While Dr. Paul certainly owns the vote of yours truly it probably isn’t too likely he will become president. Such pessimistic on my part is probably only accepting reality. All-too-many Ron Paul supporters were completely convinced he would win the last election. Let us not fall into the same emotional trap twice.
The most important aspect of his 2008 campaign run for president as well as the next, should the latter become an eventuality, is to provide individuals with the education necessary to overcome the thorough misinformation that has been drilled into ones head sense childhood. This, combined with a readily available alternative educational tool, the internet, should only further a liberty-based movement. Whether or not he actually wins during the next election cycle is, to a certain extent, not as important as the intellectual impact he provides listeners. This has been his stated goal since his first election to office.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
<<< You WILL GET OBAMA AGAIN IF YOU DO NOT PUT A TRUE CONSERVATIVE ON THE GOP TICKET. >>>
V[/quote]
I could not agree with this more and I defy you to call my conservative credentials into question, but it is just plain creepy how some of you guys put the fate of this nation on the shoulders of Ron Paul. It isn’t even fair to him. The time to stop this assault on freedom was 50 years ago. No man or movement will turn this ship back now. It will take a transformation in the citizenry, not in DC.[/quote]
He probably wouldn’t, at least in terms of presidential candidates, place so much emphasis upon Congressman Paul if their were more viable liberty candidates running for office. Unfortunately, a vote for any of the other known and current candidates will simply be a reaffirmation of the status-quo and continued decline. From my perspective and in terms of electoral politics, it is probably more important to begin by concentrating on elections at the local then state level as opposed to national since the latter is so and obviously completely corrupt.
I’m with V - any vote for a typical GOP nominee is another vote for the republicans saying “keep doing what you’re doing” when that is exactly what we don’t want. They can preach all day and all night about how they learned their lesson. At this point they need to prove it over a long period of time before they get tea party votes.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I’m with V - any vote for a typical GOP nominee is another vote for the republicans saying “keep doing what you’re doing” when that is exactly what we don’t want. They can preach all day and all night about how they learned their lesson. At this point they need to prove it over a long period of time before they get tea party votes.[/quote]
Therefore, you paulie’s will reward obama to “send a message.”
I don’t like anybody in the running at the moment, for president that is, but we’re a long way off. I do know that we are teetering on the brink of a no return plunge into soft tyranny and 4 more years of Oabama and company is absolutely not an option. After that it wouldn’t matter what happens.
I’m right with you. Gingrich has also been very involved with the Tea Party.
I just hope the John S/Vegita types don’t vote for obama in protest. I hope they realize that a Gingrich vote is a major repudiation of leftist policies.
I don’t want to get my hopes up. But, I just think Gingrich is head and shoulders above the current candidates in both ability/experience.
It’s the baggage I’m not sure he can overcome.
It does make me smile to imagine him debating obama.
Wow.
JeffR
[/quote]
Ok but Jeff and Trib, What if they don’t nominate out of the GOP barn, a Gingrich? What if Romney is the one the GOP throws thier weight behind? Are you guys still going to just hold your nose and vote for ANY republican even one who is a strong supporter of government (albeit state not federal) run healthcare? I don’t think a Romney or any other typical GOP insider is going to put the brakes on fast enough or hard enough to stop us from going off the cliff.
SO, my only option personally and I think there are many like me, is to say it’s all or nothing right now. AND the only way we CAN get someone in power is if the GOP nominates a true small government conservative. If they do this, The GOP will CRUSH the dems, I have no doubt about it. I don’t care if it’s Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Andrew Napolitano, etc… But it cannot be someone from the GOP who has voted time and time again for bigger governemnt with a republican flavor to it.
I would rather fly off the cliff with my hands off the steering wheel both arms extended out the open top of my convertable with a dual middle finger salute, than to pretend like some half measure republican who will just lie in his campaign to get elected and then do nothing to shrink government is going to save the day. It’s just not going to happen. fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can’t get fooled again.
V[/quote]
Vegita:
Romney has some good qualities. He’s so much better than obama it’s hard to imagine.
I think it’s sad that democrats win by default with you paulie’s. You are rewarding their corruption.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
A bad day on my part that you, by a statement having equivalent meaning, accuse me of being a liar immediately after, in the same post, claiming you weren’t doing so?[/quote]
Bill I never called you a liar, not once. However, if two people have a different recollection of an event why is it incumbent on one to take the others story as being true?
In this case I’ve told you multiple times why I feel that I’m correct. You dispute this, are you therefore calling me a liar?
How does this make any sense?
8 people? Wow, well then you must be right.
CPAC? I think Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck have addressed that group. Do you consider either of them serious Presidential threats, or are they off the radar screen in that department? One has nothing to do with the other.
A former radio, TV and film actor gave radio addresses? What does this mean again?
That was not the argument was it? The argument was that he was not a serious candidate 2 1/2 years out, and he wasn’t. I listed the candidates who were, I won’t bother to do it again here. Reagans name was not on the list. If you think that you recollect better than me on a certain point, you might be right. But, you cannot recollect better than the reporters and pollsters of the day who recorded who the front runners were and those who were not even on the list.
And this pretty much echo’s what I told you about our state conservative party chair who was mad at the states republican chair for not even considering Reagan. Yes, people new him, obviously. But, after the Ford incident and two other items; age and being too conservative, he was not considered a serious threat.
[quote]
But that’s not the main point: it was entirely out of line for you to have asserted “we both know you weren’t old enough” (paraphrase) to in fact know what I said I knew from personal experience.[/quote]
If you’re going to recall, recall the entire episode. After I gave you a very brief summary of my experience and recollection you stated something like the following: “I was around back then too…”
I had wondered what that meant as I guessed that you were not old enough to remember much from 1977. Was I wrong? You’ve still not stated your age or how old you were back then. If that is the incident we can clear it up right now.
I see, you’re going to claim that me calling you on the age issue is in fact calling you a liar. Well, we can clear this up right now can’t we? If you were old enough to have a clear recollection of 1977 then please tell me your age. If I was wrong then I will apologize, as I certainly did not mean to offend you, by pointing to something that I assumed was obvious. But if you are wrong I think you owe me an apology for this nonsensical emotional tirade.
So, how old are you? Let’s clear it up right now.
I was correct in my original statement. Being the darling of the conservative movement did not thrust Reagan into the spotlight and certainly not as early as 1977. There are people who are currently darlings of the conservative movement today does that place them anywhere near the top people in the 2012 Presidential race? Nope. In fact, they are not even on the radar screen as Presidential hopefuls.
Well, Bill all you have to do at this point is tell me how old you are and if I judged your age wrong then I will apologize. If not then I was correct in my original assertion. Very simple to clear up if you’d like.
I accept your apology and in fact am sorry that we even traversed this course as it’s just about as silly a debate as I’ve been in on this forum, and I’ve been in some pretty frivolous ones. I’d much rather go back and forth with liberals who truly don’t know their ass from first base, not you.
I’m right with you. Gingrich has also been very involved with the Tea Party.
I just hope the John S/Vegita types don’t vote for obama in protest. I hope they realize that a Gingrich vote is a major repudiation of leftist policies.
I don’t want to get my hopes up. But, I just think Gingrich is head and shoulders above the current candidates in both ability/experience.
It’s the baggage I’m not sure he can overcome.
It does make me smile to imagine him debating obama.
Wow.
JeffR
[/quote]
Ok but Jeff and Trib, What if they don’t nominate out of the GOP barn, a Gingrich? What if Romney is the one the GOP throws thier weight behind? Are you guys still going to just hold your nose and vote for ANY republican even one who is a strong supporter of government (albeit state not federal) run healthcare? I don’t think a Romney or any other typical GOP insider is going to put the brakes on fast enough or hard enough to stop us from going off the cliff.
SO, my only option personally and I think there are many like me, is to say it’s all or nothing right now. AND the only way we CAN get someone in power is if the GOP nominates a true small government conservative. If they do this, The GOP will CRUSH the dems, I have no doubt about it. I don’t care if it’s Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Andrew Napolitano, etc… But it cannot be someone from the GOP who has voted time and time again for bigger governemnt with a republican flavor to it.
I would rather fly off the cliff with my hands off the steering wheel both arms extended out the open top of my convertable with a dual middle finger salute, than to pretend like some half measure republican who will just lie in his campaign to get elected and then do nothing to shrink government is going to save the day. It’s just not going to happen. fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can’t get fooled again.
V[/quote]
Vegita:
Romney has some good qualities. He’s so much better than obama it’s hard to imagine.
I think it’s sad that democrats win by default with you paulie’s. You are rewarding their corruption.
JeffR
[/quote]
Give them time Jeff. I don’t think Ron Paul wants to be the next Ross Perot. I think when push comes to shove if he does not win out the Republican nomination he will put his backing with whomever the Republican party nominates. I think he will push that person to make the correct changes. I really hope for Change in the Republican party. The status quo is not an option.
Give them time Jeff. I don’t think Ron Paul wants to be the next Ross Perot. I think when push comes to shove if he does not win out the Republican nomination he will put his backing with whomever the Republican party nominates. I think he will push that person to make the correct changes. I really hope for Change in the Republican party. The status quo is not an option.[/quote]
I hear you. However, obama has been so painful, that I’d like to do everything I can to prevent 2008 from happening again.
That includes encouraging the paulies to take a hard look at their priorities.
I agree with you that the Republicans needed a course correction. However, that’s a long way from saying, “If my guy doesn’t get in, I’ll vote for obama.”
I meant that I was apologizing to any reader of the forum who was offended by the language used.
Your continued attitude that supposedly I need to provide you my age, else you presume I am lying regarding my observations of the time, shows no change in yourself on this matter. I would again use precisely the same sorts of phrases to you for your making such unwarranted and insulting insinuations.
As it happens, there have been complaints about this exchange. I suppose I do not really care for people who falsely call me a liar – or make completely equivalent statements – and continue sticking with it, so as a character trait I suppose it’s inevitable I will respond as I have here should I continue dealing with those who do such.
As it happens, you’re the only person on the T-Mag forums ever to impugn my truthfulness, but I suppose it could happen again.
As it may not reflect well on the company having a person associated with it tell a person straight out what they are for calling him a liar or making completely equivalent statements as you did, the simplest solution and that which will be followed is that I simply will not post further on PWI.
This is not simply from complaints generated from this exchange: some are offended by a person seen as a representative of the company presenting political views that they despise. I probably have been unwise in speaking plainly and clearly here, as for example I have done in the present matter.
Finis.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
A bad day on my part that you, by a statement having equivalent meaning, accuse me of being a liar immediately after, in the same post, claiming you weren’t doing so?[/quote]
Bill I never called you a liar, not once. However, if two people have a different recollection of an event why is it incumbent on one to take the others story as being true?
In this case I’ve told you multiple times why I feel that I’m correct. You dispute this, are you therefore calling me a liar?
How does this make any sense?
8 people? Wow, well then you must be right.
CPAC? I think Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck have addressed that group. Do you consider either of them serious Presidential threats, or are they off the radar screen in that department? One has nothing to do with the other.
A former radio, TV and film actor gave radio addresses? What does this mean again?
That was not the argument was it? The argument was that he was not a serious candidate 2 1/2 years out, and he wasn’t. I listed the candidates who were, I won’t bother to do it again here. Reagans name was not on the list. If you think that you recollect better than me on a certain point, you might be right. But, you cannot recollect better than the reporters and pollsters of the day who recorded who the front runners were and those who were not even on the list.
And this pretty much echo’s what I told you about our state conservative party chair who was mad at the states republican chair for not even considering Reagan. Yes, people new him, obviously. But, after the Ford incident and two other items; age and being too conservative, he was not considered a serious threat.
[quote]
But that’s not the main point: it was entirely out of line for you to have asserted “we both know you weren’t old enough” (paraphrase) to in fact know what I said I knew from personal experience.[/quote]
If you’re going to recall, recall the entire episode. After I gave you a very brief summary of my experience and recollection you stated something like the following: “I was around back then too…”
I had wondered what that meant as I guessed that you were not old enough to remember much from 1977. Was I wrong? You’ve still not stated your age or how old you were back then. If that is the incident we can clear it up right now.
I see, you’re going to claim that me calling you on the age issue is in fact calling you a liar. Well, we can clear this up right now can’t we? If you were old enough to have a clear recollection of 1977 then please tell me your age. If I was wrong then I will apologize, as I certainly did not mean to offend you, by pointing to something that I assumed was obvious. But if you are wrong I think you owe me an apology for this nonsensical emotional tirade.
So, how old are you? Let’s clear it up right now.
I was correct in my original statement. Being the darling of the conservative movement did not thrust Reagan into the spotlight and certainly not as early as 1977. There are people who are currently darlings of the conservative movement today does that place them anywhere near the top people in the 2012 Presidential race? Nope. In fact, they are not even on the radar screen as Presidential hopefuls.
Well, Bill all you have to do at this point is tell me how old you are and if I judged your age wrong then I will apologize. If not then I was correct in my original assertion. Very simple to clear up if you’d like.
I accept your apology and in fact am sorry that we even traversed this course as it’s just about as silly a debate as I’ve been in on this forum, and I’ve been in some pretty frivolous ones. I’d much rather go back and forth with liberals who truly don’t know their ass from first base, not you.[/quote]
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
As it may not reflect well on the company having a person associated with it tell a person straight out what they are for calling him a liar or making completely equivalent statements as you did, the simplest solution and that which will be followed is that I simply will not post further on PWI.
This is not simply from complaints generated from this exchange: some are offended by a person seen as a representative of the company presenting political views that they despise. I probably have been unwise in speaking plainly and clearly here, as for example I have done in the matter of your repeated insinuations, which you still continue.
[/quote]
Well, that would be a loss for everyone - perhaps especially for those who find your views abhorrent. And anyone who generalizes about a person from things said during an angry exchange has his head up his proverbial ass.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
<<< This is not simply from complaints generated from this exchange: some are offended by a person seen as a representative of the company presenting political views that they despise. I probably have been unwise in speaking plainly and clearly here, as for example I have done in the present matter.
Finis.[/quote]
Are you saying that some whining lefties are preventing you from speaking your mind here? What if there were no complaints? If this is a business decision where the honchos are afraid that some people might quit spending their money in retaliation then I disagree, but as least understand. If this is you then I urge you to reconsider. You’re a smart guy, you can find ways to defend yourself without “overdoing” it.
Actually, I’ve been advised for some time that it is a poor business practice for me to post here. I desisted from posting here – either that or I desisted on the subject – in the months immediately prior to the 2008 election for that reason, that people’s emotions were high. After that I thought what I was doing with regard to posting was likely productive anyway even though some will dislike my views – for any view, there’s always people who will dislike it.
My nature is such that I work well, or I think so anyway, with using my own judgment on matters, but not so well with having a given set of constraints that differ from my judgment.
No such set of constraints has ever been placed on me by Biotest.
My point is that if I had to self-censor to make sure that given posts wouldn’t have anyone unhappy, I wouldn’t work well with that situation. It just wouldn’t work. I’m not suited to it. That isn’t necessarily a good thing, and also not necessarily a bad thing.
However, given what moderators have said combined with past occasions brings me to the conclusion that applying my own judgment with regard to posting on political matters is unwise business. That would not have to be true for all persons in the same situation: for example someone who was naturally a very mellow, middle-of-the-political-road type. But I don’t quite fit that categorization.
It is true that with regard to use of language I could avoid that – though frankly in the same situation, I’d say the same thing again – but really the issue is that quite unfairly Biotest can wind up being painted, even if not consciously but at a subliminal level, by people’s reactions to what I write, regardless that what I have to say on such things is in no way endorsed or necessarily believed by others at Biotest. Still, the coloring can occur. I really should have been more judicious in the past in this regard.
This current matter isn’t the cause, but let’s say it was the straw that revealed the camel shouldn’t have to carry the burden in question.
Thank you for your kind words! I will of course continue posting on the other forums.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Actually, I’ve been advised for some time that it is a poor business practice for me to post here. I desisted from posting here – either that or I desisted on the subject – in the months immediately prior to the 2008 election for that reason, that people’s emotions were high. After that I thought what I was doing with regard to posting was likely productive anyway even though some will dislike my views – for any view, there’s always people who will dislike it.
My nature is such that I work well, or I think so anyway, with using my own judgment on matters, but not so well with having a given set of constraints that differ from my judgment.
No such set of constraints has ever been placed on me by Biotest.
My point is that if I had to self-censor to make sure that given posts wouldn’t have anyone unhappy, I wouldn’t work well with that situation. It just wouldn’t work. I’m not suited to it. That isn’t necessarily a good thing, and also not necessarily a bad thing.
However, given what moderators have said combined with past occasions brings me to the conclusion that applying my own judgment with regard to posting on political matters is unwise business. That would not have to be true for all persons in the same situation: for example someone who was naturally a very mellow, middle-of-the-political-road type. But I don’t quite fit that categorization.
It is true that with regard to use of language I could avoid that – though frankly in the same situation, I’d say the same thing again – but really the issue is that quite unfairly Biotest can wind up being painted, even if not consciously but at a subliminal level, by people’s reactions to what I write, regardless that what I have to say on such things is in no way endorsed or necessarily believed by others at Biotest. Still, the coloring can occur. I really should have been more judicious in the past in this regard.
This current matter isn’t the cause, but let’s say it was the straw that revealed the camel shouldn’t have to carry the burden in question.
Thank you for your kind words! I will of course continue posting on the other forums.[/quote]
For what it’s worth, I respect your right to post here irrespective of your positions.
Your continued attitude that supposedly I need to provide you my age, else you presume I am lying regarding my observations of the time, shows no change in yourself on this matter. [/quote]
Bill, there doesn’t need to be a change from me, it needs to come from you. You are the one who made the claim that you were “around back then too” during the 1977 period. I questioned that because I didn’t feel that you were old enough to be cognizant of political events of 1977. I only questioned this because I’ve seen your photo before on T Nation and you just don’t look old enough to have been politically aware in 1977. I stand by my claim.
In just about every case where I’ve been privy to such an argument the person being called out as a liar (which you say I did to you) is more than happy to pony up the evidence which immediately refutes such an allegation. I’ve invited you to do so on a couple of occasions. In fact, I don’t need any evidence, your word will do just fine. I don’t think for a second you made this claim as a point of deception and I was willing to forget about the entire matter up to the time that you flew into a rage that is. But, since you’ve made such a fuss about it I’ve asked your age in order to back up your claim. You have so far refused to give it. Instead, you’ve chosen to launch one rant after another. Your latest threat about not posting in the political forum any longer is simply an extension of your feigned indignation regarding my doubt about your age.
Step up and give your age because the more you protest the more I believe that I was correct in calling you on it. Up to this point I think I’ve been pretty civil especially given your recent theatrics.
Bill, unlike you I have been around the block and I’ve seen this act before and it’s actually pretty old.
Zeb, this is most assuredly the last time I will reply to you, or this thread:
I’m astonished that you don’t see that it is insulting to presume that a person is lying and to state that you so presume (or equivalent statement.)
I didn’t provide you with age because I don’t have to. If you had common courtesy you would have assumed that I was speaking truthfully with regard to my account that many people at the time were telling me as I said they did.
You are in fact wrong in assuming I wasn’t old enough. You are even more seriously, far more seriously, wrong in your attitude and behavior in CONTINUING to post your implications that I’m not telling the truth.
If you looked at my profile to see my pic, you’d know I’m 47, though more precisely only a few days short of 48. I was working as a computer programmer from age 15 (also going to school then, on school days, but in the office when not and on most evenings) and for example in the summer of '78, at 16, was working full-time. But I was also there often prior to then, and as the owner’s son perhaps people took more interest in me than they would the average kid, or perhaps I seemed sharper than the average kid – I don’t know.
A person might assume – if he is the type that assumes others are liars – that a 16 year old would not discuss politics with adults or wouldn’t have adults to talk with about it, or wouldn’t be able to comprehend, but I did. Of the 8 I mentioned, five were in that office. Three others were family of friends.
I most certainly, precisely as I stated, had the opportunity and ability to know how these people viewed the situation. If eight people whose opinion I knew well had this view of Reagan at that time period, then clearly he wasn’t off the radar, or “not even a blip” as you claimed. Chance wouldn’t allow it to be very common to find a given thing in a small group when it is virtually unknown – “not even a blip” – generally.
Besides that, Reagan was doing much at the time to keep himself in the spotlight. You were simply wrong in claiming he was “not even a blip on the radar” at the time with regard to Presidential politics. But you don’t have the class to admit you overstated, but instead accuse me of lying.
I don’t write the above account to justify myself to you, but only to demonstrate that you were being precisely as I said you were in your continued unwarranted insinuations that I was lying. And I certainly don’t write it because you demanded it (if I had that concern, I would have given it previously.)
Your final post above leaves me with the same sentiment regarding what you can do as what I expressed before. You show that you remain the same type of person. I did not come to the wrong conclusion regarding you.
Your execrable actions are merely the trigger: the great weight of the cause is as described above. But yes, you can congratulate yourself for your behavior, that with repeated insinuations of lying you provoked me sufficiently to have complaints generated from my responses, resulting in the overall situation being reappraised.
If you looked at my profile to see my pic, you’d know I’m a few days short of 48. I was working as a computer programmer from age 15 (also going to school then, on school days, but in the office when not and on most evenings) and for example in the summer of '78, at 16, was working full-time. But I was also there often prior to then, and as the owner’s son perhaps people took more interest in me than they would the average kid[/quote]
Bill,
First of all I am a man of my word and therefore I apologize for questioning your age during the period of 1977. I must say however you are very well preserved for a 48 year old, something to be proud of.
The fact that you insisted (and probably still do) that Reagan was a main player in the period of 1977 was what made me suspicious as I know this not to be the case. However, you are a long time trusted poster and I should have taken you for your word regardless of the finite debating point which we were tossing back and forth.
Unfortunately, the Internet is rife with those who make wild accusations and never back them up. When in Internet mode I occasionally assume that my opponent is doing such and I’m usually correct, however I certainly should have known better with you.
I have posted here for many years and about a couple of years ago I took a very long break. I did this for many reasons, I’m thinking now that I should not have come back.
Please accept my apology and do stick around to educate those lefties on the error of their ways, it is not you that should leave.
However I have represented to the company already that I will be taking the advice previously given to not post in the Politics forum, and my own thinking is that that past-given advice was correct advice and I should have taken it before, for the above-explained reason.
Namely, it’s inevitable – just the way psychology works – that some people will have their views of Biotest subconsciously colored by what persons they see as being representatives of Biotest write.
Not just my replies on this thread upset people, but probably an on ongoing basis my writings, because of opinions expressed, gave people bad feelings. I certainly hope that these didn’t subconsciously transfer to a changed view of Biotest, but realistically that could have happened.
I really haven’t exercised the best judgment in having decided to freely post political opinions while also being viewed as a company representative.
Also, given your above post, it is probably fair to say that if I had handled things differently you might have written something like the above much sooner. If so, and I think it is so, then I escalated things, which was wrong. Stubbornness, I suppose.
Apology accepted, and I in turn apologize for how I handled things which probably did escalate them.
Ultimately, although it may seem like a bad thing, actually from the business perspective it winds up being for the better, I think, that any given event drove the reconsideration involved.
There’s a good reason why one doesn’t see representatives of other companies, or for that matter other people associated with Biotest, doing as I’ve done on the forum here. Namely because it’s stupid
As for any thought that you shouldn’t have come back: I’m genuinely sorry if I have caused you to feel that. I do have to say that never at any time prior to this thread did I ever see anything that was untoward in any way in your posts. And you are right that there are people that make up claims on the Internet.
Please don’t take the fact that I didn’t choose to back myself up with details on that, but instead only objected to the assumption, and thus an escalation resulted as being a sign that your contribution isn’t positive. It is, and with regard to anything you did or said the disagreement on this was merely a momentary tempest in a teapot and not indicative of anything, as proven by your above post.
Give them time Jeff. I don’t think Ron Paul wants to be the next Ross Perot. I think when push comes to shove if he does not win out the Republican nomination he will put his backing with whomever the Republican party nominates. I think he will push that person to make the correct changes. I really hope for Change in the Republican party. The status quo is not an option.[/quote]
I hear you. However, obama has been so painful, that I’d like to do everything I can to prevent 2008 from happening again.
That includes encouraging the paulies to take a hard look at their priorities.
I agree with you that the Republicans needed a course correction. However, that’s a long way from saying, “If my guy doesn’t get in, I’ll vote for obama.”
That kind of thinking leads to 2008-2012.
JeffR
[/quote]
I wouldn’t vote for Obama in a million years, but I’d be willing to waste my vote on a 3rd party if the GOP sends up some typical GOP schmuck.
