(He ain’t perfect, but Reagan wasn’t either).

LMFAO

MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 6:12 PM

You know, I’ve seen a myriad of excuses from people like you who have realized your mistake but don’t know how to gracefully extract yourself from it, but your’s is original. Kudos to you.

NOW are you ready to actually discuss the thread topic? That might be diffucult because it seems you have scared everyone else away with your incessant attacks on me.

Sultry Beauty on November 2, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Yes you did make assumptions. I don’t believe that I have to be in 100% agreement with a candidate in order to support him. If you were as mature as you think you are, you would have asked instead of assumed.

And you’ll find out real quick that you get what you give me. You have started out attacking me and that’s what you’ll get in return. But don’t start whining like a little crybaby when I slam you for your errors in judgment.

I’d rather you take at least one single post and discuss the topic at hand, but you don’t seem to be getting the hint.

Oh well, I tried.

Hello? I don’t see any accusation that any specific person is a Fred boot licker. Apparently you think you are, but I hadn’t seen that from you. But hey, you know yourself better than I do, so I wont argue with your assessment of yourself.

csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 6:00 PM

That’s it. I’m ignoring any further crap from you. You’re playing nothing but a child’s game, saying inflammatory things about the general populace you talk to, and then when they take offense, you single them out and play the innocent game. You’re deranged, and you’re deluded. Ron Paul supporters are more stable.

csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 5:46 PM

Name calling is a weak way to make a point.

You are way too demanding on what people should think, say, and do ((i.e. “Are you unable to master your behavior…” “I think you can because…” “You’re full of crap.” “So stop yer whining…” “if you are sooooooo offended, you…” Maybe it’s time for you…” “Really, you should look…” “Self awareness is not a problem for me..”))I believe I happen to have self awareness and am a confident female, therefore, I’ll say what I feel like saying when I felt like saying something. I just feel like wasting your time responding to my stupid inane comment, like you waste my time reading how into yourself you are and how you think that your opinion is more wonderful than anyone elses you feel that you have to put them down. It’s so very Hillary Clinton of you.

I didn’t make assumptions. I read what you wrote:
“1) Rudy: I don’t like Rudy’s…”
“2) Mitt: I don’t like the ban on assault weapons…”
and, 3) Fred is obvious…

MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 5:36 PM

Hello? I don’t see any accusation that any specific person is a Fred boot licker. Apparently you think you are, but I hadn’t seen that from you. But hey, you know yourself better than I do, so I wont argue with your assessment of yourself.

Bwahahahahaaa!!!

csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 5:49 PM

Okay, that’s the second time he’s done this in this thread. I’m a little scared.

Sammy316 on November 2, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Bwahahahahaaa!!! And if you really feel that way, WHY for goodness sake do you dance to that tune?

Me thinks thoest doest protesteth too much.

You don’t like Rudy. You don’t like Mitt. You don’t like Fred.
Sultry Beauty on November 2, 2007 at 4:36 PM

A sissy-mary is a boy who acts like a girl. He is waaaaaay too sensitive and whines like a little 8itch.

You are making assumptions about who I do, or do not support.

What’s weird is that the only comment you have to make is one of assumptions about little old cs deven. I wonder why, if you are sooooooo offended, you don’t make at least one comment on the thread topic before being party with the people who are hijacking this thread?

Maybe it’s time for you to worry about yourself and your contributions instead of being so concerned about others? Really, you should look into that for the future.

And another consideration is that it would be unconstitutional as the SCOTUS has recently decided a landmark case in DC that confirms the rights of regular folks to own guns.

The assault weapons ban was, and is, unconstitutional. It’s being revived, and it’s had the support of both Rudy and Mitt. The Constitution is getting less and less credence in this day and age.

You are being overly concerned that Rudy is going to take all our guns.

Again, rhetoric. I’m not afraid of him taking all our guns. I’m afraid of him taking ANY of our guns. Total gun confiscation in this country would take more than 4 years, obviously. Look at the backlash after the unconstitutional theft of the guns of the New Orleans residents after Katrina. Guess what, though? Those guns are still sitting in trailers, and the owners cannot get them back. The way Rudy talks, that’s just fine by him, and Mitt sure ain’t making any noise.

These types of things start with presidents willing to back them. We were fortunately able to put a choke hold on the Brady Bill and Slick Willie, but as soon as a New Yawk lawyer gets back in there, it starts all over again…

MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 3:28 PM

You are being overly concerned that Rudy is going to take all our guns. That is why I said Rudy and Mitt are not the threat people think they are when it comes to the 2nd. First, he cannot do it by himself. 2, the NRA is too powerful. And another consideration is that it would be unconstitutional as the SCOTUS has recently decided a landmark case in DC that confirms the rights of regular folks to own guns.

So, being that there is no chance of losing all our guns, the biggest threat is still a candidate that gives legal advice to terrorists. Regardless of Fred’s excuses, the average voter does not like terrorists, people who help terrorists, lobbyists, and lawyers. Fred is all of those things and therefore radioactive. Hillary will crucify him if he were to get the nomination because as bad as she is, she only manipulated the rules on campaign finances (and Fred did to) and Fred gave advice to terrorists. People will pick the lesser of the two evils.

…a general comment is…

Are you trying to start a feeding frenzy of attacks on those who don’t lick Fred’s boots, and thereby taking the thread off topic? AGAIN.

csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 11:12 AM

Bravo Sierra your way out of that one, Shirley.

MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Wrong. I have clarified my reasoning on this many times. You, like some others in the past, are making assumptions based on a desire to have a confrontation. That is why your first response to a general comment is one of aggression instead of a question of clarification.

I am not responsible for anyones assumptions.

If Hillary can’t stand up to Silky and Obama how in the blue hell is she going to stand up to the likes of Putin?

Just stop feeding the troll, if he doesn’t get the attention he craves he will move on. Simple as that.

Cry us a river you sissy-mary. – csdeven

That’s so very interesting because for a while now I believed you to be a female.

Sissy-Mary? What the heck is that? Are prejudiced against Mary? And boot lickers? Do you have a shoe fetish?

You don’t like Rudy. You don’t like Mitt. You don’t like Fred. Who do you like? Oh, what a minute, don’t answer that. I don’t really want to know.

I feel a troubled, angry childhood behind all this ranting. You should work for Hillary Clinton. She needs women like you. But do me a favor. Please avoid matches and southern California. I’ve had enough wildfires to last a lifetime.

csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 2:39 PM

You’re boring………..you bore me………..I will ignore all of your future posts, please act in kind.

Do you hear yourself? Shouted down? You are the one that chooses to read others comments.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 2:55 PM

That’s the 20th time you’ve posted in this thread alone… and there’s only 67 total posts; nearly 1/3 of the posts are yours. Almost all of them are mindless trolling.

I don’t start the personal attacks, but I certainly do finish them. I skewer Fred because he is scum…

You are one funny dude.

When you hold up the issues of the 2nd amendment and terrorism, terrorism trumps. Rudy is on the right side and Fred is on the wrong side.

csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 2:07 PM

This is where we fundamentally disagree, I guess. In a choice between an unarmed, but terror-free nation, and an armed, threatened nation, I’ll easily take the latter. What’s the point of being free of foreign terrorism when the government (read ATF, FBI, etc) can terrorize you freely? Governments are supposed to fear their citizens, not the other way around. We have no way to keep them in check. Macrosafety is worthless without it on the micro level.

Okay, I’m gonna about half call you on this one. You’re right, you never start personal attacks against anyone, but you do put stuff out there like the boot licking bit that’s meant to bait someone into attacking you. You know you do it, so don’t tell me you don’t.

Kowboy on November 2, 2007 at 2:09 PM