[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/ron_paul_rejects_evolution.php [/quote]
Well, he is Christian. I don’t think he’s saying the Earth is 6000 years old, however.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
We annoy AQ. They kill Bhutto. Our fault. No wonder lixy likes this guy. [/quote]
Unfortunately, Bhutto blamed our policy too.
She would tell him, she replies, that propping up Musharraf’s government, which is infested with radical Islamists, is only hastening disaster. “I would say, Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country. I now think al-Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years.”
http://www.parade.com/benazir_bhutto_interview.html
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
We annoy AQ. They kill Bhutto. Our fault. No wonder lixy likes this guy.
Unfortunately, Bhutto blamed our policy too.
She would tell him, she replies, that propping up Musharraf�??s government, which is infested with radical Islamists, is only hastening disaster. �??I would say, �??Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country.�?? I now think al-Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years."
http://www.parade.com/benazir_bhutto_interview.html [/quote]
She talks out of both sides of her mouth. The US was working to return her to some power in Pakistan. The US pushed Musharraf to step down from the head of the army.
This was just a cheap shot at Musharraf.
You’ll all have to excuse me if I don’t believe Romney, Rudy, or Huckabee will even approach the needed reductions in spending.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You may be interested in the Politics of the Desirable, but I am interested in the Politics of the Possible - and if you truly want libertarianism to take hold in American politics, support for Ron Paul is setting you back years, as a practical matter.[/quote]
Once again, Thunder, your argument only addresses why Ron Paul is the wrong man for the job, without offering an opinion as to who the right man might be.
Presuming for a moment that I am also interested in the Politics of the Possible, whom do you suggest I support instead of Paul, in order to realize my goal of libertarianism taking hold in American politics?
Mikeyali mentioned Thompson, but I have been underwhelmed.
So… if not Ron, then who?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Well, I can’t speak for all the old farts out there who support Ron Paul (although there are a lot, many of them, at least those in my acquaintance, retired or active-duty military), but here is what my old pal Bill Bonner has to say about the matter.
You may remember that Bill is the author of “The Meaning of America,” which I dust off and post from time to time. Not surprisingly, I agree with Bill. Again.
What I Think
Our old friend, Ron Paul, candidate for the Republican Party nomination for President, makes the news from time to time. He’s proving that you can use the Internet to rally followers…to inform people…and to raise money. Bravo…and smooth sailing!
“We’re going to send Ron some money,” we announced to daughter Sophia last night.
“Why would you want to do that, Dad? You’re just wasting your money. Ron Paul is fine. I like him. Or, at least most of what I’ve heard about him. But he can’t win. What’s the point?”
“Winning is over-rated,” we replied. "You know what Gen. Washington said during the Revolution. ‘We can’t guarantee victory, but we can deserve it.’ Well, you can never guarantee anything. As it says in the Bible, ‘the race goeth not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.’ I guess people meant by that that there is a fair amount of luck involved in everything.
But there’s something else. If you can’t know how things will turn out, what can you do? All you can do is to do the right thing. And I’ll give you another saying, since I’m getting warmed up: ‘Fiat justicia pereat mundus.’ I don’t know if the Latin is correct. But the sentiment certainly is: you follow the law even if the world should perish. I think the idea is the same for all of these things.
All you can do in any situation is the right thing…not necessarily the smart thing. You can’t know what the smart thing is, because you can’t know what tomorrow will bring. But you can pretty much figure out the right thing. So, you do the right thing. You don’t necessarily get what you want. Things don’t necessarily go your way.
But at least you will deserve success. And deserving success is more important than actually getting it. Doing the right thing is more important than doing the thing that turns out to be ‘smart,’ in other words.
“Well, what does this have to do with Ron Paul?”
"He’s the only candidate to come along --practically in my entire lifetime-- who is worth voting for. He doesn’t believe in robbing people with taxes so some people can pursue their own crackpot world improvement project. And he doesn’t believe in going to war unless the country is attacked…and there is a declaration of war by Congress…which is what the constitution requires.
“All I’m saying is that you can vote for Ron Paul…and send him money…with a clear conscience. You haven’t been able to do that for a long time. Better take advantage of it.”
I certainly will. Who knows when I’ll get the opportunity again?
[/quote]
Varq, That exerpt was terrific. Well stated and hit the nail right on the damn head. Paul may not win the nomination, but he damn sure deserves my vote.
Ron Paul '08
[quote]
Sloth wrote:
But for me, I either stay home, or vote for the guy closest (even if he’s kooky) to my own beliefs in small federal government, local government control, and individual rights. Unfortunately, some (or all) of those beliefs or also held in high regard by kooks. Hell, maybe I’m a kook by association.
Varqanir wrote:
There is no shame in being thought a kook or a crackpot. Most great thinkers have been thought of as such.
Again the question, for which I am becoming convinced there is no satisfactory answer. If not Ron Paul, then for whom does a voter favoring individual liberty, limited government and free markets vote?[/quote]
So a question, not a challenge, for my education. Is there something wrong with McCain; some unpardonable fault?
I ask the question of Sloth and V because they are responsible folks and because the results of Iowa and NH may actually matter this time.
Second, whether the reader likes it or not, the President in 2009 will face some distasteful tasks: there will be national health insurance, there will be some exit from the war, there will be other international confrontations that will take backbone and principle.
Last, whether you like those realities or not, Paul will not be president, and if one of the three leading Democrats is elected…what fresh hell awaits us?
So…in a practical and dangerous world, is McCain unacceptable?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
But for me, I either stay home, or vote for the guy closest (even if he’s kooky) to my own beliefs in small federal government, local government control, and individual rights. Unfortunately, some (or all) of those beliefs or also held in high regard by kooks. Hell, maybe I’m a kook by association.
Varqanir wrote:
There is no shame in being thought a kook or a crackpot. Most great thinkers have been thought of as such.
Again the question, for which I am becoming convinced there is no satisfactory answer. If not Ron Paul, then for whom does a voter favoring individual liberty, limited government and free markets vote?
So a question, not a challenge, for my education. Is there something wrong with McCain; some unpardonable fault?
I ask the question of Sloth and V because they are responsible folks and because the results of Iowa and NH may actually matter this time.
Second, whether the reader likes it or not, the President in 2009 will face some distasteful tasks: there will be national health insurance, there will be some exit from the war, there will be other international confrontations that will take backbone and principal.
Last, whether you like those realities or not, Paul will not be president, and if one of the three leading Democrats is elected…what fresh hell awaits us?
So…in a practical and dangerous world, is McCain unacceptable?
[/quote]
McCain really bums me out. I want to like the guy, God knows I do. He is a man of integrity and I think he is sincere. But remember, this is the guy whose name is on McCain-Feingold which IMO is a violation of the 1st Amendment. McCain is also weak re: immigration. Finally, I don’t trust him with my guns as he has spoken often of closing the mythical “gun show loophole”.
McCain has demonstrated multiple times that he and I do not share the same belief in the purpose of government. He tried to ban the F’ing UFC. He tried to force a retirement program for boxers and is one of the head guys getting involved in MLB which is none of the .gov’s business.
And no, Paul probably isn’t going to get elected. But I am not going to just say BOHICA and give in on my desire to be free. I’m not going to just willingly accept National ID. I’m not going to smile as national health care is forced down my throat. I want my republic back. Is backbone and principle the same thing as capitulation? Certainly not. I’m not going to smile and accept the world someone else wants to make for me against my will. At the very least when all these things happen that you have foretold, I’ll be able to tell my kids that I wasn’t complicit with tyrants. That way when the time comes my children still have some idealogical bearing and fight in them when America needs her heroes.
mike
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So a question, not a challenge, for my education. Is there something wrong with McCain; some unpardonable fault?
I ask the question of Sloth and V because they are responsible folks and because the results of Iowa and NH may actually matter this time.
Second, whether the reader likes it or not, the President in 2009 will face some distasteful tasks: there will be national health insurance, there will be some exit from the war, there will be other international confrontations that will take backbone and principal.
Last, whether you like those realities or not, Paul will not be president, and if one of the three leading Democrats is elected…what fresh hell awaits us?
So…in a practical and dangerous world, is McCain unacceptable?
[/quote]
Short answer: Not unacceptable at all. I liked John McCain back in 2000, when he competed for the nomination against Dubya. Sure, I like him better than Huckleberry and the New York Drag Queen, and a damned sight better than Barack Hussein and the Bride of Clintonstein.
Is there anything wrong with him?
You mean anything that would prevent me from withdrawing my support from Ron Paul and supporting John McCain instead? Hmmm. Lemme get back to you on that. I need to go train.
Ah yes. Now I remember why I didn’t support John McCain back in 2000, and why I doubt he’ll be my candidate in 2008, unless he’s running against Hillary.
Thanks for reminding me, Mike. There were those sticky little issues about the First and Second Amendments, weren’t there? Actually, I could give a rat’s ass about the McCain-Feingold act, but re-reading the various McCain-Lieberman bills have left me a little depressed.
So there you have it, Dr. Skep. While I don’t find John McCain as odious as the other two front-runners on the Republican side, and would probably give him my vote if he takes the GOP nomination (unless he chooses Joe Lieberman as a running mate, which I don’t think is out of the question, and unless I’m feeling contrary enough at the time to write in Ron Paul’s name on the ballot), his position regarding firearm rights (which is a fairly big issue for me) is enough to keep me from actively supporting the man in his campaign.
I have a feeling about Ron Paul. A feeling that he could be the next president to have his face on a coin or bill.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
But for me, I either stay home, or vote for the guy closest (even if he’s kooky) to my own beliefs in small federal government, local government control, and individual rights. Unfortunately, some (or all) of those beliefs or also held in high regard by kooks. Hell, maybe I’m a kook by association.
Varqanir wrote:
There is no shame in being thought a kook or a crackpot. Most great thinkers have been thought of as such.
Again the question, for which I am becoming convinced there is no satisfactory answer. If not Ron Paul, then for whom does a voter favoring individual liberty, limited government and free markets vote?
So a question, not a challenge, for my education. Is there something wrong with McCain; some unpardonable fault?
I ask the question of Sloth and V because they are responsible folks and because the results of Iowa and NH may actually matter this time.
Second, whether the reader likes it or not, the President in 2009 will face some distasteful tasks: there will be national health insurance, there will be some exit from the war, there will be other international confrontations that will take backbone and principal.
Last, whether you like those realities or not, Paul will not be president, and if one of the three leading Democrats is elected…what fresh hell awaits us?
So…in a practical and dangerous world, is McCain unacceptable?
McCain really bums me out. I want to like the guy, God knows I do. He is a man of integrity and I think he is sincere. But remember, this is the guy whose name is on McCain-Feingold which IMO is a violation of the 1st Amendment. McCain is also weak re: immigration. Finally, I don’t trust him with my guns as he has spoken often of closing the mythical “gun show loophole”.
McCain has demonstrated multiple times that he and I do not share the same belief in the purpose of government. He tried to ban the F’ing UFC. He tried to force a retirement program for boxers and is one of the head guys getting involved in MLB which is none of the .gov’s business.
And no, Paul probably isn’t going to get elected. But I am not going to just say BOHICA and give in on my desire to be free. I’m not going to just willingly accept National ID. I’m not going to smile as national health care is forced down my throat. I want my republic back. Is backbone and principle the same thing as capitulation? Certainly not. I’m not going to smile and accept the world someone else wants to make for me against my will. At the very least when all these things happen that you have foretold, I’ll be able to tell my kids that I wasn’t complicit with tyrants. That way when the time comes my children still have some idealogical bearing and fight in them when America needs her heroes.
mike[/quote]
McCain has shot himself in the foot too many times for me too.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
But for me, I either stay home, or vote for the guy closest (even if he’s kooky) to my own beliefs in small federal government, local government control, and individual rights. Unfortunately, some (or all) of those beliefs or also held in high regard by kooks. Hell, maybe I’m a kook by association.
Varqanir wrote:
There is no shame in being thought a kook or a crackpot. Most great thinkers have been thought of as such.
Again the question, for which I am becoming convinced there is no satisfactory answer. If not Ron Paul, then for whom does a voter favoring individual liberty, limited government and free markets vote?
So a question, not a challenge, for my education. Is there something wrong with McCain; some unpardonable fault?
I ask the question of Sloth and V because they are responsible folks and because the results of Iowa and NH may actually matter this time.
Second, whether the reader likes it or not, the President in 2009 will face some distasteful tasks: there will be national health insurance, there will be some exit from the war, there will be other international confrontations that will take backbone and principal.
Last, whether you like those realities or not, Paul will not be president, and if one of the three leading Democrats is elected…what fresh hell awaits us?
So…in a practical and dangerous world, is McCain unacceptable?
Zap wrote:
McCain has shot himself in the foot too many times for me too.[/quote]
I was not aware the gun issues could be so important–a “third rail”–and that McCain could touch it and die. My understanding that the bill which he supported was intended only to close the “gun show” loophole, which, let’s face it, is utterly unimportant to honest and non-impulsive gun buyers. (The alternative vision: “President Obama, will you sign the Explosive Device Reduction Act of 2009”)
Shooting oneself in the foot, this I can understand, and I can show you my own perforated metatarsals.
McCain’s maverick approach to non-conservative causes has appeal for lots of folks. (The life story needs no elaboration here; I wiki’ed it last night, and was again floored; however weak may be these middle chapters, the back story is extraordinary.)
The point of my question, Mike and Zap, is not to defend McCain, but to ask whether there was something absolutely poisonous about him which disqualifies him as an alternative to, well, the alternatives presented by the three leading Democrats.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
But for me, I either stay home, or vote for the guy closest (even if he’s kooky) to my own beliefs in small federal government, local government control, and individual rights. Unfortunately, some (or all) of those beliefs or also held in high regard by kooks. Hell, maybe I’m a kook by association.
Varqanir wrote:
There is no shame in being thought a kook or a crackpot. Most great thinkers have been thought of as such.
Again the question, for which I am becoming convinced there is no satisfactory answer. If not Ron Paul, then for whom does a voter favoring individual liberty, limited government and free markets vote?
So a question, not a challenge, for my education. Is there something wrong with McCain; some unpardonable fault?
I ask the question of Sloth and V because they are responsible folks and because the results of Iowa and NH may actually matter this time.
Second, whether the reader likes it or not, the President in 2009 will face some distasteful tasks: there will be national health insurance, there will be some exit from the war, there will be other international confrontations that will take backbone and principal.
Last, whether you like those realities or not, Paul will not be president, and if one of the three leading Democrats is elected…what fresh hell awaits us?
So…in a practical and dangerous world, is McCain unacceptable?
Zap wrote:
McCain has shot himself in the foot too many times for me too.
I was not aware the gun issues could be so important–a “third rail”–and that McCain could touch it and die. My understanding that the bill which he supported was intended only to close the “gun show” loophole, which, let’s face it, is utterly unimportant to honest and non-impulsive gun buyers. (The alternative vision: “President Obama, will you sign the Explosive Device Reduction Act of 2009”)
Shooting oneself in the foot, this I can understand, and I can show you my own perforated metatarsals.
McCain’s maverick approach to non-conservative causes has appeal for lots of folks. (The life story needs no elaboration here; I wiki’ed it last night, and was again floored; however weak may be these middle chapters, the back story is extraordinary.)
The point of my question, Mike and Zap, is not to defend McCain, but to ask whether there was something absolutely poisonous about him which disqualifies him as an alternative to, well, the alternatives presented by the three leading Democrats.[/quote]
I would vote for him over the leading Dems.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
McCain has shot himself in the foot too many times for me too.[/quote]
Shooting one’s own foot beats shooting an old man in the face.
But seriously, isn’t McCain the one who wants to give illegal immigrants citizenships? Plus, he’s against torture. What self-respecting patriot would vote for him?
Trolling is fun!
Could get a little interesting.
Ron Beats Rudy?
New Hampshire could surprise a lot of people.
BY ANDREW CLINE
Sunday, December 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
MANCHESTER, N.H.–For several hours last Sunday, more than a dozen Ron Paul volunteers stood in snowdrifts in the rain outside the Mall of New Hampshire in Manchester waving at last-minute Christmas shoppers and handing out hundreds of yards signs.
The campaign doesn’t know how many people participated because, as with so many Paul rallies, this one was organized entirely by fans not officially associated with the campaign.
“We told them to take Christmas Eve and Christmas off, and next thing we know they’re doing a sign wave at the mall,” said Jim Forsythe, a self-employed engineer and former Air Force pilot from Strafford, N.H., who independently organizes volunteer efforts for Ron Paul.
That spontaneous grassroots support is why Mr. Paul, an obstetrician from Lake Jackson, Texas, could pull off a stunner on Jan. 8 and place third in New Hampshire’s Republican primary. If he does, he would embarrass Rudy Giuliani and steal media limelight from John McCain and Mitt Romney, who are battling for first place.
Many Republican operatives in New Hampshire, even those affiliated with other campaigns, think Mr. Paul is headed for an impressive, double-digit performance. That he has been polling in the high single digits for months is discounted, because the polls may be missing the depth of his support.
Why? For starters, he appears to be drawing new voters. Polls that screen for “likely” voters might screen out many Paul supporters who haven’t voted often, or at all, before. Many of Mr. Paul’s supporters appear to be first-time voters. They will be able to cast their ballots because New Hampshire allows them to register and vote on the day of an election.
Even Mr. Paul’s New Hampshire spokesman, Kate Rick, is an unlikely political activist. She grew up in a political family in Washington, D.C. and says “I swore I would never work in politics.” She changed her mind only after finding Mr. Paul, a candidate she says she can finally believe in. “Most people I know in the grass roots are like that,” she said. “My closest friends have never voted before, and they’re die-hard Paul people now.”
There is another reason to discount the polls on Mr. Paul. The one thing that unites his supporters is a desire to be left alone, not only by government, but by irritating marketers and meddling pollsters, too. Mr. Paul’s supporters might well be screening their calls and not-so-inadvertently screening out pollsters. Still, some observers of the primary race here downplay this support, noting that a lot of the activists who show up in news stories are not state residents and won’t be voting.
It is true that Paul supporters from New York, New Jersey and even California are prominent at campaign rallies. But volunteers and campaign staffers say that, although out-of-state volunteers often are the most flamboyant and can attend daytime rallies while local supporters are at work, they do not outnumber the locals.
“Ninety percent [of his supporters] are from New Hampshire,” says Jared Chicoine, Mr. Paul’s New Hampshire coordinator. Keith Murphy, a former Democratic campaign worker from Maryland who owns Murphy’s Taproom in Manchester, has held several Paul rallies at his restaurant, which has become a regular hangout for the Paul crowd. When the candidate shows up, about 75% of the activists at an event are from out of state, he said, but on other nights it’s about 50-50.
Regardless of where they are from, organizing Mr. Paul’s supporters is a challenge. “This is entirely grassroots oriented to the point that the official campaign structure seems almost lost, to the point that they don’t know what to do with all these people,” Mr. Murphy said.
On their own initiative, and at their own expense, Paul volunteers hold rallies, print and distribute brochures and even purchase ads. “I pick up the paper and say, wow, there’s an ad and it’s not my ad,” Mr. Chicoine told me.
The buzz surrounding the Paul campaign is reminiscent of the grassroots campaign Democrat Carol Shea-Porter waged against Republican Rep. Jeb Bradley last year. Polls showed Mrs. Shea-Porter trailing by 19 points in October. With almost no money and no support from the Democratic establishment, she came from behind and beat the congressman 51% to 49%.
Many are wondering if the polls are similarly missing Mr. Paul’s momentum. Mrs. Shea-Porter and Mr. Paul have very different ideas about how to use the power of government, but both strongly oppose the war in Iraq. And Mrs. Shea-Porter ran last year as a fiscal conservative, so it’s possible Mr. Paul could win over many Republicans who voted for her last year.
Mr. Chicoine and other Paul supporters say that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most of Mr. Paul’s backers are Republicans, not independents. But everyone agrees that Mr. Paul draws an unusual mix of libertarians, fiscally conservative Democrats, conservative Republicans, home-schoolers, vegans, gambling aficionados, anti-abortion activists and others who want the government to butt out of some aspect of their lives.
But will they get out to vote on primary day?
“I’ve never seen a group of people that are this energetic about a candidate,” Mr. Murphy said. “It’s something else.”
That sentiment is shared by Republicans who have observed numerous New Hampshire primaries. The level of enthusiasm for Mr. Paul is remarkable, they say. It transcends the state’s Libertarian base (about 4% of the electorate). And by many accounts, Mr. Paul’s backers here are more energized and committed than are supporters of Mr. Giuliani, who may enjoy inflated poll numbers because of his celebrity status.
National attention is focused on the horse races between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and between Messrs. McCain and Romney. But the shy obstetrician from Texas could be the surprise story of the New Hampshire primary.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
But for me, I either stay home, or vote for the guy closest (even if he’s kooky) to my own beliefs in small federal government, local government control, and individual rights. Unfortunately, some (or all) of those beliefs or also held in high regard by kooks. Hell, maybe I’m a kook by association.
Varqanir wrote:
There is no shame in being thought a kook or a crackpot. Most great thinkers have been thought of as such.
Again the question, for which I am becoming convinced there is no satisfactory answer. If not Ron Paul, then for whom does a voter favoring individual liberty, limited government and free markets vote?
So a question, not a challenge, for my education. Is there something wrong with McCain; some unpardonable fault?
I ask the question of Sloth and V because they are responsible folks and because the results of Iowa and NH may actually matter this time.
Second, whether the reader likes it or not, the President in 2009 will face some distasteful tasks: there will be national health insurance, there will be some exit from the war, there will be other international confrontations that will take backbone and principal.
Last, whether you like those realities or not, Paul will not be president, and if one of the three leading Democrats is elected…what fresh hell awaits us?
So…in a practical and dangerous world, is McCain unacceptable?
Zap wrote:
McCain has shot himself in the foot too many times for me too.
I was not aware the gun issues could be so important–a “third rail”–and that McCain could touch it and die. My understanding that the bill which he supported was intended only to close the “gun show” loophole, which, let’s face it, is utterly unimportant to honest and non-impulsive gun buyers. (The alternative vision: “President Obama, will you sign the Explosive Device Reduction Act of 2009”)[/quote]
I’m not really sure you understand the gun culture the way I do then. I don’t consider myself an impulsive gun owner. I am not a collector (with the exception of someday hoping to own a Garand). I own several guns and have put some consideration into the ownership of each one. What that actually means is that I put an awful lot of effort into networking and engaging with other people so as to be able to buy my rifles without a paper trail. I do this legally and I would prefer to continue to do so. I choose this because eventually we will have a gun confiscation in this country like that which you’ve pointed out with an Obama presidency. When that happens I have no intention of turning my guns in but I fear my fellow citizens will without a fight.
The only candidates that understand the gun culture correctly are Mr. Paul and Fred Thompson. [quote]
Shooting oneself in the foot, this I can understand, and I can show you my own perforated metatarsals.
McCain’s maverick approach to non-conservative causes has appeal for lots of folks. (The life story needs no elaboration here; I wiki’ed it last night, and was again floored; however weak may be these middle chapters, the back story is extraordinary.)
The point of my question, Mike and Zap, is not to defend McCain, but to ask whether there was something absolutely poisonous about him which disqualifies him as an alternative to, well, the alternatives presented by the three leading Democrats.[/quote]
Yes, McCain has been on the wrong side of too many BoR issues for me to vote for him as a lesser of two evils vote. All this said, if any of the big names have to win (Guiliani, Romney, Huck, Clinton, Obama, Edwards) please let it be him. I still see him as an honorable but misguided man.
mike
Whither now, Paulistas?
Somehow, I do not see Dr. Paul embracing Churchill’s dictum on pragmatism:
“Never stand so high upon a principle that you cannot lower it to suit the circumstances.”
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Whither now, Paulistas?[/quote]
As long as he stays in the race, he has my vote.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Whither now, Paulistas?
As long as he stays in the race, he has my vote.[/quote]
That was the position I was to take. However, some things have come to light that can’t be explained away by a Ghost-writer who “was immediately fired.”
Liked his message. Alot. Unfortunately, he didn’t live up to his own message.