to own an assault rifle is really anything that anybody can use to have a positive impact on any of our lives. My problem with many of you is that there seems to be a "me, me, me" attitude towards this subject, and politics in general, that I simply do not agree with. That said, I think it's interesting that a vast majority of the voting public seems to side with more of my beliefs than yours, as is apparent by the strong liberal campaign and the presence of a "liberal conservative" as the Republican front runner. I think it's going to be an interesting election, and I also think that if a Democrat does win that you all won't be as bad off as you think you will be.

[Iroc Joe]

I could very easily turn your argument around and use it against yourself. You believe you have society's best interest at heart, and you know what is best. But, you are discounting other opinions about a subject you don't know shit about. So...who seems a little paranoid and all about them self, now?

P.S. I greatly resent you implying I am something I am not. You "simply do not agree" because it is not what you want. Before we throw names, and accuse others of intolerance and what Robert Bellah would classify as expressive individualism, perhaps we should evaluate ourselves? ;)

[Topless T/A]

I could very easily turn your argument around and use it against yourself. You believe you have society's best interest at heart, and you know what is best. But, you are discounting other opinions about a subject you don't know shit about. So...who seems a little paranoid and all about them self, now?

Listen here killer...I didn't say I don't know shit about it, just that I don't own a small arsenal in my house. I'm trying my hardest to be halfway civil at this point in the name of not turning another non-gun thread into a 10 page rant...anyways, you're just pissed because Ron Paul sucks. ;)

[Iroc Joe]

Listen here killer...I didn't say I don't know shit about it, just that I don't own a small arsenal in my house. I'm trying my hardest to be halfway civil at this point in the name of not turning another non-gun thread into a 10 page rant...anyways, you're just pissed because Ron Paul sucks. ;)

Bastard. :(

[BAMF]

pwned

[Kryptix]

Listen, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I know more about guns than the obvious die-hard gun owning club here on TF...I've never claimed to either. Just like I know more about environmental issues than most of you, I'm sure that a lot of you know more about guns than I....what I do know however, is how I feel guns are viewed and how I feel guns need to be handled. There's statistics from both sides of the argument that we can sit here and argue until we're blue in the face about, but fact of the matter is we're not going to come to an agreement on it. Do I think many of you are radical and slightly paranoid about it?...yes...do those same people that I think are radical think that I am a socialist who's just out to take away everyone's rights?...most likely...MY political views are shaped upon what I think are the most important issues for the betterment of society, as I don't think that the need to own an assault rifle is really anything that anybody can use to have a positive impact on any of our lives. My problem with many of you is that there seems to be a "me, me, me" attitude towards this subject, and politics in general, that I simply do not agree with. That said, I think it's interesting that a vast majority of the voting public seems to side with more of my beliefs than yours, as is apparent by the strong liberal campaign and the presence of a "liberal conservative" as the Republican front runner. I think it's going to be an interesting election, and I also think that if a Democrat does win that you all won't be as bad off as you think you will be.

Well said.

[Kryptix]

Bastard. :(


pwned
That'll be enough of that. :lol: Remember the rules. :lock: :stickpke:

[Iroc Joe]

That'll be enough of that. :lol: Remember the rules. :lock: :stickpke:

Umm, brosephus, Toolbox T/A and I are e-homies. We bicker back and forth on a lot of issues, we agree on some issues, but we never become actually hostile to each other. Put the lock key down, thanks. :P

[Kryptix]

Umm, brosephus, Toolbox T/A and I are e-homies. We bicker back and forth on a lot of issues, we agree on some issues, but we never become actually hostile to each other. Put the lock key down, thanks. :P

I know. I can see that.

[Topless T/A]

Toolbox T/A :lol:

[Iroc Joe]

Toolbox T/A :lol:

I thought you would get a kick out of that. :lol:

[BAMF]

Umm, brosephus, Toolbox T/A and I are e-homies. We bicker back and forth on a lot of issues, we agree on some issues, but we never become actually hostile to each other. Put the lock key down, thanks. :P

You need to choose your e-homies better, mang. He hired me to whack you, actually - cuz he is anti-gun, so he obviously couldn't do it himself. And he paid me in carbon credits. :lol:

[PPGMD]

You need to choose your e-homies better, mang. He hired me to whack you, actually - cuz he is anti-gun, so he obviously couldn't do it himself. And he paid me in carbon credits. :lol:

Oh that's nice because I sold him the carbon credits, I promised that for the next year that I wouldn't fly in any private jets.

[Iroc Joe]

You need to choose your e-homies better, mang. He hired me to whack you, actually - cuz he is anti-gun, so he obviously couldn't do it himself. And he paid me in carbon credits. :lol:

:(

Et tu?

http://academic.shu.edu/honors/julius%20caesar.jpg

[whitebread]

And he paid me in carbon credits. :lol:
haha

[jabtay]

:lol: at toolbox...sorry man, that is funny.

back to seriousness...the McCain/Huckabee controversy!

First results came from West Virginia, where third-place Republican contender Mike Huckabee won 18 delegates up for grabs at a small, unusual state party convention thanks to the last-minute spoiler backing from lead contender Senator John McCain.

McCain's backers denied the prize to the senator's chief rival, former governor Mitt Romney, by throwing their weight to Huckabee in a second ballot.
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1390016.php/Super-Tuesday_tension_in_US_Huckabee_takes_first_state_C alifornia_results_from_remaining_23_states_expecte d_after_0001_GMT_Wednesday__epa_photo_401245379_ot __2nd_Roundup_

I just love shady underhanded politics.

[Kryptix]

:lol: at toolbox...sorry man, that is funny.

back to seriousness...the McCain/Huckabee controversy!


http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1390016.php/Super-Tuesday_tension_in_US_Huckabee_takes_first_state_C alifornia_results_from_remaining_23_states_expecte d_after_0001_GMT_Wednesday__epa_photo_401245379_ot __2nd_Roundup_

I just love shady underhanded politics.

Wow I just heard about that.

[Kryptix]

What a close race. I bet no one will back out after tonight is over.

[SilentBob86]

i voted today...RP of course...

[jabtay]

i voted today...RP of course...
If Ron Paul wasnt in the race, who would you have voted for?