Think before you vote

[Zen900]

In my state of SC our Govenor signed into law two pro gun bills designed to help law abiding gun owners. The most important of the two bills is the one that prevents the state from second guessing victims who use guns in their car, home or business for self defense. No longer will the law abiding victim who was forced to shoot a criminal attacker be subject to civil litigation after the fact.

We also got rid of the one gun purchase a month rule a year ago.

See what happens when you vote Republican? We have Republican controlled House, Senate and Governorship. This is a clear and profound change in our state government from the old Democrat controlled government we had for a century. Think before you vote anti-gun next election. Vote for pro-gun Republicans. I have seen the change with my own eyes.
I had the pleasure of casting my vote for Republican Govenor Mark Sandford today in the primaries here today. He won the party nomination again.

[Boogyman]

Yeah, think about this before you vote for another corrupt Republican based on just one issue...

Lies, statistics and Sanford math: deciphering recent budget claims

The State - South Carolina (http://www.topix.net/redir/loc=off-hosted-page/http=3A=2F=2Fwww.thestate.com)
June 13, 2006
LAST YEAR, Suzie made $20,000, and her mom gave her another $2,000.
This year, Suzie will again earn $20,000, and her dad is giving her $2,000.
That means Suzie's income this year is:
A. Unchanged from last year, at $20,000, because you should only count her salary.
B. Unchanged from last year, at $22,000, because it's all income, no matter where it comes from.
C. Up 10 percent, from $20,000 to $22,000, because you shouldn't count the check from Mom, but you should count Dad's check.
If you're like most people, you picked 'A' or 'B,' or you're trying to decide between 'A' and 'B.'
If you're like Gov. Mark Sanford (http://www.topix.net/state/sc-gov), you quickly chose 'C.'
That's the methodology Mr. Sanford used to produce his claim that lawmakers increased spending in next year's state budget by 13 percent: Count all of the spending in next year's budget, but leave out comparable spending from this year.
The phony spending figure was the centerpiece of efforts to unseat Republican representatives who opposed this year's voucher plan. As his veto deadline was at midnight, I didn't know when I wrote this whether the governor would follow through with his implied threats to slash $600 million from the budget to meet his arbitrary cap, but that inflated spending figure was at the heart of his Legislature-bashing tour of the past week. Whatever he gives them, the House will take it up today.
Even if you believe that state spending increases should be capped at the rate of inflation and population growth, surely you want to calculate the increase using accurate numbers, instead of numbers that have been monkeyed with for political purposes.
What are the actual numbers?
Well, it depends on whether you chose 'A' or 'B' in my word problem. Or whether you decided to go with yet another option - 'D' - which adds in the cash value of Suzie's scholarship, which can only be used to pay her college tuition. Unlike 'C,' all of those are legitimate answers.
Take a deep breath. I'm going to try to explain how these options work in the actual budget.
Answer 'A' in the Suzie example compares what's called the 'base budget' from this year to the one proposed for next year. The base pays for programs the state commits itself to funding year in and year out: schools, the Highway Patrol, prisons. The Legislature increased that part of the budget from $5.6 billion to $6.1 billion - 8.7 percent.
Answer 'B' adds in 'supplemental' spending, paid for with money that was collected in previous fiscal years but not spent because it was more than economists had predicted. It goes mostly to one-time expenditures such as renovating museums and college classrooms, buying new computers, funding local festivals. When you compare this year's base plus supplemental to next year's base plus supplemental, spending goes from $5.9 billion to $6.5 billion - an increase of 9.7 percent or 9.9 percent, depending on how you calculate it.
There's some wiggle room here because the supplemental includes items that everybody agrees shouldn't be included in the comparison (trust fund repayments, for example) as well as items that some people include and others leave out (reimbursements for tax cuts, for example).
Answer 'D' includes lottery (http://www.topix.net/news/lottery) and EIA funds, as well as the base and supplemental. When you add those in, the budget grows from $6.8 billion to $7.4 billion - 9.1 percent.
Finally, Mr. Sanford's 13 percent growth (Answer 'C') comes from ignoring this year's supplemental and comparing this year's base budget to next year's base and supplemental budgets.
All of the legitimate methods of comparing this year's spending to next year's get you an increase of 9 percent or 10 percent.
The difference between those numbers and 13 percent doesn't sound like a big deal, but it's huge: Thirteen percent is 30 percent higher than 10 percent, and 44 percent higher than 9 percent.
Let's say you buy the governor's argument that spending shouldn't increase more than 5.5 percent. Using legitimate numbers would mean the Legislature overshot his cap by $300 million instead of the $600 million he's been suggesting. (For the record, I don't support the cap. The Legislature does need to make sure it doesn't increase its recurring spending too quickly, but there's nothing dangerous or irresponsible about spending the money our current low taxes bring in to widen highways or buy new school buses or take care of other important, neglected one-time needs.)
Mr. Sanford acknowledges that he compared this year's base budget to next year's base and supplemental budgets to arrive at 13 percent growth. And in fact, a spreadsheet his office sent me after our conversation included a small note next to the 13 percent calculation that said, 'When factoring in supplementals from last year, growth drops to around 10.8%.' But Mr. Sanford's sticking with 13 percent.
He insists that it's a fair comparison because he used the same method to calculate how much spending increased in his version of the budget.
Uh. Right.
So I guess that finally proves it: The Legislature wants to spend more than the governor does.
Didn't we already know that? And wouldn't we know it if he compared apples to apples?
It's as though Mr. Sanford put on a pair of rose-colored glasses, went outside and declared that the sky was purple and the sun was green. The addition of red has given him a consistently warped view of the sky and the sun - but it's still warped.
Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.
Copyright © 2006 The State - South Carolina, All Rights Reserved.

Oh, he's pro-gun Republican, and that's all that matters, huh?

http://www.topix.net/content/kri/1021844870190913378808507616142139391465

[Tailgunner]

Geeeze your a broken record.

[Boogyman]

Ha! Thanks for noticing! :lol:

[josh]

It is great that your state officials are doing a little bit of what the people want but we have had a Republican controlled congress and executive branch for a while now. I dont see anything good coming out of them.:angry:

[Boogyman]

Zen, I highly doubt you'll even read the article I posted. It doesn't matter because you're gonna vote straight republican no matter what anyway. I've read enough of your party-line rhetoric to know that your politics are set in stone. Like a couple others that post on here, there's nothing I or anyone else can do or say that will open your mind.

But you are using this forum as a campaign ad, spouting the so-called "virtues" of voting your way, and for your particular candidate. It's one thing to debate politics and issues as we do, but for you to get on here and try to tell people how to vote or who to vote for is shameful and cheap, in my opinion.

If this becomes a trend, then the forums will soon be glutted with this crap, election posters everywhere saying "Vote for this A-hole!" or "Re-elect Jack A$$!".

[DaveyDug]

Zen900, both those pieces of legislation are unnecessary and repetetive. The second amendment states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Any gun law that infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional and illegal. However, like most Republicans and Democrats, Sanford is still playing the same old game. Now if he'd stood up and said "we don't need these laws-we already have the second amendment and people can buy, keep, and carry any guns in any manner they see fit", I'd give him some credit. Until then, he's just another brick in the wall, so to speak.

[josh]

Zen900, both those pieces of legislation are unnecessary and repetetive. The second amendment states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Any gun law that infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional and illegal. However, like most Republicans and Democrats, Sanford is still playing the same old game. Now if he'd stood up and said "we don't need these laws-we already have the second amendment and people can buy, keep, and carry any guns in any manner they see fit", I'd give him some credit. Until then, he's just another brick in the wall, so to speak.

Absolutely correct.

[JimS]

The difference between those numbers and 13 percent doesn't sound like a big deal, but it's huge: Thirteen percent is 30 percent higher than 10 percent, and 44 percent higher than 9 percent.


Your Source's math does not look correct either. Why is he claiming a 30% and 44% difference - it is only 3% and 4%, respectively when taking it back to actual numbers and not extrapolating using percentages. Wrong way to do the math. Look at it this way 10% (of $100) = 10 dollars; 13% (of $100) = 13 dollars that is a 3% increase on a $100 base not 30%. I certainly would not think I had gotten a 30% raise if my paycheck only went up 3 dollars for every 100 dollars made. To get the 30% raise one would need another 30 dollars for every 100 dollars made. I do not think the Governor should set arbitrary values either. However, all the legislature has to do is override the veto (checks and balances). System in this case working as it should. It does not say - but it is possible that the Legislatures budget is 13% over that the Governor proposed (depends on how the executive branch actually presented it).

[JimS]

Zen900, both those pieces of legislation are unnecessary and repetetive. The second amendment states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Any gun law that infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional and illegal. However, like most Republicans and Democrats, Sanford is still playing the same old game. Now if he'd stood up and said "we don't need these laws-we already have the second amendment and people can buy, keep, and carry any guns in any manner they see fit", I'd give him some credit. Until then, he's just another brick in the wall, so to speak.

Except, there were laws on the SC books that violate the "Second Amendment" but were still allowed to exist. So you either have to correct it legislatively or someone has to bring a lawsuit and get it heard by the right court (sometimes to the U.S. Supreme Court) to get the law declared in violation of the Constitution. The a group will simply rewrite the law with a little different language and it starts all over. In this case, having legislative and executive branch support allowed the original laws to be overturn. Also, the Second Amendment may imply, but it does not explicitly provide protections against civil lawsuits if one uses a gun to protect themselves (not even in ones own home). In this case the legislative route is likely the best.

[DaveyDug]

someone has to bring a lawsuit and get it heard by the right court (sometimes to the U.S. Supreme Court) to get the law declared in violation of the Constitution.

Exactly. But our Supreme Court has repeatedly shown its refusal to try a 2nd amendment case. God forbid it's proven that the right to keep and bear arms is indeed an individual right as expressed in the Constitution, therefore making all existing gun laws obsolete. Our tyrannical leaders just can't have that. So they keep it out of the SCOTUS-the only real means of taking back our stolen rights.

My point is that it's the Democrats and Republicans who won't allow such a case to ascend too high. This guy is not doing us any favors, he's just basically maintaining the status quo. This "one step at a time" process is just never going to get us far. We need radical change in order to recover our rights. This is something that the Republicrats will never offer us.

[Zen900]

I think it is fair to make these two general statements about dems and reps. Republicans are the party against abortion and Democrats are anti-gun. Nevermind the anecdotals please. I'm not talking about individual politicians and their beliefs but rather I'm talking about broad sweeping party platform tendencies that find their way into the laws we have to live by.

[Zipper]

:blink: Would have loved to join this thread, but I have no idea whats what and Im not going to make a ....hole of myself, but rest asured, I will read every post, maybe I learn something.

[DaveyDug]

That's ok, Zipper. You could probably carry on a conversation about American politics better than many americans. Sad but very much the truth.

[Boogyman]

I think it is fair to make these two general statements about dems and reps. Republicans are the party against abortion and Democrats are anti-gun. Nevermind the anecdotals please. I'm not talking about individual politicians and their beliefs but rather I'm talking about broad sweeping party platform tendencies that find their way into the laws we have to live by.

Then why the title "Think Before You Vote"? Obviously you automatically vote republican without thinking about anything. If abortion and gun control are the only two issues you care about, then no need for you to think. How convenient.

You said "I'm not talking about individual politicians" yet your thread starter is all about Mark Sanford. Which is it?

[Zydeco76]

Republicans simply lie to a different demogragh. I will agree that fewer of them are anti gun than dems but at what price? Niether party is willing to defend our common border. Both parties are as corrupt as the other.

[DaveyDug]

Zen900, here's a little list I was shown of what some of your Republican presidents have done over the years.

1927 - Calvin Coolidge bans mail ordering concealable weapons (in our case, pistols). Before this you could order pistols from a Sears catalog and have them delivered to your door without a local FFL or background check or anything like that.

1972 - Richard Nixon creates the BATF to regulate firearms and enforce firearms laws. We're all still feeling cheery about that great creation of his.</sarcasm> It takes a criminal to create an agency like the BATF(E).

1986 - Ronald Reagan signs FOPA into law, which is a mixed bag for gun owners. The major fallout of FOPA for us is that no new Class III firearms can be registered so the pool of available Class III firearms shrinks dramatically as demand grows. This is the reason a semi-auto AK is about $300 but a full auto costs many thousands of $$$. All for an extra 50 cents worth of parts with a very very valuable legal status. Reagan is also responsible for banning armor piercing bullets, popularly called "Cop Killers" at the time.

1989-1990 - Bush the Elder, after wooing the NRA for its support, establishes the assault weapons import ban. First by executive order, later by legislation. This legislation has no sunset and is not likely to ever be repealed. This is why it is so legally problematic to modify your SKS in any way. It's also why a lot of import weapons that should be dirt cheap, like AK's (which by rights should be around the same price range NEW as a C&R SKS is) cost so damned much $$$. Shortly after leaving office, Bush the Elder taunted the NRA and ripped up his lifetime membership card in a disgusting public display of disloyalty to his greatest supporters.

Bush the Dumber (GWB) - Promised to sign a renewal of the 1994 AWB if it came to his desk, both as a campaign promise, and later repeated firmly when the issue was being debated in congress. Too many gun owners forgive him for this. Saying you will sign it is just as bad as signing it. GWB also banned importation of Norinco weapons, which is part of why you're not going to see any inexpensive new Norinco 1911's, M14 clones, SKS-D/M's, etc. Under GWB's watch, the BATFE has implemented stricter regulations effectively banning importation of a number of assault weapon parts, most noteably the barrels.

John McCain - OK not a president but one of the most influential men in the Senate, has been fighting tooth and nail to end private sales of firearms without forcing the seller to do a NICS check on the buyer. I believe he will get this before long. He has run for president before and is making all the maneuvers in preparation for an '08 run.

Yep, lets keep voting for those Republicans. They've done a bang up job protecting our 2nd amendment rights. Not.

[Zen900]

Zen900, here's a little list I was shown of what some of your Republican presidents have done over the years.

1927 - Calvin Coolidge bans mail ordering concealable weapons (in our case, pistols). Before this you could order pistols from a Sears catalog and have them delivered to your door without a local FFL or background check or anything like that.

1972 - Richard Nixon creates the BATF to regulate firearms and enforce firearms laws. We're all still feeling cheery about that great creation of his.</sarcasm> It takes a criminal to create an agency like the BATF(E).

1986 - Ronald Reagan signs FOPA into law, which is a mixed bag for gun owners. The major fallout of FOPA for us is that no new Class III firearms can be registered so the pool of available Class III firearms shrinks dramatically as demand grows. This is the reason a semi-auto AK is about $300 but a full auto costs many thousands of $$$. All for an extra 50 cents worth of parts with a very very valuable legal status. Reagan is also responsible for banning armor piercing bullets, popularly called "Cop Killers" at the time.

1989-1990 - Bush the Elder, after wooing the NRA for its support, establishes the assault weapons import ban. First by executive order, later by legislation. This legislation has no sunset and is not likely to ever be repealed. This is why it is so legally problematic to modify your SKS in any way. It's also why a lot of import weapons that should be dirt cheap, like AK's (which by rights should be around the same price range NEW as a C&R SKS is) cost so damned much $$$. Shortly after leaving office, Bush the Elder taunted the NRA and ripped up his lifetime membership card in a disgusting public display of disloyalty to his greatest supporters.

Bush the Dumber (GWB) - Promised to sign a renewal of the 1994 AWB if it came to his desk, both as a campaign promise, and later repeated firmly when the issue was being debated in congress. Too many gun owners forgive him for this. Saying you will sign it is just as bad as signing it. GWB also banned importation of Norinco weapons, which is part of why you're not going to see any inexpensive new Norinco 1911's, M14 clones, SKS-D/M's, etc. Under GWB's watch, the BATFE has implemented stricter regulations effectively banning importation of a number of assault weapon parts, most noteably the barrels.

John McCain - OK not a president but one of the most influential men in the Senate, has been fighting tooth and nail to end private sales of firearms without forcing the seller to do a NICS check on the buyer. I believe he will get this before long. He has run for president before and is making all the maneuvers in preparation for an '08 run.

Yep, lets keep voting for those Republicans. They've done a bang up job protecting our 2nd amendment rights. Not.

Let's just say each rep you just mentioned was fairly deemed anti-gun. You still are being anecdotal by discussing individuals. I can show you many many reps that are pro-abortion but the rep party is clearly anti-abortion as a whole just as the Democratic party is anti-gun as a whole. These are two profound and obvious differences between the two parties. But if being anecdotal is how you justify your descisions in your mind then so be it. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

[Boogyman]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.



Zen how ironic you choose this phrase, it describes you perfectly!

Davey, all the evidence and reason in the world will NOT make one single dent in this guy. As I said, Zen's opinion is set in stone. He has everything down to a simplistic and narrow outlook, and he's not gonna let any messy 'ol facts or logic upset his orderly little black & white world.

No matter what you say he'll find some weak or shallow way to dismiss or discount it. "Oh, that doesn't count because it's 'anecdotal!'"

Now that's "fairly deemed"! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[JimS]

:blink: Would have loved to join this thread, but I have no idea whats what and Im not going to make a ....hole of myself, but rest asured, I will read every post, maybe I learn something.

Zipper

The way tempers run around here when someone challenges someone else's political viewpoint - it is probably safer to just sit on the side lines. I probably should have myself. The arguments never end.:)

[Boogyman]

it is probably safer to just sit on the side lines.

I probably should have myself.



But ya just can't help yerself, aye Jim? :lol:

Hey, at least you can't get hurt. It's not like somebody's gonna reach their hands through the screen and strangle you! :lol:

A battle of words and wits and it never ends and admit it you love it! ;)

[JimS]

But ya just can't help yerself, aye Jim? :lol:

Hey, at least you can't get hurt. It's not like somebody's gonna reach their hands through the screen and strangle you! :lol:

A battle of words and wits and it never ends and admit it you love it! ;)

Boogyman

Yes, I like arguing politics. My Dad's best friend (like a second Dad to me) have been arguing these same points over the years. We have great respect for each other and enjoy the debate. Over the years, I learned that he made some excellent points and even learned I was wrong (and admitted) it a few times. I like to think he had the same revelation a few times.

Anyway, I am addict. Any chance there is a Political Debate Addicts support group I could join.

Take care
JimS.:)

[DaveyDug]

But if being anecdotal is how you justify your descisions in your mind then so be it.

5 out of the last 8 Republican presidents display blatant anti-gun behavior and I'm being anecdotal? You really think that's a good ratio? I don't understand why people don't see this. Hmmm... I guess you can lead a horse to water but you just can't make him drink.:wacko:

[Zen900]

5 out of the last 8 Republican presidents display blatant anti-gun behavior and I'm being anecdotal? :wacko:

Yep. You're being not only anecdotal but you're using a debate tactic called obfuscation. The democratic party is anti-gun. Democrats are anti-hunting too. They openly deny the second amendment allows citizens to own guns. They claim that amendment is only referring to allowing the state militia to have guns.

Bill Clinton said the Democrats stance on guns cost them 7 seats in the House in the 1994 election where the Republicans took over the majority. Why do you think Clinton said that?

[Boogyman]

If you drag a dead horse to water you can't make it drink no matter how much you beat it.

[DaveyDug]

Bill Clinton said the Democrats stance on guns cost them 7 seats in the House in the 1994 election where the Republicans took over the majority. Why do you think Clinton said that?

Because people like you have blinders on and don't realize that Republicans are no better than Democrats.

When a democrat attempts to pass an anti-gun piece of legislation, Republicans jump up and down and beat their chests to sway voters to their agenda. Show me a list of recent Democratic presidents and their anti-gun actions. I'll bet it's no longer than the list I provided. Actions speak louder than words, my friend. Republicans may say over and over that they are against gun control, but in actuality, they are pushing for more gun control. I'm tired of being told one thing, and having the opposite thing done. If you want to place your trust in a party that has consistantly lied to you, go right ahead. I choose not to be fooled anymore.

GWB pushed me over the edge. I voted for him, believing he was truly a conservative, and would view the constitution conservatively, not interpret it liberally. And what did he do once he got into office? Almost every action he's taken has been in an attempt to increase the size and power of the federal government through his skewed interpretation of our founding document.

Sorry, I don't trust what a Republican tells me any more. Yes, I know there are some good Republicans out there who have a true love for liberty, an ability to read and understand the Constitution, and respect for the wishes of the people. But you will never see one of them get the nomination for the presidency, or any other position of real power at the federal level. The mainstream Republican party no longer stands for what it used to. I'm done with them.

[DaveyDug]

Oh, and for the record, I'm not disagreeing with you on the point of the majority of the Democrats being anti-gun. They are. What I'm saying is that I no longer choose to vote for a party that will even consider attempting to restrict any of my rights. I take great offense at anybody that has the gall to think that they know what's best for me.

[josh]

I guess in Zen's mind it is ok to be antigun to a certain degree. the dems want them banned and confiscated now. The republicans want to slowly but surely regulate them out of existence.

[Zipper]

Zen900

Pardon me for this one, but I could not resist. Remember that during a previous post you called me a caveman based purely on the fact that Im from Africa? Think back, I think you will recall it. Something about your statement have bothered me ever since and last night I realised what it was, it is your nick name that's been bothering me.

Tell me, the 900 after the Zen, is that your weight in Kg's or your IQ multiplied by 100, or is a combination of the two?

Oh, by the way, I did not take the Caveman thing personally, I for sure know my origins, so, no hard feelings pal. If you can dish it out, you must be able to take it as well.

[Boogyman]

He hee!

What gets me most about Zen900's choice of nicknames is the fact that he's taken it from a book entitled; "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence" written by an extremely liberal philosopher named Robert Pirsig. The book is about the quest for the true meaning of the word "quality" and the subsequent mental breakdown of the narrator upon discovery that his revelations have been described in "The Tibetan Book of the Dead" centuries before.

It suprises me that such an un-zen-like person with such steadfast conservative views and unwillingness to consider alternative ways of thinking would choose this particular book to identify with.

Maybe you got it right, Zipper! :lol:

[Holliday]

He hee!

What gets me most about Zen900's choice of nicknames is the fact that he's taken it from a book entitled; "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence" written by an extremely liberal philosopher named Robert Pirsig. The book is about the quest for the true meaning of the word "quality" and the subsequent mental breakdown of the narrator upon discovery that his revelations have been described in "The Tibetan Book of the Dead" centuries before.

It suprises me that such an un-zen-like person with such steadfast conservative views and unwillingness to consider alternative ways of thinking would choose this particular book to identify with.

Maybe you got it right, Zipper! :lol:

so, with your ass backwards logic, do you affiliate with child predators because your name is boogeyman?:lol:

[Boogyman]

so, with your ass backwards logic, do you affiliate with child predators because your name is boogeyman?:lol:

1. It's Boogyman, no "E" there, open your eyes.

2. The name comes from being stealthy in the woods.

3. I highly resent your affiliating me with "child predators", A-hole! Go f*ck yourself! If you said that to my face I'd b*tch-slap you, punk! :angry: :angry: :angry:

[Holliday]

1. It's Boogyman, no "E" there, open your eyes.

2. The name comes from being stealthy in the woods.

3. I highly resent your affiliating me with "child predators", A-hole! Go f*ck yourself! If you said that to my face I'd b*tch-slap you, punk! :angry: :angry: :angry:

:lol: im sure you would.

hmmm from where i come from a boogyman or boogeyman is a man or monster that preys on little children. kidnaps them for not doing there chores and so on. If i remember right you DID in fact track down goeths aliases on other forums to some how smear him here at the PU. that sounds like a child predator to me.

One that victimizes, plunders, or destroys, especially for one's own gain.

[Boogyman]

:lol: im sure you would.

hmmm from where i come from a boogyman or boogeyman is a man or monster that preys on little children. kidnaps them for not doing there chores and so on. If i remember right you DID in fact track down goeths aliases on other forums to some how smear him here at the PU. that sounds like a child predator to me.

One that victimizes, plunders, or destroys, especially for one's own gain.

"Track down"? Click on Goeth's name. See where it say's "visit Goeth27's homepage"? It takes all of about 2 minutes to find what I posted about Goeth. If it was such a secret, why would he stick it out there for public view?

You have just resorted to way more of a personal attack and insult by calling me a "child predator" than anything I ever posted about Goeth. You are a low-life slimeball for making these comments and I hope the hell you get banned for them, since you seem to be proud of yourself.

[Holliday]

"Track down"? Click on Goeth's name. See where it say's "visit Goeth27's homepage"? It takes all of about 2 minutes to find what I posted about Goeth. If it was such a secret, why would he stick it out there for public view?

You have just resorted to way more of a personal attack and insult by calling me a "child predator" than anything I ever posted about Goeth. You are a low-life slimeball for making these comments and I hope the hell you get banned for them, since you seem to be proud of yourself.

You should have been banned long ago. You have single handedly pushed people away from this board with your internet bully tactics. giving people crap for how they look, what kind of hunting they do, hobbies they are into and there opinions. You want to personaly attack anyone you disagrees with you and when someone push's back you get all butt hurt.

[Boogyman]

You should have been banned long ago. You have single handedly pushed people away from this board with your internet bully tactics. giving people crap for how they look, what kind of hunting they do, hobbies they are into and there opinions. You want to personaly attack anyone you disagrees with you and when someone push's back you get all butt hurt.

I never called anyone a "child predator". You have. And you jumped in here for no other reason than to attack me.

Your posts have been reported. It's up to Bill and the moderators now. We'll see what happens.

[Holliday]

Oh lets not forget. Goeths homepage is...google.com.

[Vincent Black]

Ok. You both have been given 50% warnings. Holliday for insinuating that Boogyman is a "child predator" and Boogyman for retaliating when he should have simply reported the post and let us go from there. Boogyman, if you had something to say back, then you should have said it in a PM.

I really don't know what part of "Keep it friendly" you guys can't understand...

-Vincent

[Vincent Black]

Sorry for the DP, but I can't seem to edit my post, anyways :

This still stays closed till Bill decides if anything further needs to be done.

-Vincent

[Bill]

Yup, closed is right.

Boogy-

Go back and read Holliday's post. He's posting up a negative in order to show you what he thinks is the error of your logic.

He asked IF you associate with child predators JUST BECAUSE your name is "boogyman". That's not accusing you of doing that, it's saying "See, you aren't a child predator even though your name is boogyman".

Everyone involved: Play nice or you won't be invited back for play day.