Who do you support for U.S. House in ...
Question from 2010

Booneville, KY

#581 May 20, 2012
Anyone else find it odd that people are still on a post from 2010?
Sue

Georgetown, KY

#582 May 20, 2012
What is wrong, don't you like the truth?
Sue

Georgetown, KY

#583 May 20, 2012
I think it is so funny that no Repbulican ever, ever refer to Lincoln, Eisenhower, or Reagen. The three would have all been right in the lap of the Democratic party. Lincoln was thought of as a strong Radical. Ike and Reagan both taxed the rich. Oh, they still had their loopholes, but they taxed them.
Contributor

Pikeville, KY

#584 May 20, 2012
Question from 2010 wrote:
Anyone else find it odd that people are still on a post from 2010?
past time for some digging bones ?
Contributor

Pikeville, KY

#585 May 20, 2012
Sue wrote:
I think it is so funny that no Repbulican ever, ever refer to Lincoln, Eisenhower, or Reagen. The three would have all been right in the lap of the Democratic party. Lincoln was thought of as a strong Radical. Ike and Reagan both taxed the rich. Oh, they still had their loopholes, but they taxed them.
"Sue,Sue " how do you dew my fair lady !..
The Pretend Pagan Temple

Somerset, KY

#586 May 20, 2012
Sue wrote:
<quoted text>I am sorry, I left one out. The true Constitution, the original, plainly stated that African Americans were only 2/5 of a human being. I bet that is another one that you hated. You need to study a bit more before you put up stupid sh?? on here. Or is that another amenedment that you would do away with?
You're obviously too stupid to know the Republican Party didn't even exist when the Constitution was written and signed.

By the way, do you really want to know why blacks were counted as 2/5 human? That was the non-slave states that insisted on that. The slave states wanted slaves counted as fully human. Take a guess why. Not that it matters now, but it was a way the non-slave states had of limiting the number of Representatives in the US House to represent the slave states. In other words, counting blacks as 2/5 human was an artifice, a way the non-slave states had of limiting the power and influence of slave states in the House of Representatives.

Naturally you didn't know that and probably don't care now, because you're too busy swallowing just another typical bit of Democrat propaganda and lie. But there are plenty of us that know the truth and are willing to speak it. The bad news for your kind is, more and more people are opening their eyes to Democrat filth and less and less people are being fooled by it.
The Pretend Pagan Temple

Somerset, KY

#587 May 20, 2012
Sue wrote:
I think it is so funny that no Repbulican ever, ever refer to Lincoln, Eisenhower, or Reagen. The three would have all been right in the lap of the Democratic party. Lincoln was thought of as a strong Radical. Ike and Reagan both taxed the rich. Oh, they still had their loopholes, but they taxed them.
Yeah we refer to Reagan a lot. For example, we laugh our asses off when Barak Obama claims to be like him, and actually tries to convince people he's like him. I hate to break it to you, but Reagan despised communists, and he would despise the little two bit hustler in the White House now for sure.

“They terk urrr jerbs”

Since: Feb 12

hillbilly hell( the hollers)

#588 May 20, 2012
Question from 2010 wrote:
Anyone else find it odd that people are still on a post from 2010?
Well these people seem to like commenting on threads from 2010, just look at the hindman topix forum..them threads never end
carter

United States

#589 May 20, 2012
Jimmy carter
yo

United States

#590 May 27, 2012
No one
John Q Adams

Georgetown, KY

#591 May 28, 2012
The Pretend Pagan Temple wrote:
<quoted text>
You're obviously too stupid to know the Republican Party didn't even exist when the Constitution was written and signed.
By the way, do you really want to know why blacks were counted as 2/5 human? That was the non-slave states that insisted on that. The slave states wanted slaves counted as fully human. Take a guess why. Not that it matters now, but it was a way the non-slave states had of limiting the number of Representatives in the US House to represent the slave states. In other words, counting blacks as 2/5 human was an artifice, a way the non-slave states had of limiting the power and influence of slave states in the House of Representatives.
Naturally you didn't know that and probably don't care now, because you're too busy swallowing just another typical bit of Democrat propaganda and lie. But there are plenty of us that know the truth and are willing to speak it. The bad news for your kind is, more and more people are opening their eyes to Democrat filth and less and less people are being fooled by it.
The Stupidity will be obvious as more and more people read this. Certiain beliefs can stand with or without a party. Though not officially organized prior to Lincolns Nomination in 1860, the Republican party had its beliefs some good and some bad just as they are now. And though we all know why the 2/5 was used on paper, they would have known then as we know now that just for calcualtions, this 2/5 number was humiliating and undemocratic, and certainly not the only way to have solved the problem. Anyway, everybody knows the story about the Constitution. The Delegates were getting tired. They were hot and ready to leave. A few things were rushed. So think what you want, but our GREAT Constitution had its flaws and thank God we can amend it.
snickers

United States

#592 May 29, 2012
Mmmmm
wtf

Richmond, KY

#594 Jun 1, 2012
CaptainofCrunch wrote:
<quoted text>
Redundant, WRONG!
Republicans often mention these Icons of the Republican Party...
Taxes aren't the problem IT'S THE OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING!
They take from the American tax payer and use like this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295501...
http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-lifts-free...
A million here...a billion there...pretty soon it adds up to REAL MONEY!
Dumb SOB!
Chief Sitinfullofit

Pikeville, KY

#595 Jun 1, 2012
John Q Adams wrote:
<quoted text>The Stupidity will be obvious as more and more people read this. Certiain beliefs can stand with or without a party. Though not officially organized prior to Lincolns Nomination in 1860, the Republican party had its beliefs some good and some bad just as they are now. And though we all know why the 2/5 was used on paper, they would have known then as we know now that just for calcualtions, this 2/5 number was humiliating and undemocratic, and certainly not the only way to have solved the problem. Anyway, everybody knows the story about the Constitution. The Delegates were getting tired. They were hot and ready to leave. A few things were rushed. So think what you want, but our GREAT Constitution had its flaws and thank God we can amend it.
The only thing I know of being rushed 2/5 and flawed plus humiliating full of shIt 2/5 is the liberals ?
wtf

Richmond, KY

#597 Jun 2, 2012
CaptainofCrunch wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey wtf try this, it may take a few tries, don't give up!
keep at till it works!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =vZp_q_7IExAXX&feature=g-v rec
Try an education sh-thead.
......

Bolivar, MO

#598 Jun 4, 2012
Mmmmm
Sue

Georgetown, KY

#599 Jun 4, 2012
The Pretend Pagan Temple wrote:
<quoted text>
You're obviously too stupid to know the Republican Party didn't even exist when the Constitution was written and signed.
By the way, do you really want to know why blacks were counted as 2/5 human? That was the non-slave states that insisted on that. The slave states wanted slaves counted as fully human. Take a guess why. Not that it matters now, but it was a way the non-slave states had of limiting the number of Representatives in the US House to represent the slave states. In other words, counting blacks as 2/5 human was an artifice, a way the non-slave states had of limiting the power and influence of slave states in the House of Representatives.
Naturally you didn't know that and probably don't care now, because you're too busy swallowing just another typical bit of Democrat propaganda and lie. But there are plenty of us that know the truth and are willing to speak it. The bad news for your kind is, more and more people are opening their eyes to Democrat filth and less and less people are being fooled by it.
Okay genius, go back up there and tell everyone where I ever mentioned that the Republican party existed when the Constitution was written. You are the pathetic one with no education. I feel that you must be a ten year old, so I will not waste my time with you anymore. Get an education. Oh yea, it matters little the logic for the 2/5 of a person. The original signers agreed, so they were guilty.
ghss

Hyden, KY

#602 Jul 13, 2012
no
culture vulture

Russell Springs, KY

#603 Jul 14, 2012
The Pretend Pagan Temple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah we refer to Reagan a lot. For example, we laugh our asses off when Barak Obama claims to be like him, and actually tries to convince people he's like him. I hate to break it to you, but Reagan despised communists, and he would despise the little two bit hustler in the White House now for sure.
Ronald Reagan, the slayer of the 'Evil Empire', might have been ruined before his political career began had his attempt to join the American Communist Party succeeded. He was rejected because the Communists thought him too dim. It emerged in a 1999 authorised biography that he had tried to join in 1938 when starting out as a young actor in Hollywood. He was 27 at the time. Some of his closest friends were members. One, scriptwriter Howard Fast, revealed that he had felt 'passionate ' about it. He felt if it were 'right for them, it was right for him'. But the Party refused him.'They thought he was a feather-brain.....a flake who couldn't be trusted with a political opinion for more than 20 minutes'. As the anti-Communist purges and blacklisting in Hollywood in the 40s and 50s destroyed many careers, Reagans flourished as an actor, then as President of theScreen Actors Guild, the actors union. If only the Communists had thought more highly of him, he might never have been allowed to be their nemesis half a century later. This from a book'Napoleon's Hemorrhoids And Other Events That Changed History' by Phil Mason. And before the usual accusations, etc. come forth, I actually voted for him the first time. If he truly hated Communists, this might put a more personal light on it.
Patriot

Paintsville, KY

#604 Jul 14, 2012
Phil Mason's book was a very interesting read - enlightened me

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hazard Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 8 min ChromiuMan 156,583
cheese 10 min BOLOGNA 7
Sucks at work 44 min Big Harry 9
Hey magistrates 45 min Vote no 124
Ky Regional Animal Shelter (Jul '13) 48 min Idiots 39
laiken kilburn 1 hr Tyrone Shoelaces ... 5
Ace Chaney's building 1 hr Denny 13

Hazard Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hazard Mortgages