Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I dont have to deny it, you already quoted it and have proven I never said it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
I can answer your question.
Jon Huntsman stays away from rhetoric.
He does not call people names just because they disagree with him politically. He does not claim Democrats are "trying" to ruin this country nor does he pretend that his own party is always right.
All that, and he seems to actually have a plan, something Mitt Romney and others could never really articulate.
Also Democrats are not anti-gun or Pro-tax ,we just believe that you should have the right to live your life without fear of being shot. And for taxes, we simply believe in spending responsibly. You can not cut taxes, spend more and assume more revenue will be created ,because when that happens, you get 8 years of deficits instead of 8 years of surpluses.
from 2002 to 2009( THE Bush Budgets), Revenue only met expectations 2 times.
simple not acting like an @.$.$. goes along way. Im just giving you an honest opinion.
Again for your comment to even make sense, the comment you are quoting would have had to be about Huntsman's views.
And I would also have to think that Jon Huntsman holds the exact same view on guns as someone like Ted Cruz .(which i dont)
My comment said neither. So you are wrong unless you want to sit here and tell me that you believe that i believe all Republicans hold the same views on guns.
Which would also mean you believed all Republicans held the same views on guns.
Again for your comment to even make sense, the comment you are quoting would have had to be about Huntsman's views.
And I would also have to think that Jon Huntsman holds the exact same view on guns as someone like Ted Cruz .(which i dont)
My comment said neither. So you are wrong unless you want to sit here and tell me that you believe that i believe all Republicans hold the same views on guns.
Which would also mean you believed all Republicans held the same views on guns.
You're a real one track thinker, aren't you?
Let's recap:
I stated that you'd "support" Huntsman until the day he declared. At which time you'd find a reason not to. I peculated on reasons why you wouldn't using examples of your statements. I editorialized about one of those reasons.
You've spent a day denying you said what I editorialized on.
I stated that you'd "support" Huntsman until the day he declared. At which time you'd find a reason not to. I peculated on reasons why you wouldn't using examples of your statements. I editorialized about one of those reasons.
You've spent a day denying you said what I editorialized on.
Umm, one of the "examples" you used was that i wouldnt vote for him because of the color of his tie > It is obvious i never said that or that his gun views matched that of the far right, there for you are admitting you lied.
Umm, one of the "examples" you used was that i wouldnt vote for him because of the color of his tie > It is obvious i never said that or that his gun views matched that of the far right, there for you are admitting you lied.
thats fine with me.
There you go accusing me of lying. And let's face it, you don't like being called out as the lying bag of flesh you are.
Your post proves that you don't know what speculate means. I speculated on some stupid reasons why you wouldn't vote for someone once they became a declared candidate all the while declaring your "open mindedness".
As several people DMed me, you just don't get it. And as I said, single track thought process.
There you go accusing me of lying. And let's face it, you don't like being called out as the lying bag of flesh you are.
Your post proves that you don't know what speculate means. I speculated on some stupid reasons why you wouldn't vote for someone once they became a declared candidate all the while declaring your "open mindedness".
As several people DMed me, you just don't get it. And as I said, single track thought process.
Actually, the word you used was "peculated", which led me to not have a clue as to what you were talking about sense peculated is an actual word.
Also, if you are doing nothing but speculating, and not claiming to be showing facts, then how can i be shown to be a lying bag of flesh... i mean, unless you can read minds, you dont know if im lying or not.
I also never claimed to be open minded. I am a Liberal Democrat and i dont pretend to be conservative or Republican, or believe in their values. I simply realize that there are people on the other side who have ideas that i would agree with. Those people usually have good ideas based on personal governing experience and not just ideology like Jon Huntsman as opposed to say Rand Paul.
And LOL at people DM'ing you as if that matters. Do you really want to start a "what people said about you in private messages" debate ?
The point of this little spat is simple. You claimed i said Huntsman held views that would lead to people getting shot. In reality I never said such a thing. You took me explaining why "anti gun" does not describe democrats to mean all Republicans hold the same view which is moronic.
it is as simple as that, yet you have been able to drag this out for 3 days, not even sure why you seem not to get that you are wrong.
OH and by the way, the word editorialized means you put forth an opinion, something that is not fact. im guessing you missed that when you tried to use big words that you had no idea of what they meant.
Here's a challenge for the conservatives. Name one liberal politician you'd vote for. And likewise, for the liberals, name a conservative you'd vote for. Please don't bother responding if your answer is NO ONE!!!!
I'll go first. I'm a liberal, but I'd probably vote for Chris Christie. I appreciate his blunt pragmatism, and I find it refreshing that a politician isn't afraid to speak his mind.
I might be able to vote for Paul Rand if he sticks to libertarian views for same sex marriage, reducing international defense footprint, reducing immigration to this country and enforcing borders and cutting entitlement programs.
While I am not registered with either party I tend to lean more on the conservative/libertarian side I would probably vote for Ron Wyden. This is one of the few who is standing up for civil liberties and unnecessary search warrants and warrant less wiretaps. We need to stop the madness about this who war on terror. But the military industrial complex will never let that happen. Scary that our government knows everything we do on the internet. I was talking to some coworkers about this who NSA backup database in Salt Lake and jokily said if I ever have my computer crash I should just call them up and ask them for term papers back and other important documents back since I really need them.
I wouldn't vote for any on the other side. The reason being is that a person can only stray so much nowadays. As such even with the most liberal Republican or Conservative Democrat they are going to be on their party's team 70%+ of the time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
