Republican 2008 Primary Election: The DP Edition - Page 3

DarkWizard12 · 01-02-08, 04:59 PM

Quote:

What?

I'm a living breathing person. If I'm short of money, my choices are serously limited.

The state isn't a living breathing person. If the state is short of money, they get more money from living people. They don't need a surplus unless they somehow created debt - in which case they truly don't have a surplus anyway.

This is what bugs me about Huck and Huck supporters. They don't truly understand limitied government idealogy, it's just social conservatism with no fiscal conservatism. At first glance I was almost fooled. He talks a good game if you don't fully dive in.

Are you kidding me? Arkansas had a huge debt at the time. It somewhere on RCP that said Arkansa had 700 mil dollar + debt before Huck took office.

Quote:

Those aren't scandalous. He changes his mind on issues and is more liberal then I care for. He's a politician who cares to stay elected. I know this about him. Huge difference between that and using your office for political gain - which Huckabee did.

Huckabee pardoned 12 criminals, yea, he got political gain there.

Either Huck used his office for political gain, or he was stupid and commited a lot of scandals that would otherwise, cause him to have political loss. Which is it?

Curious George · 01-03-08, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

Lets see, Huckabee created a surplus in his state of 850 mil, whilst Romney has done, ooh, nothing.

Sure he did... by raising taxes.

If I want a surplus to result from more taxation, I'll elect Hillary. If I want a surplus to result from spending cuts, I'll elect Romney.

This is not to say I think Huck (or any Republican) would try to raise taxes. I do, however, think Huckabee would be far more likely to sign tax increases that came to his desk from a Democratic Congress than any other Republican candidate for President. Sometimes it's not about what you'll support. It's about what you'll oppose when it comes to your desk.

ARealConservative · 01-03-08, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

Either Huck used his office for political gain, or he was stupid and commited a lot of scandals that would otherwise, cause him to have political loss. Which is it?

These things are not mutually exclusive.

You can be stupid and dishonest. Prisons are full of 'em.

danarhea · 01-03-08, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARealConservative

These things are not mutually exclusive.

You can be stupid and dishonest. Prisons are full of 'em.

Actually, prisons are missing one of them. He goes by his self-described name of "That commander guy".

TOJ · 01-03-08, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

Actually, prisons are missing one of them. He goes by his self-described name of "That commander guy".

I didn't know wRONg Paul called himself "That commander guy".

Navy Pride · 01-03-08, 10:48 PM

Paul finishes in 5th place with 10% Whoopty do.............

Stick a fork in him.....He is done................

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri...andidates/#302

vauge · 01-03-08, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Stick a fork in him.....He is done................

NP, I will bet you $5 that you cannot say that after Super Tuesday.

RP expected to get 5th but would have liked 3rd or better.

BTW, Clinton only got 3% in Iowa in '92. Dr Paul got 10%.

Its only begun my friend.

the makeout hobo · 01-03-08, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vauge

NP, I will bet you $5 that you cannot say that after Super Tuesday.

RP expected to get 5th but would have liked 3rd or better.

BTW, Clinton only got 3% in Iowa in '92. Dr Paul got 10%.

Its only begun my friend.

Are you completely ignorant about political history, Vague? 1992 was very widely an abberation in primary politics. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa was running as a favorite son candidate in Iowa, so he won 92% of the vote. Iowa was effectively not a contest in 1992. To say that like it has any relevance just makes you look like you're drinking the kool-aid.

There has never been any candidate who has won fourth place, let alone fifth, in Iowa and come to win the nomination. I mean, he couldn't even beat John McCain or Fred Thompson. The only reason he even beat Guiliani is because Guiliani pretty much defaulted. If he can't bump off Thompson or McCain he ain't gonna win.

RightinNYC · 01-03-08, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vauge

NP, I will bet you $5 that you cannot say that after Super Tuesday.

RP expected to get 5th but would have liked 3rd or better.

BTW, Clinton only got 3% in Iowa in '92. Dr Paul got 10%.

Its only begun my friend.

Can you name me three states that RP will win on Super Tuesday?

Navy Pride · 01-03-08, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vauge

NP, I will bet you $5 that you cannot say that after Super Tuesday.

RP expected to get 5th but would have liked 3rd or better.

BTW, Clinton only got 3% in Iowa in '92. Dr Paul got 10%.

Its only begun my friend.

Sorry I don't gamble my friend, as for Clinton we would of never heard of him if it had not been for a guy by the name of Perot taking votes away from Bush 1................