NoharnessJun 12th, 2008 - 01:27:25

RE:'Not true and spelling everything out to you on a public forum isn't going to help matters in November.'

Yes, it's true. Yes, it WILL help in November if you can learn to make an argument for YOUR guy rather than wasting bandwidth on insults aimed at me. Have you noticed that the Goopers are showing some life? Maybe they don't like being called beached jellyfish.

Having said that, I still think you are backing a very bad candidate, but that's your privilege. Trouble is, you aren't doing a particularly good job. Your focus is on me. That's silly. It makes me wonder if I haven't got you by the short hairs on this one. You wanna support John McCain? Then you gotta make a case FOR John McCain, not a case against me. You keep trying to make a case against me, so maybe you can't make a case for John McCain. Personally, I don't think a case CAN be made for John McCain.

RE:'He has said, dozens of times that he will do so regardless of the conditions on the ground. The Marines have been told that they might get in to a situation where they have to destroy equipment in place to facilitate withdrawal if Obama gets in.'

You haven't been keeping up with current events, Bubba. He has changed his stance on this multiple times. Oh, and the Bush Administration has very quietly changed its stance. We are on the way out of Iraq right now. Do you know why? BECAUSE WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE! Iran already owns the place. That's the reason I posted that article from the Washington Post:

'After a particularly heavy day of shelling, Gen. David Petraeus sent Soleimani a message -- 'Stop shooting at the Green Zone.' The message was conveyed verbally by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. The Quds Force commander didn't react immediately. But the heavy mortar fire on the Green Zone soon tapered off. Iran had flexed its muscles and demonstrated America's vulnerability, and then opted for a tactical retreat.'

What do suppose is going on when two enemy commanders talk to each other like this? It means that a deal has been cut, doesn't it?

Do you know what the Brits were planning to do in Basra if the balloon went up between us and Iran? Do you know why President Bush has not already bombed the bejeebers out of the Iranians? Better check.

RE:'YOU ARE PLANNING ON VOTING FOR THEM and you are insane enough to call someone else naive?'

I call you naive, because you obviously ARE naive. Sometimes that is a very good thing, especially when you are making a case for YOUR GUY (no matter who YOUR GUY might be), but you aren't doing a very good job of supporting John McCain.

RE:'Harry Reid could not care less what happens to Iraq or America for that matter. He wants Iraq to be a fiasco so it can be a millstone to hang around Bush's neck. Harry Reid WANTS failure in Iraq and you are planning to enable him to get what he wants the only way he has left to get it.'

Yes, he does, because he values his own ass enough to know where to draw the line. Were he to play this wrong, he'd be hanging the millstone around Obama's neck. They only play this kind of game when it hurts Republicans, Bubba.

RE:'You are helping him to get everything he has ever wanted out of his career in government. Idiot.'

Yes, I am helping him to get EVERYTHING he wants while making certain that there is no Republican stamp of approval on what he does. Oh, and there are already signs that a major backlash is building up. I just hope it doesn't blow too soon.

RE:'How? It is a game of chicken that Mac would just love to play. You clearly don't know anything about him other then what has been pounded in your ears by your brown shirted, end times believing Texas AM radio.'

Oh, you mean like he is playing chicken with them on the energy issue? A far more important issue than what is going on overseas? The issue that is, in fact, the real solution to the problems we are having overseas? When has John McCain EVER played chicken with Congress, hmm? He played chicken with George Bush and Rick Santorum quite a bit, but since when has John McCain tried to make the Democrats nervous?

RE:'Because McCain might cooperate on some issues?'

He will give them whatever they want to sustain our presence in Iraq and to tackle Iran in the way he sees fit.

RE:'You think he will be helpless?'

He has already tied his own hands, Bubba. Listen to what the man says.

RE:'Has bush been?'

Bush has not been helpless because there are still enough Republicans in the legislature to put up a fight. That is about to disappear, isn't? Or up until just the last couple of days, looked inevitable because the Republicans have been acting like beached jellyfish. Barring a real hard campaign by REAL Republicans, I have no reason to think that a pale horse like John McCain can hold his own against a Democrat majority, especially when everything he has said and done during this stage of his campaign says that he likes the Democrats AND their policies.

RE:'You don't seem to understand the whole checks and balances thing from civics class, as well as the high concept that t is STUPID to vote for someone like Obama because you believe he will screw up the country so you might be able to blame him for it.'

Why would I want to spare Harry Reid the consequences of his actions? I will repeat, for you thickheaded benefit, that the PEOPLE are the final check on our government. You, it seems, think that Americans are just a bunch of sheeple that will do whatever Ted Turner et al wants them to do. YOU ARE WRONG.

RE:'I am probably the last fool on earth that is paying any attention to you what so ever.'

I have never considered you to be a fool. I picked this fight with you because thought better than that of you. Rest assured of one thing. This little ruckus has not gone on without being noticed and I am a long, long way from being finished. I'm not going to let up on Senator McCain.

RE:'We are winning in Iraq and we need to keep fighting in Afghanistan.'

No, Iraq is pretty much a settled issue. The Bush State Department as much as said so day before yesterday. We are NOT going to establish permanent bases in Iraq. We ARE working on a schedule for withdrawal. Here is something you and everyone else on this board needs to take the time to read:

//www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/3376_iran0806.pdf

RE:'McCain is going to be running against congress.'

You mean the way he is running against them now? I remain unimpressed.

RE:'You keep on talking about bubba and linda lou or whatever, they will know who to blame.'

Yes, they most certainly will. My plan will remove all room for doubt from their minds.

RE:'Pelosi is in there for good...'

But not necessarily as Speaker of the House. Oh, and there is the off chance that the Move.On crowd will get behind Cindy Sheehan and throw Nancy out on her fancy ass.

RE:'...but Reid can go the way of Tom Daschle but Nevada is not an entirely blue state.'

Yes, he could, but that can't happen before 2010. He could die in an accident maybe, or we might catch him out on a impeachable offense, but we can't count on the first and he leads a life cleaner than Ralph Nader's so the second option is so unlikely that does not bear discussion.

RE:'Will giving him more power help to get rid of him? After giving him everything he has ever asked for you are going to need dynamite to get him out.'

I'm dead certain that letting him have his way will destroy him. He is his own dynamite. You are the one who thinks that all Americans are nothing but passive sheeple, remember? I KNOW you're full of beans on that one and I am certain that the Democrats will self-destruct. In fact, they are doing a fairly good job of that already even though all of the networks, including FOX, are championing the Democrat cause.

RE:'I am now of the opinion that you are actually a hard core daily kos reading adolescent Trotskyite posing as a codger from Texas. No one could HONESTLY lose their mind this much.'

What is kos? Yes, I can see where you might well think I am a Trotskyite, but then, that is what I think of John McCain. He is a leftist masquerading as a Republican. I can almost forgive him for that because I am not certain that he realizes what he has become. He is a very poor choice for the GOP and he will make a thoroughly miserable president.

Report this comment

going in circles.Jun 12th, 2008 - 04:05:16

'Yes, it WILL help in November if you can learn to make an argument for YOUR guy rather than wasting bandwidth on insults aimed at me.'

It is a fair assessment that not enough of a compelling case has been made to advocate FOR McCain. Much has been made of advocating AGAINST Obama. I acknowledge this. However, the situation as it pertains to you specifically is not the same as what is going to be faced unless there is some secret army 'right of Mussolini' madmen who have rationalized tearing down the country in order to be able to point to the wreckage of what better people have built and tried to preserve and say: 'Look at what they did'. This is EXACTLY the same dirty tactics that have gotten us to where we are now. You are not only endorsing the dirty tactics you are planning on rewarding those who have employed them.

Hear this: I find the entire concept incredibly dishonorable and a sure pathway to the end of the USA. We simply can not survive with half the country trying to build America and the other half trying to grind it under, alternating depending on who wins that years election.

'Having said that, I still think you are backing a very bad candidate, but that's your privilege. '

Firstly, Look who you are backing. Secondly, he is closer in line to what you say you believe then our current Republican president. Thirdly, while there are ideas of his that I disagree with I believe that he has examined the issues and thoughtfully come to a conclusion that he can articulate a defense of. Most importantly, and what you have been missing all along, is that he will not have the last word on these issues of either agreement or disagreement. There are advocacy groups and other means of bringing political pressure to bear that can and will be employed to prevent him from going too far off the reservation. He will take them in to consideration, as will other senators and congressmen. (look at the uproar over his immigration bill, and yes, he is serious about enforcement first.)

If Obama is swept in with the adoration of his messianic message of BS by all his dim eyed followers do you think he is going to listen to a thing from the right or center? If I were him I wouldn't. He is going to have enough core support to keep it going, just as Bush has. Meanwhile people like you will be pointing to the mess he makes and saying 'see, I told you so' and people like me will be trying to clean it up because we care about the country, not just making the other party look bad.

'Then you gotta make a case FOR John McCain, not a case against me.'

I have both. I think you want to be personally promised the sun and moon and I am not going to be making personal promises on behalf of someone else. I have related his positions. I am not in the position to change them because I am not John McCain. Further, since your stated objective is to see a collapse anything I tell you that might forestall such an event isn't a 'selling point'. The positives have become negatives in this little upside down paradigm you are living in. You have acknowledged yourself that he will be better for the country then the alternative, yet you are going to support the alternative in a deliberate 'strategy' to drag the country down.

'Personally, I don't think a case CAN be made for John McCain.'

Perhaps not one that you are willing to hear. Fiscal responsibility... Nope, he might cooperate. Staying in Iraq until our mission objectives are accomplished... Nope Obama is lying when he says otherwise... It will leave the democratic party in disarray and not reward their seditious behavior in a time of war... Nope, better to reboot because he might compromise... He will not appease countries that are our sworn enemies and won't abandon our allies... nope, I don't like harry reid and compromise... a deficit hawk against the pork barrel spending that has all but bankrupted us... said something nice about Hillary, compromise...He is for small government and has acted upon it at every opportunity... nope, 'LA LA LA REBOOT'... Voted with the republicans 95% of the time... nope, there was that 5%, cooperate.. Proven leadership, bravery, humbling sacrifice, honest patriotism, tough, experienced... Nope, compromised... He has a lifetime rating of 82 percent from the American Conservative Union.. Nope he said something nice about Pelosi's hair... I am going to vote for the guy who has a perfect record, as the most liberal senator according to the National Journal...

And somehow you have rationalized it so that he is the one who has compromised and not you. Who would YOU have?

Report this comment

your tantrum is boringJun 12th, 2008 - 05:29:46

'You haven't been keeping up with current events, Bubba. He has changed his stance on this multiple times.'

Not recently. Here, this is his current position:

* In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
* In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
* In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
* In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
* In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He willremove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

So he is going to withdraw, regardless of the conditions on the ground 'all of our combat brigades' out of Iraq to nearby countries to periodically bomb al Qaeda or attack them with the less then brigade strength, non combat embassy staff... It is so unfathomably stupid, so completely brain dead... Yet you know this and it is what you want. It will cost more American lives, yet that is OK with you.

'Oh, and the Bush Administration has very quietly changed its stance.'

How specifically? Let's hear it. Where has bush stated we are retreating because Iran owns the place.

'Do you know why? BECAUSE WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE! Iran already owns the place. That's the reason I posted that article from the Washington Post...What do suppose is going on when two enemy commanders talk to each other like this? '

If Iran 'owned the place' they wouldn't have gotten their asses kicked in Sadr city and Basra recently. Amazing, You are actually screwed up enough to take the word of 'Brig. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard' at face value for what is going on in Iraq.

'Do you know what the Brits were planning to do in Basra if the balloon went up between us and Iran?'

Go from hiding at the Basra international to hiding at RAF Honington. ('if the balloon went up...' Come on.)

'Do you know why President Bush has not already bombed the bejeebers out of the Iranians? '

1)Because they would make things pretty difficult. 2) Because no one read past the first sentence of the previous intelligence report on Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions.

'but you aren't doing a very good job of supporting John McCain. '

How would you do it if you were supporting him? What sweet sweet words do you want to hear? Do you want to be lied to? Flattered? Do you want him to tell you that he feels your pain?

'Yes, he does, because he values his own ass enough to know where to draw the line'

The finger will always be pointed at Bush for getting us in to it in the first place. Seriously, what part of: 'Obama...will have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months' do you not get? They are serious. Ask yourself this; what if it works? Will you be able to get rid of Harry Reid then? Ask me to repeat that again, you needy idiot.

' I am helping him to get EVERYTHING he wants while making certain that there is no Republican stamp of approval on what he does.'

Because you are after 'riots' and breakdowns at the grocery stores and disasters at the clinics. You want as much agony as possible to pin ity on the democrats, yes, I get it. It is stupid, it will not work, it is dishonorable, it is immoral and it is everything that Harry Reid has done. ONCE AGAIN, WITH THE MEDIA AND THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE IN TOW IT WILL NOT WORK THE WAY YOU WISH IT TO.

'Oh, you mean like he is playing chicken with them on the energy issue? '

That is your problem with him in a nutshell.

Yes, he will play chicken with them over defending the way because HE ISN'T an IDIOT. He knows that is a win/win situation.

'He will give them whatever they want to sustain our presence in Iraq and to tackle Iran in the way he sees fit. '

He has no need to compromise there. And again, with your paranoia.

'Bush has not been helpless because there are still enough Republicans in the legislature to put up a fight. That is about to disappear, isn't?'

No, they will not have a veto proof majority.

'Barring a real hard campaign by REAL Republicans,'

You are no one to be calling anyone else a 'real republican', or a real American for that matter.

'especially when everything he has said and done during this stage of his campaign says that he likes the Democrats AND their policies. '

He is running a centrist campaign. Guess he will have to forgo the people who wish to wreck the country and pin it on the democrats vote.

'Why would I want to spare Harry Reid the consequences of his actions?'

Because you are an irrational idiot who believes that by HELPING HIM TO GET EVERYTHING HE WANTS you will somehow be punishing him. You are going to need dynamite to get rid of the Harry Reids in office after you are through endorsing their tactics and voting for their candidates. ANY IDIOT CAN SEE THAT.

'for you thickheaded benefit, that the PEOPLE are the final check on our government'

And right now, I will repeat for your thickheaded benefit the people will figure it out after it is too late. Don't you get it? Lots of these 'people' are going to be largely foreign born with different alliegences then to America's future. Lots of these 'people' are not going to vote someone out who is running up a gigantic, unplayable debt. (By the way, he could effectively bankrupt the country by the end of his first term, you unbelievable moron) Lots of these 'people' resent the fact that productive members of society have more then they do, Lots of these 'people' hold on to their entitlements with a death grip. Show me an entitlement program that once it has been started has been voluntarily given back by 'the people'? Show me 1. A single entitlement program that once started has been given up by 'the people'. SHOW ME ONE.

You are opening the door to something that just will not be whisked away. It will take ages to undo the mess and break the cycle of government dependency that JUST PERPETUATES ITSELF!

'YOU ARE WRONG.'

I have a lot more respect for the American people then to think that the only way to motivate them is to allow the country to go to the brink of disaster in order to scare some sense in to them. I recognize that going to the brink is not a guarantee of coming back from it. I understand that it is a STUPID idea.

'This little ruckus has not gone on without being noticed'

Noticed by what? You had better hope it isn't noticed by anyone who has the power to commit you because you just sound duplicitous and nuts.

'and I am a long, long way from being finished. I'm not going to let up on Senator McCain. '

Have fun, I am not going to have the time to indulge you.

Report this comment

you are a legend in your own mindJun 12th, 2008 - 05:42:30

'This little ruckus has not gone on without being noticed'

Just what do you think you are accomplishing here?

It just hit me, you REALLY are delusional.

“Yes, they most certainly will. My plan will remove all room for doubt from their minds.“

Your “plan” is crazy. I’m serious.

“Oh, and there is the off chance that the Move.On crowd will get behind Cindy Sheehan and throw Nancy out on her fancy ass.”

Crazy.

“I'm dead certain that letting him have his way will destroy him.”

And the country.

“I KNOW you're full of beans on that one and I am certain that the Democrats will self-destruct.”

Give them full control, watch them make a mess and point out that they made one, yes, got it, a million times over. Stupid, dishonorable, destructive, unworkable. You are going to get yourself labeled as someone who was sent here by the DNC to sew confusion and disunity among the Republicans in order to get Obama in office. It is probably the fact.

Report this comment

Ex-Friends of BarackJun 13th, 2008 - 05:43:00

It turns out that Jim Johnson was not the man Barack Obama thought he knew. The presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee threw the former Fannie Mae CEO over the side as his Vice Presidential vetter yesterday, only a day after he'd said that Mr. Johnson was only 'tangentially related' to his campaign and that criticism was a 'game that can be played.'

Mr. Johnson was cast off after the Journal disclosed that he had received sweetheart loans from Countrywide Financial – the very firm that Mr. Obama has specifically excoriated for its role in the mortgage meltdown. The press corps will now move on to other things, but this is more than a campaign issue. The disclosure about Mr. Johnson and his successor as Fannie CEO, Franklin Raines, raises serious questions about the extent to which favorable mortgage pricing contributed to Countrywide's rise and fall. At a minimum, a regulatory probe is warranted.

As for Mr. Obama, Mr. Johnson now joins an intriguing and growing list of Mr. Obama's ex-associates that includes the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, and former terrorist bomber William Ayers. We might call this list eclectic, except that there is a consistent pattern of bad judgment followed by an initial defense, then followed by rapid disassociation and regret that none of them were the men Mr. Obama 'knew.'

We can only wonder if Eric Holder, who is also among Mr. Obama's veep vetters, will be the next to join this club. As Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, he played a role in the Marc Rich pardon that also deserves to be fully vetted – all the more so if Mr. Holder is on the short list to be Mr. Obama's Attorney General. Caroline Kennedy, the other member of Mr. Obama's veep vetting team, has probably already inherited a stack of files from Mr. Johnson. She might want to take a peek at Mr. Holder's too.

wsj.com/article/SB121322730344966113.html

Report this comment

NoharnessJun 13th, 2008 - 13:56:00

RE:'And somehow you have rationalized it so that he is the one who has compromised and not you. Who would YOU have?'

Someone who is loyal to his party and actually agrees with the basic tenets of his party. Someone like Mitt Romney, even though I would not insist on Mitt Romney as the only possible Republican candidate.

You have unthinkingly swallowed Lou Dobbs 'reasoning' without considering the implications. Has it not crossed your mind that you might want to exercise some caution before accepting that thesis? Apparently not. Here is some more reading for you, Bubba.

//www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13344

You made a crack me wanting 'one party rule' in the US. Well, guess what. If the Republicans keep giving ground to the Democrats that is EXACTLY what we will have and we will change our name to the Democratic People's Republic of America. The Democrats are doing everything they can think of to stifle speech in this country and, much to my disgust, John McCain has sided with them. We dare not say anything that might Senator McCain's Democrat buddies lest we are willing to suffer his ire.

Let me give you a few tips. It does not do your advocacy any good to damn the devil. The devil is already damned by definition. Your focus should be on making a case for your client, John McCain. Your secondary mission is to make a case against his nemesis, Barack Obama. Calling me names and attacking me serves your purposes not one iota. YES! I have taken the position of the devil! This is an inquisition to determine the answer to a crucial question. Which of these two men, John McCain and Barack Obama, should we elect to the office of President of the United States? Would that the answer were clear cut! I sincerely wish that it was, but it is NOT. Neither of them are particularly well suited for the job.

In the end, it will not matter who won or lost this debate. What will matter is the arguments we presented. Obviously, you think that the answer IS clear. You think John McCain SHOULD be the next President of the United States, but you my friend are not the only person in this country. You have declared yourself an 'independent'. That makes your burden of proof much greater. Why should Republicans pay any attention to you? Especially when you WILL NOT make a case for your candidate of choice and spend nearly all your time trying to make a case against me, the devil that is true, but a REPUBLICAN devil. Seventy percent of Republicans polled are unhappy with John McCain. Why do you suppose that is, Bubba?

What John McCain has done, in effect, is to abandon his own party in the hopes of creating a personality cult for himself. His appeal is to liberal 'Republicans', 'Independents' and 'Demcorats Light'. All but one feature of his campaign is fully in line with the Democrats.

In essence, what you and John McCain are telling us Republicans is that the time for our party has come and gone. That we should just drop all of our concerns and support you and John McCain uncritically because he is championing military efforts in the Middle East to the exclusion of ALL ELSE.

Well, Bubba. I do not agree with you on this. You have not, so far, made a good case FOR John McCain. The truth is, I don't think a good case CAN be made for John McCain unless you are a Democrat and they already prefer Barack Obama. How gorramned silly can a man be? John McCain wants to run as the Republican Nominee for President, but he has no use for the positions or sensibilities of his fellow Republicans. I am in no way impressed with this guy. Nor am I impressed with your attempts to play the bully instead of arguing FOR your guy.

Report this comment

NoharnessJun 13th, 2008 - 17:12:45

Re:''This little ruckus has not gone on without being noticed'

RE:'Just what do you think you are accomplishing here?'

What do YOU think you are accomplishing here? Why have you gone to so much trouble to refute my arguments and declare me 'delusional'.

Keep your guard up, Bubba.

Report this comment

Is that you david axelrod?Jun 13th, 2008 - 21:24:36

'Someone who is loyal to his party and actually agrees with the basic tenets of his party.'

John McCain has voted with the party 95% of the time, this year it is closer to 100%. Once again, your argument against him is built more on a visceral dislike of the man and not an honest assessment of his record. In short you are having a tantrum.

I also think it is hysterical that you are lecturing about loyalty to the republican party (or the country for that matter) when you are talking about voting for obama.

'Someone like Mitt Romney, '

We had someone like Mitt Romney running: Mitt Romney. He didn't get the votes. I would have voted for Mitt Romney over Obama as well. That ship has sailed. No point in having a temper tantrum over it. DONE DEAL.

'You have unthinkingly swallowed Lou Dobbs 'reasoning' without considering the implications.'

I have watched about 30 seconds of Lou Dobbs in my life.

'Has it not crossed your mind that you might want to exercise some caution before accepting that thesis?'

The counter thesis: Voting for someone because you know full well that their policies are disastrous yet you are under the stupid illusion that they and their disastrous policies which are going to become law can be simply whisked away and replaced with whatever you think is more appropriate. That is not a thesis, it is a fantasy. Whatever Lou is saying it can't be that crazy.

'You made a crack me wanting 'one party rule' in the US. Well, guess what. If the Republicans keep giving ground to the Democrats that is EXACTLY what we will have and we will change our name to the Democratic People's Republic of America. '

Guess what, we had all 3 branches of government in republican hands and they made a mess. They spent like maniacs. They spent like Democrats. One of the only ones trying to hold the line on it was McCain. I know you will say that the republicans need to be humbled to get bacjk to their roots, well they have been and are going to be further. If this isn't enough of a lesson then they are done for.

'The Democrats are doing everything they can think of to stifle speech in this country and, much to my disgust, John McCain has sided with them. '

Yeah, that 'everything they can think of to stifle speech in this country' bill that he passed was a real mistake... Oh wait a minute, that is just a part of your visceral dislike for the man and has no basis in reality...

'We dare not say anything that might Senator McCain's Democrat buddies lest we are willing to suffer his ire. '

You poor dear.

'It does not do your advocacy any good to damn the devil.'

I find what you are advocating to be incredibly dishonorable, self defeating and stupid. It needs damning because it will lead to the entrenchment of the very things you claim to be against. (A claim which I am deeply suspicious of at this point.)

'Your focus should be on making a case for your client, John McCain. Your secondary mission is to make a case against his nemesis, Barack Obama. '

Yes.

'Calling me names and attacking me serves your purposes not one iota.'

See the whole 'dishonorable' part.

'YES! I have taken the position of the devil! This is an inquisition to determine the answer to a crucial question. Which of these two men, John McCain and Barack Obama, should we elect to the office of President of the United States?'

I have done both advocate for McCain and advocate againstand Obama. Where the 'names' come in to play is that I believe that you have either 1) rationalized your dislike for McCain into voting for everything that you supposedly stand against. or 2) You are being disingenuous and are trying to polish an argument that you will use to cleave off the hard right from the McCain campaign. Either way, you are advocating for something that you have stated will be a disaster for the country. If I were to post something positive about McCain that can be used as a negative in your little 'grand scheme'. A negative about Obama is now a positive because it will help bring about collapse. Phillip K Dick used to write stories with themes like this. They were amusing. This is just getting old.

'Would that the answer were clear cut! '

For the very reasons you have stated and acknowledged McCain is a better presidential candidate then Obama. It couldn't be more clear cut.

'Neither of them are particularly well suited for the job.'

I disagree, but it has always, ALWAYS been about choosing the person you think will screw up least. By your own admission that person is McCain.

'You think John McCain SHOULD be the next President of the United States, but you my friend are not the only person in this country.'

Thanks for clearing that up.

'Why should Republicans pay any attention to you?'

Because I am advocating for a Republican and the best person for the job, using logical arguments that are not pure pipe dreams. Why should they pay attention to you?

'Especially when you WILL NOT make a case for your candidate of choice '

I have made it all over this board. What the hell is wrong with you?

'spend nearly all your time trying to make a case against me,'

You wont see the obvious and you are deliberately trying to injure the country. That makes you worse then the fools just doing it by accident.

'Seventy percent of Republicans polled are unhappy with John McCain.'

According to what poll? The polls that matter have been taken and he is our nominee. What are the percentage of republicans that are happy with Obama? That would be only you.

'What John McCain has done, in effect, is to abandon his own party in the hopes of creating a personality cult for himself.'

That is simply nonsense.

'In essence, what you and John McCain are telling us Republicans is that the time for our party has come and gone. '

No, what I am telling you is that the other side has worked harder, smarter, has raised more money and is putting out a candidate that is truly dangerous. I am saying that the time for sorting all this out is over. we need to unite around the man that we have in order to stop the one that they are putting forth. We can have our say in a McCain administration but it will require more work then it would have with, say, Reagan. Perhaps if we had been willing to put in the work then Bush wouldn't have gone off the rails like he did. THEY ARE WINNING BECAUSE THEY HAVE WORKED HARDER and that is the American way. Regardless, this election comes down to having a fighting chance or no chance at all. If we elect McCain we can still have an effect if we do not then will not. Again, are you afraid you are going to have to get off your ass?

'That we should just drop all of our concerns and support you and John McCain uncritically because he is championing military efforts in the Middle East to the exclusion of ALL ELSE.'

To say that that is the only disagreement that he has with the Obama campaign is an outright lie. It is beyond disingenuous, it is an obvious, provable lie.

'. You have not, so far, made a good case FOR John McCain'

Later I will go through the previous posts and cut and paste the ignored comments that you will not allow yourself to understand because you are a stubborn, self-deceiving, sees what he wants to see leftist.

' John McCain wants to run as the Republican Nominee for President,'

Not wants, IS running. And your choice is him or the other guy, as I have said for weeks.

'Nor am I impressed with your attempts to play the bully instead of arguing FOR your guy.'

Heard the one about the mule and the 2x4? Calling me a 'bully' when you have been stubborn, arrogant, underhanded and dishonorable just makes you sound like a crybaby.

'What do YOU think you are accomplishing here? '

I asked you first. Show some class and answer.

'Keep your guard up, Bubba. '

You are going to have to stab lots more backs before you get to mine.

Report this comment

NoharnessJun 15th, 2008 - 16:47:34

RE:'John McCain has voted with the party 95% of the time, this year it is closer to 100%. Once again, your argument against him is built more on a visceral dislike of the man and not an honest assessment of his record. In short you are having a tantrum.'

Let's see, he enlisted the aid of George Soros and John Kerry to stifle speech (McCain-Feingold), especially the speech of is own party. He has since reinforced that stance by scolding members of his own party who were attacking Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for good cause. He sided with Edward Kennedy to make the immigration mess worse, instead of fixing it. And it now becomes clear that he sides with the Democrats to install a positively insane energy policy that ignores the real needs of this country. How is that 100%? And if you weight his supportive acts against the times he has supported the Democrats, his support for Republicans does not amount to very much. I mean, even Harry Reid is against abortion, pornography, drugs, tobacco, et cetera.

What I have a visceral dislike for, Bubba, are the political stances John McCain has made, not the man himself. I never had any personal animosity for John Glenn. I admire him, but I did not and do not support his politics, nor did I support him when he ran for President. Notice also, that I have launched no personal attacks on John McCain. I OPPOSE him because of the domestic policies he champions.

RE:'Guess what, we had all 3 branches of government in republican hands and they made a mess. They spent like maniacs. They spent like Democrats. One of the only ones trying to hold the line on it was McCain. I know you will say that the republicans need to be humbled to get back to their roots, well they have been and are going to be further. If this isn't enough of a lesson then they are done for.'

I don't think that they are anywhere near their roots, yet. In fact, I sometimes wonder if they even know what their roots are. The same could be said of conservatives in general. They very often cannot answer the question, 'What is it that you propose to conserve?' Can it be said that they are returning to their roots by nominating John McCain? The guy who just as recently as Friday supported yet another spending bill to extend unemployment benefits, even though it is not the least bit necessary at the moment? Could it be that both he and the Democrats are anticipating the catastrophe that the Democrats have concocted and John McCain supports? I remind you, we are now buying crude oil from our enemies at the rate of $3.00+ per GALLON.

RE:'I find what you are advocating to be incredibly dishonorable, self defeating and stupid. It needs damning because it will lead to the entrenchment of the very things you claim to be against. (A claim which I am deeply suspicious of at this point.)'

Fair enough. As I have already pointed out, the devil is damned by definition. You still fail to make a case FOR John McCain. You are being thickheaded, fine.

'YES! I have taken the position of the devil! This is an inquisition to determine the answer to a crucial question. Which of these two men, John McCain and Barack Obama, should we elect to the office of President of the United States?

RE:'For the very reasons you have stated and acknowledged McCain is a better presidential candidate then Obama. It couldn't be more clear cut.'

Wrong. I still maintain that John McCain will do MORE harm than Barack Obama.

RE:'I disagree, but it has always, ALWAYS been about choosing the person you think will screw up least. By your own admission that person is McCain.'

Nope. John McCain will do far more harm than Barack Obama will.

RE:'Because I am advocating for a Republican and the best person for the job, using logical arguments that are not pure pipe dreams. Why should they pay attention to you?'

Because this is about what will happen to this country after four years of a GOP led by John McCain. Your focus is on THIS election and the situation in Iraq to the exclusion of all else. And, I must add, it is likely the focus of the majority of Republicans at the moment. I am doing my best to point out another impending disaster. A disaster that will be perpetrated on us by the John McCain and the Republicans who share his political astigmatism.

RE:'You wont see the obvious and you are deliberately trying to injure the country. That makes you worse then the fools just doing it by accident.'

Oh, brother! You grossly underestimate the power and will of the American people. You have declared them hapless sheep. They aren't. How do you suppose they are going to react to $20/ gallon gasoline? That is what we are going to get whether McCain wins or Obama wins. Why? Because there is no significant difference in their energy policies. This is just for starters.

'Seventy percent of Republicans polled are unhappy with John McCain.'

According to what poll? The polls that matter have been taken and he is our nominee. What are the percentage of republicans that are happy with Obama? That would be only you.

'What John McCain has done, in effect, is to abandon his own party in the hopes of creating a personality cult for himself.'

RE:'No, what I am telling you is that the other side has worked harder, smarter, has raised more money and is putting out a candidate that is truly dangerous. I am saying that the time for sorting all this out is over. we need to unite around the man that we have in order to stop the one that they are putting forth. We can have our say in a McCain administration but it will require more work then it would have with, say, Reagan. Perhaps if we had been willing to put in the work then Bush wouldn't have gone off the rails like he did.'
George Bush was off the rails BEFORE HE GOT ELECTED.

RE:'THEY ARE WINNING BECAUSE THEY HAVE WORKED HARDER and that is the American way. Regardless, this election comes down to having a fighting chance or no chance at all. If we elect McCain we can still have an effect if we do not then will not. Again, are you afraid you are going to have to get off your ass?'

They are winning mostly because Republicans lend them credibility by compromising with them. Again, the 'center' of American politics has drifted leftwards since the days of FDR. Now it is accelerating. It is something of a struggle when you are fighting free bread and circuses and news medial long sympathetic with leftist causes. Compromises with leftist evil are little different from economic subsidies. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. When you compromise with evil you get more of it. When you compromise with socialism, you get more of it. Even the very best of rear guard actions give up ground.

RE:'To say that that is the only disagreement that he has with the Obama campaign is an outright lie. It is beyond disingenuous, it is an obvious, provable lie.'

So prove it!

RE:'Later I will go through the previous posts and cut and paste the ignored comments that you will not allow yourself to understand because you are a stubborn, self-deceiving, sees what he wants to see leftist.'

That might prove instructive for the both of us.

RE:'Not wants, IS running. And your choice is him or the other guy, as I have said for weeks.'

I stand corrected. I got too far south in the mouth and you got me fair and square.

'Nor am I impressed with your attempts to play the bully instead of arguing FOR your guy.'

RE:'I asked you first. Show some class and answer.'

What you and I both are doing is carrying on a public debate. That debate is taking place on a web site with very high traffic. It is about as loud a megaphone as either of us could hope to have. It IS reaching the right people. It IS making a difference.

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/why_a_mccain_win_may_be_bad_ fo.html

RE:'You are going to have to stab lots more backs before you get to mine.'

Oh, you mean the way John McCain stabbed Republicans in the back with McCain-Feingold? The way he enlisted the aid of George Soros and John Kerry for help in wielding the knife? You needn't worry about that. I have confronted you head on. I have invited you to fight as hard as you please. After all, my best ally in this struggle is none other than your client.

Report this comment

Is that you Howard Dean?Jun 16th, 2008 - 01:06:08

'Let's see, he enlisted the aid of George Soros and John Kerry to stifle speech (McCain-Feingold), especially the speech of is own party. '

He did not 'enlist the aid of George soros'. McCain/Finegold is a bad law. OK? Indeed, it has, ironically hurt McCain more then it has anyone else.

'He has since reinforced that stance by scolding members of his own party who were attacking Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for good cause.'

When? Telling someone not to mock obamas middle name is not 'reinforcing' McCain finegold. (At this point it is obvious that you are going to toss as much cr*p at him in order to see what sticks, right? Great.

'He sided with Edward Kennedy to make the immigration mess worse,'

OK, you have them, the 2 biggest legislative 'mistakes' that McCain has had in decades of public service. The first one has haunted him more then anyone else, has had no real effect because advocacy groups just start 501c cooperations to get around the law and the second one was stopped by people LIKE ME who flooded the senate switchboard, wrote dozens of letters and got off our rear ends to make sure it didn't happen.

A couple of very important things happened there, 1) McCain has promised to reverse his direction and push for an enforcement first approach showing that he does listen to his base. 2) It shows that people CAN change the direction of the debate in Washington when they get off their rear ends and demand it. For the bazillionth time; do you think Obama is going to listen to your demands?

Here is the thing about stating that. I know that you know that he wont. I know that you know that he will be a disaster, I know that you know that he 'hates the USA', yet those are all selling points in your upside down world. Aside from being inherently anti-American and poisonous to the country, it is not going to get you to where you want to go.

'And it now becomes clear that he sides with the Democrats to install a positively insane energy policy that ignores the real needs of this country.'

There are 2 candidates that are running for office. Obama will continue the ban on offshore drilling and drilling within the states themselves. McCain will allow it within the states and offshore as long as the states approve it. He has given them economic incentives to improve it. As for ANWR, oh well. Better to get on the phone and start a group for drilling offshore around Florida or in the Dakotas.

www.americansolutions.com

seminolevoice.com/Seminole_Voice/article.asp?ID=569

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&refer=home&sid=ayj1uo_gdNI4

'What I have a visceral dislike for, Bubba, are the political stances John McCain has made, not the man himself. '

I think that you have characterized compromise as capitulation. Regardless, supposedly the last time humans ran into a perfect person they nailed him to a cross. McCain isn't perfect, however he has done more for this country then Obama ever will, even if he is elected. Especially if he is elected.

'I OPPOSE him because of the domestic policies he champions.'

Firstly I think you have deliberately closed yourself off to te factthat there isa lot that can be worked with in McCains positions and secondly, most importantly; you are trying to rationalize supporting more EXTREME versions of the policies that you supposedly object to. I really wish you would sit down, without ego and stubbornness and examine that position and where it will leave the country.

I do not like my youngest nephew because he puts on his Sunday school shoes and kicks me in my bad leg. So... Am I going to vote to not spend time with the little monkey with the idea that sooner or later 'that what does not kill me will only make me stronger'? Maybe If I spent lots of time with the little bastard he could turn me in to Carl Lewis? Or am I going to vote to whack the little SOB who takes after the in laws in the rear end until he runs away and grows up? That pretty much sums up your 'strategy'. I made my choice and I ain't getting kicked in the shin.

Here is what you miss over and over: CONSERVATIVES WILL HAVE A FIGHTING CHANCE WITH MCCAIN, THEY WILL NOT WITH OBAMA. That is all you are going to get this time around. All or nothing is going to leave you with nothing.

'I remind you, we are now buying crude oil from our enemies at the rate of $3.00+ per GALLON. '

The whole crude argument seems to be at the heart of your objections with the man in that it always goes back to that. You are up against a law signed into effect during the Clinton administration. You are up against people who d not want drilling in their back yard, you are up against people who have been indoctrinated by this global warming nonsense and you are up decades of inaction. With oil prices at what they are you and I have a chance to push for more domestic drilling but the object at rest tends to stay at rest. It certainly WILL stay at rest if people are satisfied with it being at rest and don't do any pushing to get it going.

If Obama gets his way oil prices will plummet. Why? After the initial price spikes up to $400/bbl when Iran and al Aaeda are handed Iraq's oil wealth there will be a world wide recession/ depression which will lesson international and probably domestic demand. Do you think people are going to want to drill when oil is back down to $20 a bbl? Your time is NOW and your only hope is getting McCain in because he wont veto bills that will increase drilling outside of Anwr and Obama will.

'Fair enough. As I have already pointed out, the devil is damned by definition.'

Don't flatter yourself, the Devil is evil with a purpose. You are just shooting yourself in the foot and trying to get others to do the same. We need to be smarter and work harder, not only against the opposition but within the party itself.

'. You still fail to make a case FOR John McCain.'

Well, I disagree. I have all over this board. I haven't centralized them in to a position paper though, which I will. (I am honestly pressed for time and it is easier for me to pick apart your arguments then to formulate an all encompassing one of my own. I am not interested in just tossing out a boiler plate, 'because the alternative is rewarding everything they have done thereby guaranteeing its continuation' type deal.)

'You are being thickheaded, fine. '

That hurts my feelings and you are being a 'bully'. I am 'not impressed'. I honestly believe it is you who are being deliberately obtuse because you want me to state something that you want to hear. I can see how McCain isn't everything you have ever wanted in a candidate, but you have stupidly rationalized that in to supporting someone who hates the USA by your own admission:

'Barack Obama hates the United States.'- Noharness

'Which of these two men, John McCain and Barack Obama, should we elect to the office of President of the United States?'

You have answered the question yourself. Over and over. You are advocating for Obama BECAUSE you believe he will be a disaster.

'Wrong. I still maintain that John McCain will do MORE harm than Barack Obama. '

By compromising with the democrats...

'Nope. John McCain will do far more harm than Barack Obama will.'

Again, by compromising with the democrats... So your brilliant 'strategy' is to give them everything they want so they do not have to compromise with anyone.

I noticed that you ran like hell from the 'What social program that has been created has ever been voluntarily given back? Question. Am I here to just answer all your questions and you don't ever answer mine? Isn't tat a bit rude?

During the time that you propose to give them complete control over everything they will be changing the character of the country in ways that will NOT be easily undone. Instead of holding them at the door you are going to give them everything they want, some of which will be IMPOSABLE to do away with. Especially when we can't get our base to stop our own excessed.

'Oh, brother! You grossly underestimate the power and will of the American people.'

Then why aren't we drilling? Why aren't we stopping illegal immigration? Why didn't we drop our rifles and run from Iraq? It isn't so simple as you put it, now is it? You also underestimate that there are a good portion of the American public that are seriously committed to everything you do not want and once they get some of it they are going to want all of it. I see and hear it every blasted day. There are plenty in these blue states that have no problem with socialism or even communism, they have learned to call it 'progressive' or 'fair'. If they see that they are getting what they want and it isn't working the solution will be to get MORE of what they want. (We have been through this over and over)

'Why? Because there is no significant difference in their energy policies.'

Yes there is, McCain is more open to domestic drilling then Obama is. He wants nuclear power, Obama does not. McCain pushed for a new refinery, obama did not. That is just for starters.

'George Bush was off the rails BEFORE HE GOT ELECTED. '

That pesky democracy for you, other people have free will, they should be punished for it, right? Lets help have a catastrophe to teach the idiots a lesson... Who is underestimating the American public now?

'They are winning mostly because Republicans lend them credibility by compromising with them'

NO ONE was saying: 'Lets behave like pigs at the trough because that ill be compromising with the democrats'. It is that, and the war in Iraq that have the republicans in the fix that they are in. NOT 'COMPROMISE'. The Iraq war had support from the democrats, until it started going badly. then they tried to lose it and the republicans did not compromise. It cost many of them their jobs. It cost Lieberman his position in the democratic party because he compromised with the republicans.

The American people are voting democratic mostly because of he Iraq war. Where have the republicans compromised with them on that? Indeed, most of the democrats trying to lose this war voted for it. This is what you want to reward!

'Again, the 'center' of American politics has drifted leftwards since the days of FDR.'

I disagree, it swings back and forth. What FDR social programs that outlasted his administration have been given up by the way?

'Now it is accelerating. '

So instead of holding the line and pushing back, which CAN BE DONE as it was with FDR, LBJ, Carter and Clinton you want to push it over the edge to teach people a lesson. There are smarter, less destructive ways of doing this that ill not result in economic bankruptcy and terrorist attacks.

' It is something of a struggle when you are fighting free bread and circuses and news medial long sympathetic with leftist causes.'

Gee, life is a struggle, who knew? The opposition is pretty energized. Best capitulate...

'Compromises with leftist evil are little different from economic subsidies.'

YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR THEM! Where did you get the idea that your responsibility to the USA ends with your vote? You have to push, push and push. They are willing to do just that. That is why you perceive your center moving 'left'.

'When you subsidize something, you get more of it.'

YES, and you are voting for it directly which is the ultimate form of subsidization!

' When you compromise with evil you get more of it. '

So better to capitulate to islamist terrorists?

' Even the very best of rear guard actions give up ground. '

My strategy doesn't compromise anything. It is taking the far less worse alternative, even a better alternative then Bush was and continuing to push elected officials to further what I believe are sensible solutions to the problems we face. Your 'solution' compromises EVERYTHING by turning it over to the very people who will make the biggest mess BECAUSE they will make the biggest mess. McCain is an honorable man who sincerely wants the best for the USA. That is not a compromise.

'So prove it!'

Fine, Ill get on it and do a nice little research paper for you that will be tossed back in my face because you are operating under a faulty premise to begin with. You have a wonderful little scenario cooked up to waste my time, don't you? 'Prove that McCain is better, even though I acknowledge he is better, but when you do demonstrate he is better I will use that as an argument against him because what I am after is worse in order to teach all the lunkheads in this country that socialism doesn't work by giving them a huge dose of socialism... '

You are, by your own admission not after the best for the USA, you are after disaster so you can teach people a lesson. Well excuse me for repeating myself, but it is a stupid plan, borne of a fundamental laziness and narcissism and it is doomed to failure.

'That might prove instructive for the both of us.'

So much for packing.

'What you and I both are doing is carrying on a public debate.'

Debates are where questions are posed and answered. You simply duck whatever inconvenient questions that are posed to you and come up with new tasks for me. That isn't debate, that is a long car trip with a 2 year old.

'That debate is taking place on a web site with very high traffic.'

I would be shocked if anyone has gotten this far.

'It IS making a difference.'

Because Stuart Rothenberg is advocating for Obama and using your flawed logic to sell it to the far right as a principled decision? So is Stuart Rothenberg the one you are out to impress? He was already pushing for Obama. Who do you think is hanging on your every duplicitous word?

'
Oh, you mean the way John McCain stabbed Republicans in the back with McCain-Feingold? '

That hasn't stabbed anyone in the back except for himself. It isn't even a bump in the road. McCain has not been supported by George Soros and Obama certainly HAS. We have had this out before as well. How many times do I have to deflate your arguments with counterarguments only to have you trot out the same thing over and over again? When you say something that is wrong ands it is proven wrong to yu that is a mistake. When you repeat it after it has been proven wrong to you that is a lie.

'You needn't worry about that. I have confronted you head on.'

No, you haven't. What you are doing is advocating for the opposition. You call yourself someone who believes in conservative principles yet you are advocating for the most liberal member of the senate because you know he will act accordingly. That makes you underhanded and duplicitous.

'After all, my best ally in this struggle is none other than your client'

My 'client' is the USA. Reading that you think that it needs to be brutalized by stupid socialist programs and attacked by terrorists that have been deliberately emboldened in order to to be taught a lesson by voting for people who are going to do it the most damage is nauseating, stupid and, coming from someone who realizes it, back stabbing.

Report this comment

A fighting chance..Jun 16th, 2008 - 20:27:23

ARLINGTON, VA. – As John McCain rolls out his energy policy this week, he called for a lifting of the federal moratorium preventing states from exploring for oil off of their coasts. “They have to be lifted so that states can make those decisions,” McCain said. “I’m not dictating to the states that they drill or they engage in oil exploration, I am saying that the moratoria should be lifted so that they have the opportunity to do so. By the way, I would also like to see perhaps additional incentives…in the form of tangible financial rewards if the states decide to lift those moratoria.”

Searching for offshore oil and gas deposits was banned in 1981 by the Outer Continental Shelf moratorium, which prevents the leasing of coastal waters for fossil fuel development. Roughly 85 percent of U.S. coastal areas are currently protected by the moratorium. McCain’s Democratic rival, Barack Obama, voted against a Senate measure last March that would have lifted the ban, and has spoken out against offshore drilling, calling it a “short-term solution.”

McCain admitted offshore drilling would only be helpful in the short term, but would provide a good start in helping the U.S. develop other sources of energy. “We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gases through the development of alternate energy sources,” McCain said. “Exploration is a step toward the longer term goal.”

Report this comment

on Offshore DrillingJun 16th, 2008 - 20:55:22

thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/mccain-let-states-decide-on-offshore -drilling/

By Michael Falcone

ARLINGTON, Va. — With the price of gasoline surging past $4 a gallon in many parts of the country, Senator John McCain called today for the lifting of the federal moratorium on offshore oil drilling for states that want to permit it.

He said that he also favors giving states incentives to allow exploration, part of an energy proposal that he said would be “very helpful in the short term for resolving our energy crisis.”

Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, said the impact of high fuel prices was hitting Americans, not only at the pump, but also in the form of rising food prices and threats of inflation.

“We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gases through the development of alternate energy sources,” Mr. McCain said, adding that he continues to support a summer gas tax holiday.

Mr. McCain has a mixed record on the issue in the Senate. In 2001 and 2006, he voted in favor of offshore oil drilling in Florida, but in 2003 he voted against it in Florida and other states. Mr. McCain has consistently opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

---------------------------------------------------------------
And to leave no doubt where Soros or the New York Times stands on the subject:

Daniel J. Weiss, an expert on global warming at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research group, said that Mr. McCain’s call to lift the moratorium was a “partial capitulation'’ to the oil industry in that states that did not want to drill offshore would not have to. But he said it was significant that Mr. McCain made the announcement 24 hours before he was to speak in Texas.

“McCain is handing America’s coasts on a platter to the big oil companies the day before he goes to talk to them in Houston,'’ Mr. Weiss said.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. McCain plans to discuss the details of his proposal at a speech in Houston on Tuesday.


Go and listen, Hopefully they will make sure you go through a metal detector.

Report this comment