Redstate

On my list of Republican favorites for Prez he would fall behind everyone but Tancredo and Guiliani. But you have to understand that Rep. Paul's views on the Iraq War and GWOT is 180 degrees from where we, as a party, have staked our claim through President Bush, not only in 2006, but in 2008. Despite the polls, despite the loss in 2006, we have elected to remain steadfast and not give an inch on the issue of Iraq and the GWOT. It's not as if Rep. Paul has a "different" or nuanced view on what I do not call "minor issues", but still are issues that do not dominate where the party is in terms of distinguishing the #1 issue to the party. For example, if Rep. Paul disagreed or had a unique view on taxes, social issues or spending issues, he would not be summarily dismissed here and on other Republican sites. However, since he is 180 degrees on THE issue the party has staked and refuses to budge on, he (and his supporters) is inevitably going to receive the treatment they are receiving.
Let me reiterate, I am NOT a Ron Paul fan or voter (I disagree with him on homosexual marriage). But I think its pretty clear why he is being shunned here and elsewhere.

you're talking awfully broadly about a group of people who aren't monolithic. There are plenty of Republicans who aren't in favor of what we're doing in Iraq. There are some who don't think we should have gone there in the first place.

If trying to shut down opposition to the war had been the intent, I'd be loudly pointing out this is a disasterous mistake, on the order of what the party leadership did in 2006.

But that's not the reason for the ban. This is more like trying to keep pigeons out of your house, because you're tired of droppings on the carpet. More civilized and intelligent birds are welcome, including non-hawks. Such are quite able to deal with the posted restriction.

Pat Buchanan, William F. Buckley Jr., George Will, Barry Goldwater Jr., and Tucker Carlson are all Ron Paul supporters to one degree or another. We need to be careful not to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

Tancredo is dropping out later this week. His campaign manager is Pat Buchanan's sister.
Have any of you considered the implications of this? If you have not been to Pat's website recently you may want to pay a visit.

http://www.buchanan.org/

Here's a recent interview with Bill Buckley:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=william_f_buckle...

Q: You know who Ron Paul is -- the congressman. He’s derided and discounted by many conservatives and his fellow Republicans as a kook. Yet his strong stands in favor of limited constitutional government, lower taxes, more personal freedoms and nonintervention overseas make him in many ways sound like a conservative of old -- a Robert Taft, or a Coolidge kind of conservative in some ways.

A: I agree, yeah.

Q: Is he getting a bum rap?

A: I think that people who cast themselves as presidential contenders are almost universally derided on the grounds that they don’t have manifest orthodox qualifications.

In the case of Ron Paul, he doesn’t have a broad enough or huge following and under the circumstances he becomes rather a quaint ideological aspirant than someone who is realistically seeking for power.

Ok, so Bill's criticism is that Ron Paul does not have a big enough following to make a difference. He is not disagreeing with him on policy. In fact he agrees with him on almost every single issue including foreign policy and the illegality of victimless crimes.

The problem is not "Ron Paul", although the general feeling around here is that his candidacy is a bad joke, the problem is his "supporters". They are well beyond obnouxous, contribute absolutely nothing to the dialog and are not capable of carrying on a cogent discussion of any issue. They just drop by and scream "Ron Paul".
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Of course those were singletons, not swarms.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

but this comment makes me wonder:
seems to violate the very principle of blogging - freedom of expression.

How so? Does Redstate somehow have the power to keep the RPs from expressing themselves in blogs? Dumb statement, the kind that, frankly, the RPs make regularly. The RPs can express themselves freely, somewhere else, like, maybe a blog that they pay for, not one that they try to hijack.

And the statement
"*nobody* is really saying, "look, we just don't like Ron Paul because he's anti-war, and pro-liberty, and that violates our platform."

Okay, Ron Paul is an isolationist. We get that, but "pro-liberty, and that violates our platform>"!!! But, I know, you said you aren't Ron Paul supporter.

Redstate allows Republicans to blog about the candidates they support and the issues they care about. Redstate has decided that Republicans who support a Republican candidate the owners of the site dont like cant blog here. The owners are entitled to do this, it is there site and they can do what they want. But singling out a Republican candidate they dont agree with does suppress the free exchange of ideas, which is something all Republicans should be against. I can understand Redstate not wanting democrats to promote their candidates on Redstate's dollar. I dont understand why a republican should receive the same treatment.

Yes, Ron Paul is against the war. So is Bill Buckley, can he post here? How about his supporters?

sorry - couldn't resist

Bill Buckley is the ONLY true Republimericanservativarianatriot. And y'all are just fakers. Also, curse this and curse that. Plus, fascism and banning and blogs forever and free mumia and code pink and YEARGH!!!!

absentee

we already let them air their views and instead of a principled discussion of the war or other issues we got insane crap.

Sorry, all out of tolerance for insane crap.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Redstate allows Republicans to blog about the candidates they support and the issues they care about. Redstate has decided that Republicans who support a Republican candidate the owners of the site don[']t like can[']t blog here. The owners are entitled to do this, it is the[ir] site and they can do what they want. But singling out a Republican candidate they don[']t agree with does suppress the free exchange of ideas, which is something all Republicans should be against. I can understand Redstate not wanting [D]emocrats to promote their candidates on Redstate's dollar. I dont understand why a [R]epublican should receive the same treatment.

Yes, Ron Paul is against the war. So is Bill Buckley[.] [C]an he post here? How about his supporters?

those corrections having been made, you are an ignorant lout who knows NOTHING about what has been done at RedState except what your Sheeple masters have told you!

The relative merits of RP and the other candidate have been regularly been discussed, but Sheeple from RP websites have continually bombarded conversations. NOW, Sheeple like you continue to do the same.

Thank you for being a twit!

Thank you for correcting my punctuation. Punctuation and spelling are very important when commenting on blog posts and we must all remember to edit our posts.

I would like to respond to your comment: "The relative merits of RP and the other candidate [sic] have been regularly been [sic] discussed, but Sheeple from RP websites have continually bombarded conversations."
However, I am not familiar with the term Sheeple. That being the case I will simply note that grammar nazis are worthless and add nothing to a conversation. In addition, when one side is reduced to ad homs you know they have lost the argument.

Or is he just running in the primaries because he gets more attention as a Republican than he would if he just ran as a Libertarian (like he did in 1988, and which, I have no doubt he will do again in 2008)?

He has said he will not support his opponents in the general if he wins? Do you think Reagan would approve of that? Or does it sound like he's already practicing his sour grapes? He may call himself a Republican, but he has almost nothing in common with any Republican around. He takes a small sliver of the Republican platform (smaller government) and takes it to its lunatic fringe extent.

And you have failed to grasp the "ban" - it is not a ban on Dr. Paul. As far as I can tell, I believe that the editors and directors would welcome posts and discussion from Dr. Paul himself. It isn't even a ban on people talking about Ron Paul. In fact, I encourage you to do so - please tell us why he is more than a cult figure - why his policies are worth listening to - what he plans to do to get any of his grand elimination schemes done.

That is what the ban is about. It is about people who clearly are NOT Republicans, coming onto a Republican site in order to shill, with little more than campaign slogans and attacks on the rest of us, for a candidate who, so far, calls himself a Republican. There are many things that the Directors don't allow here at the site - that's the joy of private property - they get to set the rules. Just like you get to decide who you let into your house (btw, would you welcome in a bunch of people who came in, slapped a Ron Paul sticker on your antique cabinet and called you a warmongering fascist? I'd show them the door).

Instead of whining, pissing, and moaning about the ban, why don't all of you go actual put together a well-reasoned, intelligent discussion of Ron Paul and ask Erick and the Directors to post it? Maybe you can show us by example why the "ban" (which is not really a ban but a limitation/restriction) is really "stifling the free expression of ideas" (I deny the implicit assumption that Paulistas have any ideas to express that don't involve equating everyone who disagrees with them with fascists and/or socialists)?

I am not a Ron Paul fan, but I do believe many of his domestic policy views are superior to the major candidate. No candidate is more committed to reducing taxes and spending than Paul. Many of the candidates claim they will work to reduce government spending, but only McCain has any credibility in this area. Paul also has very conservative views on immigration, abortion, and school choice. He goes way past the mainstream candidates on a few issues discussed below.

Executive agencies, which are unconstitutional under an originalist view of the Constitution, have become so large they impact every American's daily life. We have a Department of Education that spends billions of taxpayer dollars each year. I am not sure where those dollars go, because the Department of Education does not run any of our schools. (They might run DC schools, but you get the point.) Many other government agencies are also unnecessary and contribute to out ever increasing national debt. Paul is the only candidate who would actually support reducing these agencies to a reasonable level.

Paul, and to a lesser extent Thompson, are the only candidates with a conservative approach to Federalism. Paul has consistently opposed bills that abuse the Commerce Clause powers granted by the Constitution. To my knowledge, he is the only candidate on record opposing the Federal ban on marijuana and many other federal crimes. Despite what the SCOTUS says, I can not understand how a plant grown in someone's house for personal use in that same house has a substantial impact on interstate commerce. The same goes for a majority of the federal crimes on the books today. See e.g. Vick's dogfighting conviction. It is time to return the police powers to the state level, where the people are in a better position to see that they are correctly enforced.

Paul is one of the few candidates to make Social Security a major issue in his campaign. Social Security and Medicare are probably a bigger threat to our nation than even terrorism, yet there is very little discussion about the problem by mainstream candidates. Young Americans, like myself, see 15% of our paychecks go to the government every week and no that we will see nothing in return. I understand that Congress currently depends on social security money to fund a substantial part of the federal budget and that we cant simply stop contributing to the plan. But we must do something, and I am sick of politicians ignoring the issue. The federal government takes 15% of my income, and in return makes a promise it has no hope of fulfilling. If a private citizen did the same thing he would be arrested for fraud.

His supporters also make reasonable points on personal liberty, privacy, and healthcare reform. I dont agree with these positions, but I can not deny that there is some merit to them.

But he doesn't have any sort of plan to put his libertarian/far right ideas into effect. In other words, he's a "big picture" kind of candidate--he has a coherent governmental philosophy (despite his frothing at the mouth acolytes), but has no realistic way to get pro-libertarian legislation enacted. For that, he would either need to have broad support in Congress for his ideas, or support in the Supreme Court for the same (to declare DoE "unconstitutional", stop the Iraq war, etc.).

Does he have enough support in Congress to abolish the DoE, legalize marijuana, etc.?

No.

Does he have that kind of support in the Supreme Court?

No!

If he tells us how he expects to garner such support during his tenure as president (or what legislation he will attempt to pass in lieu of that), I'm all ears. But what I'm hearing now from RP and his supporters is that RP will fix everything wrong with the govt. with his secret stash of pixie dust, and that anyone who isn't so sure about the pixie dust idea is unconservative or (gasp!) a Zionist. That's my opinion (and that of many others on RS) on RP's candidacy.

trying to press with the Ronettes. The guy has had 20+ years to put together a plan to accomplish something - anything - and note that I said put a plan together not actually do it, and he has done nothing but throw legislation against the wall of the Capitol that everybody knows will go nowhere.

"Secret stash of pixie dust..." I like that a lot. :>)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

He is when he wants to be and not when he doesn't. This is a Republican community, and my guess is that most of the Paulistas that have caused this problem are NOT Republicans.

He has said himself that it's either Ron Paul as the Republican Presidential nominee or he's ditching the party. Why should we continue to give him a forum. So far, I have not heard a single other candidate - and even very few ordinary commenters on here - say that they are leaving the party if their guy doesn't win.

If Ron Paul will not support any other candidate who beats him for the nomination, then he should be cast out of the Party the way we disowned Lincoln Chafee.

As for the charge of "real" or "genuine" Republican - the only "real" Republicans are the ones that started the Party in the 1850s. They're best embodied by Abraham Lincoln, who was a very statist president. He was the galvinizing force behind the greatest retrenching of power away from the original meaning and to the federal government that has ever occurred. He laid the groundwork for the vast expansions of power we saw in the New Deal and Great Society. So, if Dr. Paul would like to claim THAT mantle, I welcome him to it, and again state that I am not interested in that.

What Dr. Paul and his cultist seem to mean when they say "real conservative" and "real Republican" is some idealized view of what the Party was like before FDR - the laissez faire era. And by "real conservative" they seem to mean an idealized vision of the principles of Barry Goldwater. Both of those visions are and should be dead. They were the correct responses to the times in which they existed, but not today.

Today the vast majority of Americans are not looking to abolish the Department of Education. They aren't interested in totally withdrawing ourselves to the borders and disengaging from the world, they are not in favor of a total absence of government in Washington. And so, the idea that 2008 is about dismantling a behemoth that has been around for decades is foolish. Right now, today, the first thing to do is to regain control of the train. Before we can get to a place where we can repeal those entitlements that are so ridiculous and costly, maybe we should figure out how to convince people that, at the very least, we should stop expanding them.

Isolationism - Paul's excuse for a foreign policy as best I can tell - went out the door in 1917 when we entered WWI. Since then we have been, and must remain engaged in the world, and that means that sometimes we must throw our weight around. And Laissez-faire domestic policies - this hands off, no government is good idea that is the answer to every domestic policy question posed to Paul - went the way of the dodo in October 1929 when the stock market crashed.

And, even if they hadn't - the simple fact is that the legal posture of the country is such that "the law" has enshrined many of these entitlements - to the point where denying a person benefits requires more legal wrangling and "due process" than seizing someone's house under eminent domain. Maybe we should start rolling back the idea that the judges make the rules before we worry about repealing the laws.

Excellent post. eom.

::back to the dungeon::

this is worthy of being a blog of its own. Very well stated, and reasoned.

In defense of RP, remember he was in congress and voted against going to war in 1917!

absentee

...is someone who is registered as a member of the Republican Party. Period. Your views and opinions don't make you a Republican, your registration does. By being a member of the Republican Party, your views and opinions, combined with those of the other members of the party, *shape* the overall position of the party on various issues. Some people's opinions count for more, usually those we choose to represent us. But it's still the views and opinions of the members who drive the party position, not vice versa.

Even core principles, which you would imagine to be rooted in stone, are subject to the views of the party membership. The core principles of the party today are not those of it's inception. Not even close.

That's one of the reasons I get seriously offended any time I see someone use the "RINO" epithet, applied to *anyone*. There's no such thing as a RINO. There are registered Republicans and there are non-Republicans.

I'm not a particular fan of Ron Paul. He's near the bottom of my list of the currently running candidates (only Huckabee is lower...), mainly because while he has a few interesting economic ideas, he's also totally disconnected from any sense of reality. But he *is* a Republican, regardless.

...that he will support whoever the GOP nominee is. Because, contra your opinion, there is a minimum bar of Party loyalty; and Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! has so far failed to clear it.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...then I'm afraid there are quite a lot of people currently in the party who fail it. Not just Ron. There are plenty of people here who have already stated their refusal to support Giuliani if he's the nominee, and I myself have stated my refusal to support Huckabee if he's the nominee.

Loyalty is an important thing for any cause. But *blind* loyalty can destroy it.

supporting Rudy IF he's the nominee, exactly none of them are actually candidates for POTUS (unless Neil posted something I've missed...)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

If nominated, I will not run.

If elected, I will not serve.

If I were 35, we could talk on that last point.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

I guess if you honestly feel that if Huckabee gets the nomination he would do worse than whatever *shivers* canidate the dems put up then you are free to do so.

I think the real question regarding RP's party loyalty is not just will he support or not support whoever gets the Republican nomination, but will he run third party if he doesn't and try to drain votes away from our party.

I don't think its blind loyalty to support your party even if you do not get to be the canidate. I think that RP's loyalty is to the libertarian party, but its not big enough so he is trying to poach off the republicans.

But the Ronulans are just nuts. Incidentally, I just heard the latest jab from the far left. I was called (on the Internet) a LibertAryan. HA HA ! that was funny.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

views on many issues is VERY high. Most libertarian-conservatives do not agree with the Libertarian Party on the drug issue or open borders, but those are just two issues. Libertarian Republicans are a very significant percentage of the GOP base. I can tell you that these self described libertarian-conservatives would not elect Paul if they constituted the entire Republican Party.

Paul does not "represent" libertarianism, Paul represents Paul. He is a blame America firster, something very few libertarian conservatives would ever accept.

to bite it out of you.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Molon Labe!

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

but am not in on the joke, I was asking seriously.

Molon Labe!

Who WAS Doc Holliday. You can mark a State Dinner at the White House on your calendar shortly after my coronationinauguration.
Woof!!

Franz' 11th Commandment: If anybody messes with you, kill them and eat them invite them to a State Dinner at the White House...

Molon Labe!

Molon Labe!

Franz is MBecker's dog. Above average looking, politically savvy, and some say he has a great future in national politics.

But his primary asset is his ferocity. NOOOOOOOOOOBODY wants any of Franz.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

Franz is not anybody's "dog".

We are Franz' humble servants. And honored to be.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

After I hit the [Post Comment] button, I realized my faux PAW.

BWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

OK, enough of that. Yes, Franz is the dog who takes up residence under the care of his servant the Beck. The rest of us pretty much just bask in the awesomeness of Franz.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

well Mbecker is usually so softspoken, I wonder how he can handle Franz!

Molon Labe!

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

This is our site, and we LIKE it how it is. RS is a forum that is (relatively) free of smutty language and hate-filled screaming. A number of GOP congresspeople and spokespeople for congress-people and candidates drop in to talk and be talked to. That will continue, I guarantee you that, in spite of this "tremendous mistake".

And by the way, let's get a couple of things straight about free speech. Censorship is the GOVERNMENT denying citizens their free speech. See McCain-Feingold for a classic example.

A privately owned and operated site cannot CENSOR anybody. The idiots can go anywhere else they want and howl like banshees all they want. Just not here in our restaurant, because its OURS and we say so.

And by the way, we can SMOKE in our restaurant.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

In the above note, I kind of expanded the "us" and "our" as if we all had your God-like powers. Please forgive some creative license, and I'll make it up in beer and other libations!

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

Would RedState also ban Ron Paul himself if he wanted to post?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Within posting guidelines. If he started talking 9111 truther nonsense, or illuminati banker garbage, he'd probably earn a banning, but if he just wanted to post his thoughts? I'm sure he would be welcome.

Of course, Franz would probably bite him!

I believe the ban is against the nutty Ronulans, and I think at least one of the Big Dogs™ specifically stated that if Dr Paul wanted to post he would be welcome to do so.

And as just a RS regular, I'd be interested in reading what he had to say, although I am virulently opposed to the isolationism .

*******************************************
And now that I have your attention, I have an aside for you, Kyle8. I'm still pretty PO'ed at you (call me a grudge-holder). Several months ago, on a Sunday morning, you used the GD word here on RS, in a subject-line, no less. That is the most vile of profane terms to me (and many others), and it is an egregious violation of RS rule #1. You didn't get banned for that [in fact, the GD was excised later on, which only a big dog can do, so I know they saw it], and to my knowledge, you were not scolded or faced with any consequences whatsoever. Nor did I see any kind of apology.

So there it is. I don't have God-like powers so I can't do anything to you. But here's a chance to make things right. Care to?

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

If it offended you so much well I am sorry. but you seem to have a pretty thin skin to still be dwelling upon it.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Yes, I know, I own up to thin-skinned. But it stuck in my craw, and I never forgot.

So, on with life. Are we cool then?

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

I remember years ago In a business class, I had a professor who kept saying Jesus's name as an exclamation. Normally that sort of thing does not phase me, I grew up with a pretty tough vocabulary. But then I found out the guy was an atheist and it really got to me because here was an atheist saying His name that way, and I told him it bothered me.

Of course I never think much of just using the generic GD. But maybe I should.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

So let's get back to kicking Democrat butts (and the flavor of the day, the Spamming MoRons). I'll mention this no more. I appreciate your attitude, and like I said, I'm kind of a jerk for letting that simmer forever.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

In the post about Ed Morrissey, along with posing the question would Morrissey extend the same courtesy.

That's like seven times I've agreed with you kyle8. Who says Ron Paul can't bring us all together!

absentee

we got on each others wrong side on the Coulter thing, both of us got all huffy. I will apologize for that too,.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

... verklempt ... me too ... cough hack.

Flowers are forthcoming.*

absentee

*Offer not available in all areas. Subject to restrictions. No flowers are forthcoming in association with this offer. Any actual flowers received will be entirely coincidental.

New (newer than 6 months IIRC) Posters were banned from discussing him without first taking a month or so to blog on other topics here and establish some credibility.

There are accountholders here who have been here a while or otherwise sufficiently established credibility that they could post a vote-for-Ron-Paul diary that I expect the editors would have no issue with. There have been some decent pro-Paul diaries (that may have even been promoted) by rational, credible posters here.

New posters who show up and rant about North American Union, Bretton Woods, and AIPAC are what have effectively been banned. And you know what, it was a good decision, they were ruining this site.

...on a Paulism thread ironic, or just funny? Oh well, either way you should have noted that we're tired of people who use "neocon" to mean "Republicans I don't like," too. Although there's certainly a good deal of overlap.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

They can come back on if they submit a 1000 word essay on exactly what is a neocon, who they are, and what they believe.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Does Jooooooooooooooooos still count as only one word, no matter how many o's you use?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Like this:

THA JOOOOOOOOOOOOZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Staunch, I have been a registered user here for almost 3 years. This is not the first time a topic has generated some sort of policy response. And to date, I have yet to see the Directors fall down the slope.

Nor are they attempting to shut out intelligent discussion and debate. In fact, since my pedigree exempts me from the general Paulista ban, I would encourage someone who actually agrees with Paul to write such an intelligent discussion - I might even be willing to post it under my name. I'd write something myself but I simply have too much dislike for Ron Paul and his ideas to give him even an objective chance.

The best way to put to rest this idea that ALL discussion of Ron Paul is verbotten is to actually get something up here that presents some thought-out, rational, and intelligent reasons for Pauline doctrine.

small-time as it is. I recently had to enable comment moderation when someone left a very long, incoherent, crackpot and openly racist comment on my post about the passing of Rep. Jo Ann Davis, and this guy didn't touch on anything relating to the honorable lady. Everyone has to clean up their own back yard, as the saying goes.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

compelled him to defend the country without ceding executive power to congress via a misinterpetation of the constitution, support a safety net and take note of the fact that its not 1789.

The result: modern day conservatism, soul and body

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

and I'd managed to forget about Gunderson. This guy should have been locked up for what he did, "nuts" doesn't even begin to explain him.

Thanks for the reminder about just who we're dealing with here.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.