Yay, SC! I'm sure it will go over well here
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Yay, SC! I'm sure it will go over well here

  1. #1

    Yay, SC! I'm sure it will go over well here


  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bonneau & Goose Creek, SC
    Posts
    440
    It's our State and it is all ours...

    He forgot:

    2003 Stratford High Police Raid
    2007 Miss Teen USA South Carolina
    2010 Jack "Raghead" Knotts

    Hold my Beer and watch this.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    What I appreciate best about this whole 1st District race is the fact that for the third or fourth time, Sanford refused to lower himself to dirtbag politics. Every one of his opponents used filthy mouth half truths most of the time and never really told anyone why someone should vote for them. Sanford talked about fiscal conservatism EVEN BACK IN THE 90'S and now look at where this country is. I am a republican but I can tell you straight out that if that hag had been a republican and ran that campaign, I never would have voted for her. We have got the right person in 1st District (he also retains all his 3 term seniority as opposed to a freshman lady with baggage as she sucked off the teat of the pelosi money), and at least one good Senator. Congrats SC--ya got it right.

  5. #4
    Where was his fiscal conservatism when he was using tax payer money to fund his Argentina expeditions? Only reason he paid back some of that money is because he was forced to under the ethics violations. Those ethics violations included using state funds for trips to see campaign donors, using campaign funds for a trip to the Obama inauguration, and buying higher costs tickets than dictated for travel. Seems he's only conservative about funds when they are his. I could care less about the actual affair, but for certain folks to lambaste others over their affairs/personal life and then to do the exact same thing but declare forgiveness is overly hypocritical as well. He is definitely no one I could trust.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester State Forest, SC
    Posts
    373
    Where is the firearm content in this thread?
    "I believe we should achieve a national standard on gun control, and that standard should be none whatsoever."

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by hp-hobo View Post
    Where is the firearm content in this thread?
    where is the firearm content in most threads on this forum? this is part of the "South Carolina Discussion" of the section title.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester State Forest, SC
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by jhodge83 View Post
    where is the firearm content in most threads on this forum? this is part of the "South Carolina Discussion" of the section title.
    You clearly have selective reading ability/comprehension. Note that "South Carolina Discussion" comes AFTER "Firearms Discussion by State". This thread has no place here.
    "I believe we should achieve a national standard on gun control, and that standard should be none whatsoever."

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by hp-hobo View Post
    You clearly have selective reading ability/comprehension. Note that "South Carolina Discussion" comes AFTER "Firearms Discussion by State". This thread has no place here.
    oh well..........

  10. Yay, SC! I'm sure it will go over well here

    Being that it is about an elected official, and one that is directly involved in the passing (or shutting down) of gun legislation, I would consider this thread to be firearms related. Especially considering now that he's sworn in he's got S.308 sitting in front of him now.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester State Forest, SC
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    Being that it is about an elected official, and one that is directly involved in the passing (or shutting down) of gun legislation, I would consider this thread to be firearms related. Especially considering now that he's sworn in he's got S.308 sitting in front of him now.
    Well, your response is so full of fail (as the young folks would say) that I'm not even sure where to begin.

    1. Rep Mark Sanford has assumed Sen Tim Scott's vacated seat. As a Representative, Sanford is elected to the House. All House bills start with the letter H. That being said, S.308 was in fact introduced to the House on 4/24. Of course, on the 25th is was referred to the Judiciary committee which Sanford is not a member of because...

    2. S.308 is a bill before the South Carolina Legislature. Unfortunately for your argument, Mr Sanford is a member of the United States House of Representatives, not the South Carolina House of Representatives. That means that he has essentially zero to do with any bill currently before the Legislature in South Carolina.

    3. Of course there is the possibility that you think Mr Sanford is involved with S.308 at the federal level. This is not the case because S.308 is a Senate bill, not a House bill (see #1). Additionally, even if he was somehow involved with the federal S.308, the title of the bill is "Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act". As the title may (or may not) signal to you this bill is not in any way firearms related.

    So...

    Exactly how is it again that you justify, with facts, that this thread is in some way firearms related? Please be very specific because I can't get there from here.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s308
    "I believe we should achieve a national standard on gun control, and that standard should be none whatsoever."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast