Gay Patriot Header Image

Don’t Be A Cut & Run Conservative!

PatriotPartner (John) has joined Rush Limbaugh in howling at “Cut and Run Conservatives” who may sit out the upcoming Congressional elections.  So here he is, guestblogging for a Saturday morning….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

*********************

Well I’m tired too….tired of having to fight the terrorists and even more tired of having to fight the terrorist supporters that do indeed exist on the Democrat side of the aisle. Lefties will call that demagoguery, but certainly their actions speak louder than their words.

But any battle worth winning will take LOTS of energy and time and will be tiring. That doesn’t make it worth less of a fight. It means no matter what, you do what you must to win.

I have been distressed by the President and the Senate over the past two years myself. There is no question that they have turned their back on those of us who have been fighting for the conservative cause for decades. This all started with Harriet Meirs, by the way. It was the stupidest mistake of this presidency and it is when Bush’s approval numbers finally started heading south big time.

Still, I will be voting the GOP ticket this year again. If you have problems with the party, you had your chance to rebel in the primaries and state conventions. That is when you get to spank the party leadership, not in November.

Those who think that two years “in the wilderness” will do the GOP good better hope the can live with that for 40 years because that’s what happened the last time. The Democrats took over the House unexpectedly during Eisenhower’s administration. Hell, the Democrat House leader expected to be turned out 2 years later, so he never even moved into the Speaker’s much larger offices. It took 40 YEARS for the Republicans to finally win the House majority back. There is no way that the disgruntled mob can guarantee a mere two-year hiatus.

If you are willing to risk that and all it entails, including the terrorist-coddling and cuddling that will ensue, sit this one out.  But if you think that you, your family, your friends and your country are still worth fighting for, stop whining, suck it up and get the hell out there and vote for the Republicans again. Then be prepared to hold the party’s feet to the fire afterward. Of course if that party is the Dems, count on your opinion truly no longer mattering to Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid (or whoever) and Chairmen Kennedy, Rangel, Conyers et. al.

This election is critical. So now is the time for Conservatives and those who think that the idea of America still matters to decide if they are winter soldiers or “summer soldiers and sunshine patriots” (Thomas Paine, American Crisis).

-John (PatriotPartner)

Share

23 Comments

  1. The fact that I (or the ACLU) would make different choices than you would does not make us pro-rapist or pro-terrorist.

    When the ACLU consistently and invariably makes choices that favor the rights of rapists and terrorists, it does in fact make them pro-terrorist.

    As for your other comment, I’ve never lost any sleep over being name-called by people who lack a sense of humor. And, I’m not gonna start now. In fact, some of the best running jokes on my blog started as troll comments. And the sight of humorless people blow a gasket secretly delights me.

    Note, it’s in your own mind you decided that the Rosie O’Donnell comment was deroguatory. The stampede could have been the result of delighted fans all seeking autographs. But, no, you chose to interpret it a different way, and you blame me for your prejudice. Shame on you.

    Comment by V the K — October 23, 2006 @ 7:51 pm - October 23, 2006

  2. #128: I wonder….if terrorists, Osama could vote in this election, who’d they vote for? Republicans or Democrats? The answer is pretty clear to me.

    This is pretty meaningless. If forced between the two, Stalin would vote for the Democrats and Mussolini would vote for the Republicans. Fortunately, I’m not forced to choose between the two, and where possible, I will vote for libertarians (capital-L or otherwise), which would most assuredly be the choice of Jefferson.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 23, 2006 @ 8:29 pm - October 23, 2006

  3. #131: As for your other comment, I’ve never lost any sleep over being name-called by people who lack a sense of humor.

    Well, one of my posts on this thread was intended for no other reason than humor. Maybe you didn’t like it, I don’t know. 🙂

    Note, it’s in your own mind you decided that the Rosie O’Donnell comment was deroguatory. The stampede could have been the result of delighted fans all seeking autographs.

    Yeah, right. And the Declaration of Independence doesn’t talk about basic rights. :-p

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 23, 2006 @ 8:34 pm - October 23, 2006

  4. Re Voting: The fact is that both in Florida and Ohio, the voting system was overseen by Republican administrations, administrations that left many things accounted for or that proactively took steps that favored their party.

    In Florida, black precincts had more than three times as many ballots thrown out. It didn’t matter if they were were poor districts or wealthy districts. It seems that these polling places uniformly had inferior polling equipment. Hispanic districts and districts with older residents also had unexplainably more ballots thrown out probably due to the same reason. Who do we have to thank for this less than one person/one vote result? Katherine “but I’m really going to sell my house now” Harris, Secretary of State at the time and co-chair of the Bush re-election campaign in the state. In a state won by less than 550 votes, this is unacceptable.

    In Ohio, voting machine misallocation led to “unprecedented long lines” that led to possibly hundreds of thousands of voters in minority and Democratic districts walking away from the polls before voting. A number of machines were moved from more populated, poor and black districts likely to vote Democrat to wealthy, less populated white districts likely to vote Republican. Also, after a push by Democrats to register new voters, a significant amount were rejected because they were not printed originally on 80 lbs. paper stock. The Republican party also participated in caging mailings. Some estimates put the number of potential voters that were disenfranchised by one method or another – voters that would have cast their ballot for Democrats – around 350,000. Who was Secretary of State making all these decisions? Kenneth “my opponent probably is a homosexual and probably advocates pedophilia” Blackwell.

    Comment by Just A Question — October 23, 2006 @ 9:04 pm - October 23, 2006

  5. “The reason that the justices remanded the case — meaning it should not be considered as setting a precedent — is because what is involved is highly specific to the situation that was at hand. Their point in doing so was to make it clear that each such situation should be evaluated by the judiciary on its specific conditions.”

    All cases before the court, any court, are on “highly specific” facts so sorry that sleight of hand does not work.

    And V the K as for:As for your other comment, ” I’ve never lost any sleep over being name-called by people who lack a sense of humor. And, I’m not gonna start now. In fact, some of the best running jokes on my blog started as troll comments. And the sight of humorless people blow a gasket secretly delights me.”

    One of your so called jokes is about someone’s HIV status–do you really think people with AIDS is funny–well that is the vision of gay politics offered by this blog. Sick puppies!

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — October 23, 2006 @ 10:09 pm - October 23, 2006

  6. Stay The Course!!!

    Comment by sean — October 23, 2006 @ 10:36 pm - October 23, 2006

  7. In Florida, black precincts had more than three times as many ballots thrown out. It didn’t matter if they were were poor districts or wealthy districts. It seems that these polling places uniformly had inferior polling equipment. Hispanic districts and districts with older residents also had unexplainably more ballots thrown out probably due to the same reason.

    Hmmm….could it be because, in fact, local election commissions are the ones responsible for purchasing and maintaining equipment — and writing up ballots?

    Of course, local election officials, such as Ms. LePore, whose incompetence led to the infamous “butterfly ballot”, merely blame “Republicans”, and people like Just A Question swallow it without a thought.

    Same with the allegations in minority districts. Of course, the possibility of…um, you know, corruption…..never enters Just A Question’s mind, even though you’d think he would notice how hard his fellow Democrats have fought to eliminate any form of registration, identification, or proof of citizenship from being required to vote.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 24, 2006 @ 12:51 am - October 24, 2006

  8. All cases before the court, any court, are on “highly specific” facts so sorry that sleight of hand does not work.

    Only because you don’t want it to work, my friend; however, I understand your need to come back with some smart rejoinder when the actual case and the logic behind it — namely, the complete lack of standardization when Democratic election officials were doing recounts — were made public.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 24, 2006 @ 12:54 am - October 24, 2006

  9. ” namely, the complete lack of standardization when Democratic election officials were doing recounts — were made public.”

    Wrong again. Florida election mandates that votes be counted if the “intent of the voter” can be discerned. This resulted in counties using different methods of how to evaluate that standard. But that problem exists in the initial count as well as the recount. Moreover even if one assumes there was a legitimate equalt protection concern before the court, the normal judicial remedy would be for the court to send the case back with standards as to how votes should be counted. The court did not do this but instead stopped any recounting of ballots–a decision so lacking in precedent that the majority had to say that the decision had no precedential value in cases that might come before the court in the future.

    You can spin it any way you want, but for conservatives to blabber on endlessly about “judicial activism” of liberal judges and ignore this galring example of such activism by conservative judges does not pass the laugh test.

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — October 24, 2006 @ 8:00 am - October 24, 2006

  10. Brendan, let’s remember it was your horse, AlItalianSweatersGore, who (along with the Gore-pawn Palm Beach Co) sought remedy before the Florida Supreme Court to compel Fl SecyState to accept the limited recounts in only pro-Gore counties… a predicate that, on it’s very face, was unfair and immoral and denied other Fl voters the constitutional right to have their vote counted fully and equally in the election.

    The Democrat majority and liberal activist judges on the Fl SupCt agreed with AlGore. Bush’s people appealed it to SCOTUS.

    Next time you want to repudiate that liberals LOVE activist judges, you might want to pick a better, more supportive case eh? Maybe like the ACLU judge-shopping the NSA wiretap case to the whacked-out LeftWing federal judge in Detroit, Ms. Diggs of the ever-corrupt Diggs Detroit Democrat family –three generations of Democrat corruption and counting.

    And you GayLeftBorgies have the guts to criticize anyone who contends the ACLU is pro-terrorist? LOL!! Or that liberals AREN’T in favor of judicial activism?? Ha.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 24, 2006 @ 9:18 am - October 24, 2006

  11. Judicial activism?
    Judicial activism is just another fallacy propagated by the right…
    Liberals are “in favor” when the ruling suits their wants, just as conservatives are “in favor” when the ruling suits their wants.

    The ACLU defends the unpopular from the “tyranny of the majority”…thus its easy to hate who they defend but you should be able to see that they play a role in protecting our democracy.
    And to Comment #121 : my “civil liberties” would be of little use to me were I dead.”
    Reminds me of how times have changed since Patrick Henery’s:
    “Give me liberty or give me death” speech…
    It seems Americans have become so fearful, we are willing to give up everything so we can be safe….

    Comment by keogh — October 24, 2006 @ 10:07 am - October 24, 2006

  12. keogh, I disagree. If you look closely at groups like the Federalist Society and others, you’ll see that even conservative judges decry judicial activism and when offered the opportunity to engage in it to “right” the wrongs of past liberal excess, choose NOT to engage in activism from the bench.

    Roe v Wade isn’t getting overturned. That’s a base-mobilizing bit of nonsense or red meat from your fellow radicals in the Democrat Party base.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 24, 2006 @ 10:11 am - October 24, 2006

  13. #137 – It’s amazing the lefties here still want to fight Florida 2000 when a consortium of major newspapers proved that, for the actual votes cast on the day (which is all that counts), even under Gore’s outrageously biased and unjust recount standards, BUSH WON.

    But, given they do: Your points are good, NDT, and then some. Again, election machines are purchased and maintained – and voter rolls processed and votes counted – by county, repeat COUNTY, officials. The officers come from the LOCAL COMMUNITY. Lefties would know this, if they have volunteered to serve as election officials (as have some among the GP regulars).

    So if there were some Democrat-leaning counties that did a bad job honoring voters or counting votes, they have no one to blame but themselves. And, if (note *IF*) there were counties where voters were 3 times as likely to be turned away or whatever, again, (a) either the election officials drawn from that community are to blame, and/or, (b) there was probably 3 times as much corruption or fake registrations to begin with – since we know how much the national group ACORN registers fake / invalid people, as but one suggestive example – and probably any number of fraudulent Gore votes did get through, for all we know.

    As for all that “butterfly ballot” bullshit, “we woulda won” yadda yadda yadda… Again, (1) it was Democratic country officials who made that ballot; (2) the only ballots that can or should count are the ones actually cast – as cast; (3) still, if we’re going to whine and talk about hypothetical “what if” ballots, then what about all those overseas military ballots they threw out????????? or what about the fact that the liberal networks violated the rules by calling Florida for Gore while Florida polls were still open in the conservative panhandle area, discouraging conservative voters who had been standing in line???????

    So listen up, lefties: Your idea that Gore should have won in 2000 is ridiculous and wrong, period. Give it up already!! Umm, or not. (I mean, if you want to continue looking like idiots.)

    Comment by Calarato — October 24, 2006 @ 11:05 am - October 24, 2006

  14. I’ve enjoyed many of the comments that discussed points that I do not have a strong position on, to help bolster my point of view, or possibly change it. My thoughts.

    Regarding the 2000 election, if God was the one who counted the votes, I think it is evident that Gore would have one, especially with the Palm Beach County ballot design mess. But God doesn’t count the votes, so we only have the laws and the Constitution, together with the flaws that come with them, to designate a winner of the election. One could make all the arguments that the Florida legislature, Kathleen Harris, the Florida Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court, or the two clowns who were running the three ring circuses, were flawed, and errors may have lead to the wrong result. And further, it seems futile to argue the consitutionality of the Supreme Court decision, since even constitutional scholars disagree on the appropriateness of the decision. I do think the fact that the election was, in effect, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court was a disgraceful cap to an absolutely reprehensible post election circus. But with no suitable election regulations, such an act by the U.S. Supreme Court was necessary. And even if the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling was severely flawed, it surely wasn’t the first time that has happened, and it won’t be the last. But did anybody really care about what happened that election? Apparently not, because there hasn’t been any real election reform since 2000 (including getting rid of the idiotic electoral college). We’re going to witness another three ring circus for the next very close election. Anyway, regardless of who did what, or who was right or wrong, Bush won the election fair and square, according to and because of the limits of the Constitution.

    As for the ACLU, yeah, I admit to being a card carrying member. Of course, I do not agree with everything the ACLU does. So if the ACLU is really advocating that NAMBLA should be allowed to publish how to rape children, or advocating that terrorists be allowed to pass information to each other, or whatever, then I am against that. But I have a much larger with the judges that let this happen, let alone give the ACLU the time of day, in those cases. In other words, I just don’t understand why the following doesn’t occur.

    Judge: What is the ACLU’s position on NAMBLA publications?
    ACLU Lawyer: We believe that adults should be able to publish manuals that instruct adults how to rape children.
    Judge: Ruling against ACLU. Case dismissed.

    As for the “War on Terror,” I find that much more complicated. First, I honestly don’t believe that Democrats are pro-terrorists. Hey, there may be some out there that really do, but I think that it is an unfair comment. Just as it would be unfair for Democrats to say that they believe the Bush Administration must be pro-terrorist, because they feel the administration’s actions had led to increased terrorism.

    It seems like a lot of the arguments made for Bush’s actions on the War on Terror, are being made as if the terrorists actions are rational, and would follow any logical person’s thinking. That is clearly not the case. For example, some have argued that by pulling out of Iraq is going to send a message to the terrorists that America is weak, so they’ll be able to recruit. Maybe that is true. But what has happened is when America showed strength at the beginning of the Iraq war, that also apparently led to increased recruiting of terrorists. Terrorist recruitment and terrorist activity seems to happen because of the following reasons.

    1) The U.S. shows a sign of strength
    2) The U.S. shows a sign of weakness
    3) Israel shows a sign of strength
    4) Israel shows a sign of weakness
    5) The pope says that Islam is a violent religion, so to show righteous indignation, state that there will be violence because of the pope’s statement (yeah, that one is really rational)
    6) Because someone f&rted

    So trying to reason that certain actions is going to increase or decrease terrorism seems futile.

    With regards to Iraq, I can’t state what the best course of action is at this point. It just seems like we got caught up in a big mess that isn’t going to be fixed any time soon. Yeah, it was great getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but when we do end up leaving (which eventually is the goal, right?), I am not confident that it is going to be any better than Saddam’s regime. And if we stay there until we can guarantee that Iraq will be a functioning democracy, then at what cost? It’s clearly not going to end the War on Terror. I wasn’t too happy either when John Kerry said that his goal is to make terrorism only a nuisance. But then again, I don’t have the answers to combat terrorism, and I haven’t seen anything remotely successful in combatting terrorism.

    Comment by Pat — October 24, 2006 @ 11:14 am - October 24, 2006

  15. Wrong again. Florida election mandates that votes be counted if the “intent of the voter” can be discerned. This resulted in counties using different methods of how to evaluate that standard. But that problem exists in the initial count as well as the recount.

    Nope.

    You see, the initial counts in almost all cases were done by machine, the recounts by hand.

    Moreover even if one assumes there was a legitimate equalt protection concern before the court, the normal judicial remedy would be for the court to send the case back with standards as to how votes should be counted. The court did not do this but instead stopped any recounting of ballots–a decision so lacking in precedent that the majority had to say that the decision had no precedential value in cases that might come before the court in the future.

    And here’s why:

    The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State’s electors to “participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,” as provided in 3 U. S. C. §5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.

    As the justices pointed out, the dates were fixed; furthermore, allowing partial recounts exacerbated even farther the equal protection issues. Again, the case was unusual, which is why the justices made it clear that what was limiting recounts was the time frame involved, coupled with the lack of procedure and standardization in place.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 24, 2006 @ 12:26 pm - October 24, 2006

  16. NDXXX, good points on the Gore v Bush non-precedent.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 24, 2006 @ 2:16 pm - October 24, 2006

  17. “You see, the initial counts in almost all cases were done by machine, the recounts by hand.”

    But the machine counts are not consistent because of different machines used. Wealthier counties were able to afford optical reading machines and poorer counties had punch card–so the question was how to evaluate uncounted votes. I admit that there is a legit. concern about standards, but that could have been resolved by mandating uniform standards.

    “The 3 U. S. C. §5 issue is not serious. That provision sets certain conditions for treating a State’s certification of Presidential electors as conclusive in the event that a dispute over recognizing those electors must be resolved in the Congress under 3 U. S. C. §15. Conclusiveness requires selection under a legal scheme in place before the election, with results determined at least six days before the date set for casting electoral votes. But no State is required to conform to §5 if it cannot do that (for whatever reason); the sanction for failing to satisfy the conditions of §5 is simply loss of what has been called its “safe harbor.” And even that determination is to be made, if made anywhere, in the Congress.” Souter, dissenting opinion. Granted this is from the dissent, but I do think if you read the majority opinion it is pretty clear that the majority is not really relying upon this provision. The vast bulk of the majority opinion is premised on an Equal Protection violation and that really is unprecedented in this area of law (no suspect class, etc.) where there has been great deference to state courts in interpreting state law.

    I am really not trying to re-argue the 2000 election, but I do think when conservatives talk about liberal judicial activism they are either not being fully informed or being somewhst disingenuous. The truth is it is not a one way street and conservatives and liberals can look at different court decisions and claim judicial activism.

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — October 24, 2006 @ 3:38 pm - October 24, 2006

  18. But the machine counts are not consistent because of different machines used. Wealthier counties were able to afford optical reading machines and poorer counties had punch card–so the question was how to evaluate uncounted votes.

    Unfortunately, Brendan, there were standards for voting machine function and operation in Florida — but none for hand recounts.

    Meanwhile, at what point do we say that people are ultimately responsible for filling out their own ballot — and doing it right?

    What the Supreme Court ended up doing was pointing out the obvious — there was not sufficient time to resolve the problem in a constitutionally-acceptable fashion without violating Florida state law. Lacking that, rather than create requirements or order the violation of law without the consent of the Legislature, the Court stood pat and on established law.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 24, 2006 @ 4:30 pm - October 24, 2006

  19. “What the Supreme Court ended up doing was pointing out the obvious — there was not sufficient time to resolve the problem in a constitutionally-acceptable fashion without violating Florida state law”

    In contrast to how the Florida court interpreted state law–which is a question that state court decide which is a fundamental principle of federalism something the conservatives are said to support and that is what makes the decision so tranparently results oriented.

    “Unfortunately, Brendan, there were standards for voting machine function and operation in Florida — but none for hand recounts.” The recount in Florida was remarkable in that a presidential election was at issue–but recounts are in themselves fairly common and yes Floridadid have standards for deciding it, although I will agree legit. questions about how to implement the standard.

    “Meanwhile, at what point do we say that people are ultimately responsible for filling out their own ballot — and doing it right?”

    Fair enough up to a point in respect to the notorious butterfly ballot, but many of the contested votes were regarding punch ballot machines which the voter was not to blame.

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — October 24, 2006 @ 7:38 pm - October 24, 2006

  20. Brendan, I can’t believe that the political philosophy that thinks criminals are victims, that courts are THE preferred tool for securing policy advancements unavailable at the ballot box, that trial lawyers are of any value to society and that judical activism isn’t the province of liberal activist judges is so able to elude your grasp.

    Come on Brendan. You guys are the ones that think the perp is a victim of the system, that the overwhelming number of minorities in prison means the system is unjust and racially biased, that the death penalty should be suspended because it might lead to the death of an innocent convict… and that no cap on state expense is the right standard for protecting all convicts and felons in prison.

    And you think we’re going to buy your notion that conservatives are activist judges?? LOL. Look at the 9th; look at Warren; look at the sheer lunacy in the Clinton and Carter appts!

    Liberal activist judges legislating from the bench is not a cliche… it’s a fact. Conservative jurists are appalled at activism on the bench –pure and simple.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 24, 2006 @ 10:37 pm - October 24, 2006

  21. Michigan-Matt your comment in post #150 is a good example of why it is impossible to have a reasoned political argument with many, not all, of the commentors on this site. You offer no evidentiary support for any of your claims–you simply assert your political beliefs as if they are truths handed down by god.

    Take one example: “look at the sheer lunacy in the Clinton and Carter apptsyouEverything in your post “. What does that mean, does it mean anything? Clinton appointed two S. CT justices: Breyer and Ginsburg. Both are relatively liberal, but neither are especially leftist or radical and by any standard well within the mainstream of jurisprudence. (Remember: Ginsburg is a friend of Scalia, though clearly of different political persuasion). To assert that their appointments were lunacy may be taken as article of faith at Gay Patriot but you will find support elsewhere for such an over the top statement.

    As for conservative judicial activism, here is another example. Read Alito’s appellate court decision in the Pennsylvania abortion. (It may be Casey v. Planned Parenthood, but I could have the citation wrong). Despite clear settled law, Alito attempted to impose his belief that women seeking abortions needed to obtain consent of their husbands. Regardless of what your aopinion of abortion may be this position was not supported by Constitutional law. That is simply one example, even more notorious is the opinion of Edith Jones a jurist that has repeatedly flaunted Supreme Court precedent, especially on abortion, and has long been on Bush’s shortlist for a Supreme Court appointment.

    One of the ironies here is that a common response to any disagreement posted in the comments section is to tell the person they are simply regurgitating “Daily Kos” talking points–it has been said to me several times even though I don’t read Daily Kos more than an infrequent glance. Although my politics are certainly closer to people there than here, I actually agree that Daily Kos can be boring because posters often just assert their politics as self evident truths. In fact many of the posters here share the same distaste for reasoned argument and find any possibility that their views may be challenged so absurd that they start spewing invectice (V the K, That Gay Conservative, especially) or in the case of your post just restate your beliefs as if they were handed down from god on stone tablets.

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — October 25, 2006 @ 8:28 am - October 25, 2006

  22. In contrast to how the Florida court interpreted state law–which is a question that state court decide which is a fundamental principle of federalism something the conservatives are said to support and that is what makes the decision so tranparently results oriented

    The Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation violated Federal law — which was pointed out by no less than seven of the nine justices.

    If you want to argue that the Supreme Court should not have interfered in a state matter, even though it violated Federal law, there is a whole lot of jurisprudence that needs to vanish — immediately.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2006 @ 1:08 pm - October 25, 2006

  23. ND#30, We obviously are not going to reach any agreement on this issue, but thank you (I am not being sarcastic) for arguing about the ideas and not name calling. I appreciate it.

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — October 25, 2006 @ 5:10 pm - October 25, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.