Ross Perot, former presidential candidate, dies at 89 - Page 4 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

General Discussion Anything non-survival related - news and information, current events, general chit-chat stuff.

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-10-2019, 09:19 PM
Ruble Ruble is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,145
Thanks: 3,111
Thanked 7,511 Times in 2,232 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
Yup ... he was a paid "vote splitter." He sold out his supporters. He can shake hands with McCain in the lake of fire.
Perot was a billionaire so i don't think he needed the money, plus he was a patriot.
I really don't know where this paid vote splitter nonsense came from but it probably came from the Bush camp as an excuse for his loss.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ruble For This Useful Post:
Old 07-10-2019, 09:24 PM
Ruble Ruble is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,145
Thanks: 3,111
Thanked 7,511 Times in 2,232 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PalmettoTree View Post
If not for Ross Perot we would not have had Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton would not have had Monica Lewinsky. What a difference one man can make.
Fake news.
Perot being in the election had no effect on Bush losing.
Rush went through the numbers yesterday and Bush would have lost to clinton even if Perot wasn't in the race.
If you want to blame someone for Clinton lay that blame at Bush's feet where it belongs, with the gun banning globalist HW Bush.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Ruble For This Useful Post:
Old 07-10-2019, 09:27 PM
comdot comdot is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,809
Thanks: 2,558
Thanked 27,389 Times in 4,541 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JBryan314 View Post
The system found in the document is a Republic, but that requires a People of intelligence and a People of good moral standing.
Good luck with that, Brad.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to comdot For This Useful Post:
Old 07-11-2019, 03:26 PM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,874
Thanks: 2,372
Thanked 15,992 Times in 6,723 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble View Post
Fake news.
Perot being in the election had no effect on Bush losing.
Rush went through the numbers yesterday and Bush would have lost to clinton even if Perot wasn't in the race.
If you want to blame someone for Clinton lay that blame at Bush's feet where it belongs, with the gun banning globalist HW Bush.
Statistically it is more likely I am correct. Look at any third party candidates during the 20th century. (The one flaw in my analysis is it assumes the candidate with the most votes would have won the electoral college.) Did Rush take time to go through the vote state by state. I doubt it. If you time his program he is only on 20 of every hour. Part of that is promoting something himself. So I doubt Rush went into much detail.

Labeling someone you disagree with as "fake news" just marks you as ignorant.

If Rush went through the numbers and you digested them to the point of understanding then why didn't you post them. The reason is you may be a conservative but you are not one of us conservatives that think.

As I said Bush was unpopular. So we cannot know if ⅔ of Perot's voters stayed home and ⅓ voted for Bush, Bush would have got the most votes. Bush lost to Clinton by 5,805,344 votes. Perot got 19,742,267.

Your objection proves to me you are a coset Clinton supporter. You call Bush a globalist and say that as if Clinton was/is not a globalist. Are you really that shallow?

So you accuse me of "fake news" while the number back me up. You call Bush a globalist implying you support Clinton. Then using the argumentative fallacy of name dropping aka citing the expert (Rush). All classic liberal tactics. You sir are either a liberal or ignorant. Statistically the odds are both.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-11-2019, 05:50 PM
leadcounsel's Avatar
leadcounsel leadcounsel is online now
Comic, not your lawyer!
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,040
Thanks: 23,172
Thanked 30,924 Times in 7,487 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cujet View Post
I voted for him. Had he not throttled his campaign back, (I think) he probably would have pulled off a victory like Trump’s.




Sadly, that is probably the closest to the truth.
Perot got ZERO Electoral Votes btw. Not even close to thinking he might be able to win.
He was only relevant in that he probably took 10-15 million votes from Bush, and cost Bush the election and in turn gave us decades of the Clintons.

Bush was a very good POTUS, oversaw a good economy and won a fast decisive war in Iraq and had no real scandals. Yet was the only 1 term POTUS since Carter (a dud). Perot was clearly the spoiler.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-11-2019, 09:18 PM
JBryan314's Avatar
JBryan314 JBryan314 is offline
Nationalist, Combat Vet
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Florida Panhandle
Age: 33
Posts: 11,632
Thanks: 16,685
Thanked 44,894 Times in 9,403 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by comdot View Post
Good luck with that, Brad.
Yeah. We’ve imported enough low IQ foreigners and allowed them to masquerade as “Americans”, that now we have the intelligence and morals of the rest of the countries of the world that never were and never will be shining cities on hills like the US was a long time ago.

We really should have just stuck with allowing European immigration, and then shut it all down in the 1960’s. Y’all can save your kvetching. You know we’d be better off.
__________________
Read my content at www.FreeAmericanNational.blogspot.com and www.AmericanPartisan.org.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JBryan314 For This Useful Post:
Old 07-11-2019, 09:51 PM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,874
Thanks: 2,372
Thanked 15,992 Times in 6,723 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadcounsel View Post
Perot got ZERO Electoral Votes btw. Not even close to thinking he might be able to win.
He was only relevant in that he probably took 10-15 million votes from Bush, and cost Bush the election and in turn gave us decades of the Clintons.

Bush was a very good POTUS, oversaw a good economy and won a fast decisive war in Iraq and had no real scandals. Yet was the only 1 term POTUS since Carter (a dud). Perot was clearly the spoiler.

I agree. The fact that Perot would do that to the nation just because his feeling were hurt shows he was not only a little man in stature.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-11-2019, 10:05 PM
leadcounsel's Avatar
leadcounsel leadcounsel is online now
Comic, not your lawyer!
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,040
Thanks: 23,172
Thanked 30,924 Times in 7,487 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooked View Post
Some 25% of 1992 Perot voters polled stated that Bush's signoff on tax hikes was the number one reason for voting for Perot. However, polls have shown that Perot took votes from both nearly equally. Bush was a weak candidate who abandoned Reagan era fundamentals once he was in charge. Bush cost republicans the presidency.

Also, Clinton did appeal to conservatives and African americans in higher numbers, while keeping support up among liberals.
Polls are meaningless. The reality is that Perot cost Bush the 92 election. If you study the total votes and percents and such from 1988 and 1992 and 1996, it's clear that in a BINARY race Bush would have thumped Clinton (who didn't even and never would get the popular vote).

1988: Bush got >53% and 426 EC votes and carried 40 states.
Bush wasn't that "worse" of a candidate by 1992. Heck, the economy was good, he decisively won a war, and he had no real scandals. I guess his perceived "lie" on taxes was the big 'sin'? Heck. That's trivial compared to scandals and lies before and after his Presidency.

By 1992, Perot got almost 20 million votes and Bush lost 10 million. Clinton only got 43% popular vote, and only 6 million more than Bush, and yet still won. Clinton barely performed about the same as Ducakus in 1988, (a few million more votes, but a few lower % popular vote). Ducakus lost in a major landslide. By 1992, Bush lost about 10 million votes. It's plain as day that Perot siphoned off easily 10-15 million Bush votes. You're a moron if you think Perot didn't steal the election from Bush and give it to Clinton.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to leadcounsel For This Useful Post:
Old 07-11-2019, 10:48 PM
Ruble Ruble is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,145
Thanks: 3,111
Thanked 7,511 Times in 2,232 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PalmettoTree View Post
Statistically it is more likely I am correct. Look at any third party candidates during the 20th century. (The one flaw in my analysis is it assumes the candidate with the most votes would have won the electoral college.) Did Rush take time to go through the vote state by state. I doubt it. If you time his program he is only on 20 of every hour. Part of that is promoting something himself. So I doubt Rush went into much detail.

Labeling someone you disagree with as "fake news" just marks you as ignorant.

If Rush went through the numbers and you digested them to the point of understanding then why didn't you post them. The reason is you may be a conservative but you are not one of us conservatives that think.

As I said Bush was unpopular. So we cannot know if ⅔ of Perot's voters stayed home and ⅓ voted for Bush, Bush would have got the most votes. Bush lost to Clinton by 5,805,344 votes. Perot got 19,742,267.

Your objection proves to me you are a coset Clinton supporter. You call Bush a globalist and say that as if Clinton was/is not a globalist. Are you really that shallow?

So you accuse me of "fake news" while the number back me up. You call Bush a globalist implying you support Clinton. Then using the argumentative fallacy of name dropping aka citing the expert (Rush). All classic liberal tactics. You sir are either a liberal or ignorant. Statistically the odds are both.
Mathematically you are wrong.

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ruble For This Useful Post:
Old 07-11-2019, 10:59 PM
Ruble Ruble is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,145
Thanks: 3,111
Thanked 7,511 Times in 2,232 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadcounsel View Post
Perot got ZERO Electoral Votes btw. Not even close to thinking he might be able to win.
He was only relevant in that he probably took 10-15 million votes from Bush, and cost Bush the election and in turn gave us decades of the Clintons.

Bush was a very good POTUS, oversaw a good economy and won a fast decisive war in Iraq and had no real scandals. Yet was the only 1 term POTUS since Carter (a dud). Perot was clearly the spoiler.
If Bush would have been a good president he would have won the election. Bush lost because he attacked the second amendment, peddled backwards on his promise to not raise taxes and he went to bat for NAFTA.
Bush cost himself the election.
Bush was also eyebrow deep in the S&L scandal that cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
For those of us that weren't brain dead at the time Perot was the obvious and only choice. We had a chance to save America but the American voters chose to vote for the worst candidates in that election (Bush/Clinton).
In reality it didn't matter who won between Bush and Clinton. Either way we were going to get a gun banning globalist who was bent on destroying middle class American manufacturing jobs.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ruble For This Useful Post:
Old 07-11-2019, 11:54 PM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,874
Thanks: 2,372
Thanked 15,992 Times in 6,723 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble View Post
Mathematically you are wrong.

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm
All subjective rationalization of the numbers. I think others have made the better case that Perot cost Bush the election than I have.

To believe that link you must believe that Perot's supporter were liberals.

Perot was to the Bush/Clinton election what that woman with the goofy hair and foul mouth is to the women's soccer team. All look at me.

Perot was for raising taxes even on Social Security. That was after Bush screw himself with a trusting compromise with Democrats by raising taxes.

So to use the rational of you and your article Perot supporter went form Bush because he already increased taxes to Perot because he promised to raise taxes even more and on Social Security.

Actually I do not care which one of us is right because it cannot be proven about the election Perot was scum.

It seems policy wise you Perot supporters are admitting to being liberal higher than Bush tax supporters.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-12-2019, 05:43 AM
Ruble Ruble is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,145
Thanks: 3,111
Thanked 7,511 Times in 2,232 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PalmettoTree View Post
All subjective rationalization of the numbers. I think others have made the better case that Perot cost Bush the election than I have.

To believe that link you must believe that Perot's supporter were liberals.

Perot was to the Bush/Clinton election what that woman with the goofy hair and foul mouth is to the women's soccer team. All look at me.

Perot was for raising taxes even on Social Security. That was after Bush screw himself with a trusting compromise with Democrats by raising taxes.

So to use the rational of you and your article Perot supporter went form Bush because he already increased taxes to Perot because he promised to raise taxes even more and on Social Security.

Actually I do not care which one of us is right because it cannot be proven about the election Perot was scum.

It seems policy wise you Perot supporters are admitting to being liberal higher than Bush tax supporters.
Lol!!
Did this make sense to you when you wrote it?
Liberals voting for Perot cost Bush the election.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Ruble For This Useful Post:
Old 07-12-2019, 09:10 AM
Fonz Fonz is online now
Paleoconservative
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: USSA
Posts: 813
Thanks: 4,395
Thanked 1,788 Times in 600 Posts
Default

Here is the part that I love about these Perot detractors in this thread: The transformative issues of our times, the economy, the lack of accountability, the size and spending of govt, cultural and moral decline, illegal immigration to privatize profits and socialize costs, off shoring manufacturing and high paying skilled jobs..these issues are the very ones that Trump campaigned on in 2016 and the very same ones that Perot ran on more than TWO DECADES PRIOR.

Thats right, the same issues these Perot detractors claim to love Trump for addressing now..they couldn't stomach voting on 20 years before and now attempt to dress it up as Bush and the party would have tackled those problems and all would be right with the world today. PLEASE. The party? LMAO! Tell me another one. Hell, both of Bush's sons, one of which was president for 8 years, were on the wrong side of just about every single issue mentioned above.

I'm not saying that, if elected, Perot was going to hit it out of the park, but the guy WAS saying what NEEDED to be said back then, and was willing to wade into the muck and face the swamp. Wasnt his fault that not Washington, not Bush, not Clinton, not wallstreet, not even the taxpaying public, including these Perot detractors, wanted to hear it. Good job. The establishment got another 20 plus years to bury you and your children in their BS because you couldnt stop waving your pom-poms for them.

Finally changed your tune and found religion fast once the lie you'd been tellin yourself all those years wasn't getting any mileage even among the other empty headed cheerleaders you drank beer with.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fonz For This Useful Post:
Old 07-12-2019, 09:18 AM
Crackshot's Avatar
Crackshot Crackshot is offline
Joe McCarthy was Right!
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Alabama by choice
Posts: 4,585
Thanks: 7,113
Thanked 8,805 Times in 2,819 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fonz View Post
Here is the part that I love about these Perot detractors in this thread: The transformative issues of our times, the economy, the lack of accountability, the size and spending of govt, cultural and moral decline, illegal immigration to privatize profits and socialize costs, off shoring manufacturing and high paying skilled jobs..these issues are the very ones that Trump campaigned on in 2016 and the very same ones that Perot ran on more than TWO DECADES PRIOR.

Thats right, the same issues these Perot detractors claim to love Trump for addressing now..they couldn't stomach voting on 20 years before and now attempt to dress it up as Bush and the party would have tackled those problems and all would be right with the world today. PLEASE. The party? LMAO! Tell me another one. Hell, both of Bush's sons, one of which was president for 8 years, were on the wrong side of just about every single issue mentioned above.

I'm not saying that, if elected, Perot was going to hit it out of the park, but the guy WAS saying what NEEDED to be said back then, and was willing to wade into the muck and face the swamp. Wasnt his fault that not Washington, not Bush, not Clinton, not wallstreet, not even the taxpaying public, including these Perot detractors, wanted to hear it. Good job. The establishment got another 20 plus years to bury you and your children in their BS because you couldnt stop waving your pom-poms for them.

Finally changed your tune and found religion fast once the lie you'd been tellin yourself all those years wasn't getting any mileage even among the other empty headed cheerleaders you drank beer with.
I think you misunderstand the detractors here. Most of us would have liked him to win and know that he would have won had he not sabotaged his own campaign. I was a staunch supporter of Perot and voted for him, but I also know why he lost. He shot himself in the foot.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-12-2019, 09:24 AM
zooeyhll's Avatar
zooeyhll zooeyhll is offline
The Power of the Glave
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Midwest (rural)
Posts: 1,688
Thanks: 4,914
Thanked 6,181 Times in 1,324 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fonz View Post
Here is the part that I love about these Perot detractors in this thread: The transformative issues of our times, the economy, the lack of accountability, the size and spending of govt, cultural and moral decline, illegal immigration to privatize profits and socialize costs, off shoring manufacturing and high paying skilled jobs..these issues are the very ones that Trump campaigned on in 2016 and the very same ones that Perot ran on more than TWO DECADES PRIOR.

Quick reply to this message
Old 07-12-2019, 09:25 AM
comdot comdot is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,809
Thanks: 2,558
Thanked 27,389 Times in 4,541 Posts
Default

Posters are forgetting that Perot quit the presidential race in mid-July 1992 after claiming the Republican party was going to sabotage his daughter's wedding. October 1, 1992, he reentered the race a month before Election Day and after losing much of his momentum. He came in a dismal third place and didn't win a single electoral vote.

It's difficult to win an election when the candidate quits in the final stretch. But they can still act as a spoiler.

Trivia: Bush considered Texas home and Clinton was from Arkansas. Where was Perot from?

Texarkana, a city on the state line of Texas and Arkansas and located in both states.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to comdot For This Useful Post:
Old 07-12-2019, 10:45 AM
leadcounsel's Avatar
leadcounsel leadcounsel is online now
Comic, not your lawyer!
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,040
Thanks: 23,172
Thanked 30,924 Times in 7,487 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble View Post
If Bush would have been a good president he would have won the election. Bush lost because he attacked the second amendment, peddled backwards on his promise to not raise taxes and he went to bat for NAFTA.
Bush cost himself the election.
Bush was also eyebrow deep in the S&L scandal that cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
For those of us that weren't brain dead at the time Perot was the obvious and only choice. We had a chance to save America but the American voters chose to vote for the worst candidates in that election (Bush/Clinton).
In reality it didn't matter who won between Bush and Clinton. Either way we were going to get a gun banning globalist who was bent on destroying middle class American manufacturing jobs.
Well, once again the idealists were morons and dumb. Voting for a less-than-perfect candidate results in throwing away your vote and voice and gives us the WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE. Eliminating good votes results in only bad votes being counted.

Bush wasn't a bad POTUS. He had a very high approval, and he only lost 6 million votes. Like I said, had it been a binary choice, he'd have won in a landslide like against Dukakus.

Let's not forget Clinton was a draft dodging pot smoker with an already dubious record on maltreatment of women. He won the least by far popular vote over any modern era POTUS with 43%... he was not likable.

Perot gave us the Clintons. Like it or not that's the reality.

Full disclosure, I was dumb and voted for Clinton in my youth.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-12-2019, 10:48 AM
Fonz Fonz is online now
Paleoconservative
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: USSA
Posts: 813
Thanks: 4,395
Thanked 1,788 Times in 600 Posts
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by comdot View Post
Posters are forgetting that Perot quit the presidential race in mid-July 1992 after claiming the Republican party was going to sabotage his daughter's wedding. October 1, 1992, he reentered the race a month before Election Day and after losing much of his momentum. He came in a dismal third place and didn't win a single electoral vote.

It's difficult to win an election when the candidate quits in the final stretch. But they can still act as a spoiler.
Com, I'd agree with you that pulling out of a race then reentering is too much even for people that would otherwise really like to back you. My guess, and its just a guess on my part, is that once he was in the mouth of the machine he realized he did not want to put his family and employees through it. I dont think he minded being exposed to the viciousness of the process himself, just didnt care to have his family put under the glare and scrutiny.

To me, the spoiler for Bush narrative is just sour grapes for pure partisans that had a weak and vulnerable candidate. Even if Bush had eeked into a 2nd term, Clinton was still going to be a tough fight for whomever came next.

Rather, I see Perot as trying to poke and prod an apathetic public into paying attention to some very large looming issues that he could foresee were going to beat the voting public about the head on. Which of course, 2 decades later, here we are, really getting our heads kicked due to feckless inaction on the part of voters and DC.

Perhaps Perot thought if he poked and dumbed it down enough with pie charts and sobering forecasts for the voting public he could motivate them to start insisting on action and pouring pressure on the party establishment. I doubt seriously that he thought the democrat party could be redeemed but he may have, back then, held out hope to move the needle towards something resembling sense and principle within the republican party if some pressure from outside were applied.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-12-2019, 10:53 AM
Fonz Fonz is online now
Paleoconservative
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: USSA
Posts: 813
Thanks: 4,395
Thanked 1,788 Times in 600 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crackshot View Post
I think you misunderstand the detractors here. Most of us would have liked him to win and know that he would have won had he not sabotaged his own campaign. I was a staunch supporter of Perot and voted for him, but I also know why he lost. He shot himself in the foot.
Sorry, but no. See post #77 for proof.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-12-2019, 11:00 AM
leadcounsel's Avatar
leadcounsel leadcounsel is online now
Comic, not your lawyer!
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,040
Thanks: 23,172
Thanked 30,924 Times in 7,487 Posts
Default

People claiming Bush was a weak candidate, or unpopular, etc. don't remember history very well.

Bush had a 61% approval rating!
No President in decades has maintained such a high rating. Obama maybe briefly touched it early in his term.

Bush had the 3rd highest Presidential approval rating according to Gallup since WWII. (And Kennedy was probably a sympathetic anomaly given his assassination and the "dynasty" etc. We won't know how good or bad his Presidency might have been). And the highest approval in my lifetime. Some by a double digit difference.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/116677/...cs-trends.aspx

In the relevant modern era, he was the only 1 term POTUS even with approval ratings higher than other 2 term Presidents like Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Bush Jr....

The ONLY explanation is Perot. Bush lost 6 million votes from 1988 to 1992. Clinton got more votes than Dukakus, but that accounts for a general increase in voting population. Perot got 19 million votes. Bush went backwards 6 million, which is unusual. So it's fair to say that the 6 million he lost, and probably another 5+ million he should have gained, were due to Perot. So at least 10+ million of those were Bush's and would have given Bush a re-election.

Harry Truman April 1945-January 1953 45.4
Dwight Eisenhower January 1953-January 1961 65.0
John Kennedy January 1961-November 1963 70.1
Lyndon Johnson November 1963-January 1969 55.1
Richard Nixon January 1969-August 1974 49.0
Gerald Ford August 1974-January 1977 47.2
Jimmy Carter January 1977-January 1981 45.5
Ronald Reagan January 1981-January 1989 52.8
George H.W. Bush January 1989-January 1993 60.9
Bill Clinton January 1993-January 2001 55.1
George W. Bush January 2001-January 2009 49.4
Barack Obama January 2009-January 2017 47.9
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net