-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 23, 2020, 09:52:29 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Carnival Of Sound
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 223227 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #700 on: April 15, 2016, 08:50:30 AM »

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  Wink

I think The Captain has done a good job at challenging that point but even if we were to accept it, I'd be curious as to whom these Dems believe have been trying to "force a more liberal agenda upon them" since just about every leader has moved the party further to the right.

Amen. (Not just to the part about me doing a good job.  Grin) The only issues on which I think anyone could argue the Dems have actually been more progressive in recent decades are LGBT rights and maybe drug legalization, the latter of which has plenty of support from libertarian types as well anyway.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #701 on: April 15, 2016, 08:51:13 AM »


Most families impart their religious beliefs alongside a political ideology.  

And smart people question both as they learn to think.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #702 on: April 15, 2016, 08:51:46 AM »

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  Wink

I think The Captain has done a good job at challenging that point but even if we were to accept it, I'd be curious as to whom these Dems believe have been trying to "force a more liberal agenda upon them" since just about every leader has moved the party further to the right.
There is a lot of merit in that, but what I have seen firsthand is that the lower-level politicians get black-balled if they are not perceived to be supporting, and I mean vigorously supporting the party nominee.  Even if they are terrible candidates.  They will take a good elected official and "school them" if they deviate from the party message or designee or refuse to put their ground game to work for their selection of party candidate.  

The are unable to get party support when seeking higher office because they did not do "what they were told." So there is a lot of retaliatory stuff always going on on the way up the ladder.

Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #703 on: April 15, 2016, 08:52:50 AM »

Also, I don't see how Clinton could not be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after being a young Republican in the 1960s. After all, the Republicans of the 1960s are pretty much the Democrats of today and that's been the case going back to the early 90s.
CSM - being brought up in a political party is very much akin to being bought up in a certain religion and with the history of workplace/ethnic oppression that would be beaten (not literally of course) into you.  And, it was as though the Dems could do no wrong because they were not the party of "the oppressor."  Families would vote as "a block."  That is neighborhood politics.  As Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local."

It is like "imprinting" the party message. I am not sure she can escape that. As things heat up more I suspect that the researchers will release that kind of info into the fray.   Wink  

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  Wink
Again, on both points, I think your views reflect a very particular New England micro culture.

Think that other parts of the country don't have families voting as a block?  LOL

Most families impart their religious beliefs alongside a political ideology.  
Perhaps but the extreme party loyalty, the irritation at the Democrats for adopting liberal social policies and abandoning the white working class, and the sense of Party ownership and anger at the loss of control is particular to a New England Catholic subculture. I've never known any people so married to a Party and so reluctantly divorcing it for its betrayal. I think it's pretty evident that Clinton is not of that subculture. Not only because she's not a New England Catholic but also because there's no evidence of her having any of that extreme cultural connection to the Republican Party. I think youMre projecting your experiences much further than they really extend.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2016, 08:56:01 AM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #704 on: April 15, 2016, 08:53:49 AM »


Most families impart their religious beliefs alongside a political ideology.  

And smart people question both as they learn to think.
And college, time in an occupation and personal growth can change that ideology.  But families can be very clannish and vote as a block.  It can make it easier for a candidate who doesn't just get one vote but can get six or more in a family.   Wink
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #705 on: April 15, 2016, 09:00:23 AM »

Also, I don't see how Clinton could not be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after being a young Republican in the 1960s. After all, the Republicans of the 1960s are pretty much the Democrats of today and that's been the case going back to the early 90s.
CSM - being brought up in a political party is very much akin to being bought up in a certain religion and with the history of workplace/ethnic oppression that would be beaten (not literally of course) into you.  And, it was as though the Dems could do no wrong because they were not the party of "the oppressor."  Families would vote as "a block."  That is neighborhood politics.  As Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local."

It is like "imprinting" the party message. I am not sure she can escape that. As things heat up more I suspect that the researchers will release that kind of info into the fray.   Wink 

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  Wink
Again, on both points, I think your views reflect a very particular New England micro culture.

Think that other parts of the country don't have families voting as a block?  LOL

Most families impart their religious beliefs alongside a political ideology.  
Perhaps but the extreme party loyalty, the irritation at the Democrats for adopting liberal social policies and abandoning the white working class and sense of ownership is particular to a New England Catholic subculture. I've never known any people so married to a Party and so reluctantly divorcing it for its betrayal. I think it's pretty evident that Clinton is not of that subculture. Not only because she's not a New England Catholic but also because there's no evidence of her having any of that extreme cultural connection to the Republican Party. I think youMre projecting your experiences much further than they really extend.

"New England Catholic?" what does that mean? Sounds pejorative to me. That is an outrageous statement. Wow.

Not all of New England is Catholic. It is a false perception and not a reality. 

Not all New England Democrats are Catholic. But many of the unions are pushing Hillary.   
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #706 on: April 15, 2016, 09:03:07 AM »

Referring to the existence of New England Catholics is hardly pejorative. And I'm pretty sure I didn't say "all" anywhere in there.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #707 on: April 15, 2016, 09:12:32 AM »

Referring to the existence of New England Catholics is hardly pejorative.

And I'm pretty sure I didn't say "all" anywhere in there.

That is an old stereotype from 1st and 2nd generation immigrant populations, that no longer works as "block voting" any more than old-time ethnic voting does.  That does not mean those individual families voting, that often will support certain candidates as a family block but not a cultural/religious socio-economic unit.

New England is a very much heterogeneous interfaith population.

But many traditional Catholics/Christians have beliefs that are more aligned with certain Republican candidates.     
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #708 on: April 15, 2016, 09:20:49 AM »

Referring to the existence of New England Catholics is hardly pejorative.

And I'm pretty sure I didn't say "all" anywhere in there.

That is an old stereotype from 1st and 2nd generation immigrant populations, that no longer works as "block voting" any more than old-time ethnic voting does.  That does not mean those individual families voting, that often will support certain candidates as a family block but not a cultural/religious socio-economic unit.

New England is a very much heterogeneous interfaith population.

But many traditional Catholics/Christians have beliefs that are more aligned with certain Republican candidates.     
I'm sorry. What was the non-working stereotype? That there are Catholics in New England or that there's a subculture of disaffected conservative Catholic New England Democrats?
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #709 on: April 15, 2016, 09:22:34 AM »

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  Wink

I think The Captain has done a good job at challenging that point but even if we were to accept it, I'd be curious as to whom these Dems believe have been trying to "force a more liberal agenda upon them" since just about every leader has moved the party further to the right.
There is a lot of merit in that, but what I have seen firsthand is that the lower-level politicians get black-balled if they are not perceived to be supporting, and I mean vigorously supporting the party nominee.  Even if they are terrible candidates.  They will take a good elected official and "school them" if they deviate from the party message or designee or refuse to put their ground game to work for their selection of party candidate.  

The are unable to get party support when seeking higher office because they did not do "what they were told." So there is a lot of retaliatory stuff always going on on the way up the ladder.



OK, but I'm not sure how this relates to the point that you allege some Dems are making, that party leaders are forcing a more liberal agenda on them.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #710 on: April 15, 2016, 09:25:09 AM »

Please stop picking out things that are generally true of both parties and of US politicians in general and implying that they are concerns for one candidate only.
Emily - how does Hillary square the inconsistencies with private incarceration where she is vested, and anti-law enforcement, contrary to Bill's position while in office.

Hillary can't have it both ways.  She can't be getting funding from corporate private prison business and claim that she is opposed to over-incarceration.

The positions are inconsistent.  We are talking about Hillary so it is her problem.  She gets 1/4 mil from Verizon, who have off-shored thousands of jobs, and wants union support?  That is not US worker friendly.  The Dems are supposed to be worker-friendly.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #711 on: April 15, 2016, 09:27:02 AM »

Please stop picking out things that are generally true of both parties and of US politicians in general and implying that they are concerns for one candidate only.
Emily - how does Hillary square the inconsistencies with private incarceration where she is vested, and anti-law enforcement, contrary to Bill's position while in office.

Hillary can't have it both ways.  She can't be getting funding from corporate private prison business and claim that she is opposed to over-incarceration.

The positions are inconsistent.  We are talking about Hillary so it is her problem.  She gets 1/4 mil from Verizon, who have off-shored thousands of jobs, and wants union support?  That is not US worker friendly.  The Dems are supposed to be worker-friendly.
I somewhat agree on your specific points. What I'm asking you not to do is imply that the general point is specific to one candidate when it's general to all.

Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #712 on: April 15, 2016, 09:28:50 AM »

Please stop picking out things that are generally true of both parties and of US politicians in general and implying that they are concerns for one candidate only.
Emily - how does Hillary square the inconsistencies with private incarceration where she is vested, and anti-law enforcement, contrary to Bill's position while in office.

Hillary can't have it both ways.  She can't be getting funding from corporate private prison business and claim that she is opposed to over-incarceration.

The positions are inconsistent.  We are talking about Hillary so it is her problem.  She gets 1/4 mil from Verizon, who have off-shored thousands of jobs, and wants union support?  That is not US worker friendly.  The Dems are supposed to be worker-friendly.

This, though it isn't my place to speak for her, is exactly what Emily is pointing out that you keep doing: taking something common in America and acting as if it were unusual to Democrats or Clinton.

Trump isn't inconsistent? He has spouted inconsistencies (such as on abortion) within the space of one day. He goes from a position of disengagement in the Middle East to all-out war in the Middle East. And so on.

Cruz talks about religious liberty constantly, yet is blatant in his selective application of it.

You'll be hard-pressed to find a major candidate in any major party who isn't riddled with inconsistency. It's normal. Not admirable. Pathetic, usually. But normal.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #713 on: April 15, 2016, 09:29:09 AM »

The positions are inconsistent.  We are talking about Hillary so it is her problem.  She gets 1/4 mil from Verizon, who have off-shored thousands of jobs, and wants union support?  That is not US worker friendly.  The Dems are supposed to be worker-friendly.

A Republican will tell you that their party is actually more worker-friendly. The fact is neither party particularly is. Trump, for example, notoriously outsources jobs while claiming to be opposed to that. So both parties are indulging in the same hypocritical rhetoric on this issue at the moment.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #714 on: April 15, 2016, 09:30:47 AM »

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  Wink

I think The Captain has done a good job at challenging that point but even if we were to accept it, I'd be curious as to whom these Dems believe have been trying to "force a more liberal agenda upon them" since just about every leader has moved the party further to the right.
There is a lot of merit in that, but what I have seen firsthand is that the lower-level politicians get black-balled if they are not perceived to be supporting, and I mean vigorously supporting the party nominee.  Even if they are terrible candidates.  They will take a good elected official and "school them" if they deviate from the party message or designee or refuse to put their ground game to work for their selection of party candidate.  

The are unable to get party support when seeking higher office because they did not do "what they were told." So there is a lot of retaliatory stuff always going on on the way up the ladder.



OK, but I'm not sure how this relates to the point that you allege some Dems are making, that party leaders are forcing a more liberal agenda on them.
OK - so lets suppose a mere state senator wants to run for higher office.  That person has to kiss-up to the party and do what they want.  If they don't support the person the party wants and sends their particular "ground game" (poll workers, sign hangers, telephone bank workers) to the candidate of the choice of the party, then the next time they run for higher office they will not get the party support.  People only have so many workers to stand out at a polling location all day long, or make 4-5 hours of calls in a phone bank.  These are critical "laborers in the vineyard" in the political process.  

People often will get calls to help this or that candidate for an election in exchange for later party support. Sounds a little like a pyramid scheme but it is a pyramid.  The White House is at the pinnacle.  LOL
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #715 on: April 15, 2016, 09:31:53 AM »

How is that different than Republicans?
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #716 on: April 15, 2016, 09:32:10 AM »

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  Wink

I think The Captain has done a good job at challenging that point but even if we were to accept it, I'd be curious as to whom these Dems believe have been trying to "force a more liberal agenda upon them" since just about every leader has moved the party further to the right.
There is a lot of merit in that, but what I have seen firsthand is that the lower-level politicians get black-balled if they are not perceived to be supporting, and I mean vigorously supporting the party nominee.  Even if they are terrible candidates.  They will take a good elected official and "school them" if they deviate from the party message or designee or refuse to put their ground game to work for their selection of party candidate.  

The are unable to get party support when seeking higher office because they did not do "what they were told." So there is a lot of retaliatory stuff always going on on the way up the ladder.



OK, but I'm not sure how this relates to the point that you allege some Dems are making, that party leaders are forcing a more liberal agenda on them.
OK - so lets suppose a mere state senator wants to run for higher office.  That person has to kiss-up to the party and do what they want.  If they don't support the person the party wants and sends their particular "ground game" (poll workers, sign hangers, telephone bank workers) to the candidate of the choice of the party, then the next time they run for higher office they will not get the party support.  People only have so many workers to stand out at a polling location all day long, or make 4-5 hours of calls in a phone bank.  These are critical "laborers in the vineyard" in the political process.  

People often will get calls to help this or that candidate for an election in exchange for later party support. Sounds a little like a pyramid scheme but it is a pyramid.  The White House is at the pinnacle.  LOL
I think the key word in CSM's question is 'liberal'.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #717 on: April 15, 2016, 09:35:10 AM »

The positions are inconsistent.  We are talking about Hillary so it is her problem.  She gets 1/4 mil from Verizon, who have off-shored thousands of jobs, and wants union support?  That is not US worker friendly.  The Dems are supposed to be worker-friendly.

A Republican will tell you that their party is actually more worker-friendly. The fact is neither party particularly is. Trump, for example, notoriously outsources jobs while claiming to be opposed to that. So both parties are indulging in the same hypocritical rhetoric on this issue at the moment.

The Republican might say they are more job-friendly, but that does not mean the union-rate job kind of friendly.  

Some don't care about organized labor. Organized labor is more a Democratic domain. Trump does have some organized labor supporting him, particularly in law enforcement.  Some of the local branches are split off from the AFL-CIO at the national level, as among smaller unions.   You are correct on outsourcing.  I find it un-American and hope more will be brought back.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #718 on: April 15, 2016, 09:36:25 AM »

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  Wink

I think The Captain has done a good job at challenging that point but even if we were to accept it, I'd be curious as to whom these Dems believe have been trying to "force a more liberal agenda upon them" since just about every leader has moved the party further to the right.
There is a lot of merit in that, but what I have seen firsthand is that the lower-level politicians get black-balled if they are not perceived to be supporting, and I mean vigorously supporting the party nominee.  Even if they are terrible candidates.  They will take a good elected official and "school them" if they deviate from the party message or designee or refuse to put their ground game to work for their selection of party candidate.  

The are unable to get party support when seeking higher office because they did not do "what they were told." So there is a lot of retaliatory stuff always going on on the way up the ladder.



OK, but I'm not sure how this relates to the point that you allege some Dems are making, that party leaders are forcing a more liberal agenda on them.
OK - so lets suppose a mere state senator wants to run for higher office.  That person has to kiss-up to the party and do what they want.  If they don't support the person the party wants and sends their particular "ground game" (poll workers, sign hangers, telephone bank workers) to the candidate of the choice of the party, then the next time they run for higher office they will not get the party support.  People only have so many workers to stand out at a polling location all day long, or make 4-5 hours of calls in a phone bank.  These are critical "laborers in the vineyard" in the political process.  

People often will get calls to help this or that candidate for an election in exchange for later party support. Sounds a little like a pyramid scheme but it is a pyramid.  The White House is at the pinnacle.  LOL

I'm sorry but I still don't see how this relates to what you have been saying about Dems complaining that party leaders are forcing a more liberal agenda on them. I see how this might relate to an argument that leaders are forcing some kind of agenda but none of this shows how they are forcing a more liberal one. Like I've said, the Democratic Party is a right-wing business party largely catering to elite institutions and their interests, though with some exceptions (as The Captain correctly points out). The leaders of the Democrats have continued to move the party further to the right. So if people are being forced to adopt a particular agenda, I am ultimately confused why anyone would say it was a "more liberal" agenda. Like I said, I would be curious as to who these Dems believe is forcing such an agenda.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2016, 10:04:20 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #719 on: April 15, 2016, 09:38:21 AM »

The Republican might say they are more job-friendly, but that does not mean the union-rate job kind of friendly.  

The Republicans, for the most part, wouldn't say they were union friendly, that's correct. But I'd be surprised if any of them openly admitted to being anti-worker.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #720 on: April 15, 2016, 09:40:28 AM »

I'd say this: parties push their agendas upon their members. The more powerful the party, the more their ability to push their agendas. This is common, not unique to one or the other of our major parties. (For f***'s sake, we've seen huge numbers of Republicans pushed out of office and in effect their own party in the past decade or so! RINO, anyone? They are running candidates against their own elected officials in the name of ideological purity. THAT is an oppressive party.)

The idea that the agenda or adherence to the party line on the Democratic side is liberal or progressive, at least in terms of economic issues, is ridiculous. And the reality is, they've let their elected officials have a lot of leeway on social issues, and thus we've seen pro-gun or anti-abortion Dems, especially in swing states.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #721 on: April 15, 2016, 09:42:17 AM »

But again, Parties are being confused with public bodies. They aren't. If I start a party, I'm allowed to push my agenda.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #722 on: April 15, 2016, 09:45:57 AM »

Oh, of course! I'm not saying a party shouldn't be allowed to decide on the criteria of membership, for example, including pushing its own agenda. I'm just saying it is a common thing for both parties to do, not some villainous Democratic pursuit. It's safe to say FdP's "lower level politicians" aren't happy with the leaders pressing this or that agenda. That's common sense. Go to any company with a corporate owner and you'll find the same thing. Go to any institution of any size and you'll find the same thing. It's just the way it is. And the stronger the entity, or the bigger the entity, the more it can and will happen (and the more they will be resented).

My point is just that. It's normal. Common practice. Not exclusive to Democrats, and if anything, less common in terms of public expression outside the party orthodoxy. (And CERTAINLY not a liberal push, for the most part.)
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #723 on: April 15, 2016, 09:48:57 AM »

For sure.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #724 on: April 15, 2016, 10:24:28 AM »


Captain - this is the election year of discontent. Every Democrat I talk to is disgusted with the party and will be their first generation of voting for Trump.  Their ancestors would roll over in their graves. But, I am not convinced that Trump was serious when he started out and just may have wanted to send his own message which could have spilled over of his business promotion.  


First, you're mostly going back into things that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. But as for what you're saying, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/trump_democrats_are_a_myth.html
Captain - I read that, thanks.  Funny I am one of those AFL-CIO members.  When the union-sponsored phone banks call, and ask if we will vote for the candidate they support, many just say "of course"  and vote the way we want.

Those polls are subject to a larger margin of error in my view.  Time will tell if this country will elect Trump.  I seem to remember all kinds of pejorative stuff circulated about Reagan being only a B-list movie star.   It sounds like déjà vu.  Funny the Iran hostages from the US were released contemporaneous to his taking the Oath of Office. There are many voters on both sides who are disenfranchised and sick of the party rhetoric.   Wink
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.195 seconds with 22 queries.