GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/11/07/dont-despair-gop-is-better-off-than-democrats-were-in-2004/trackback/

  1. Well-stated. And a very good point you bring up about the lack of depth in the Democrat talent pool.

    Comment by AF_Vet — November 7, 2012 @ 8:14 pm - November 7, 2012

  2. Romney/Ryan were good men with the intellect and business knowledge to lead us out of this mess. They would have failed. Reid and the Dems would never let anything through and Obama would have played chief heckler on the sidelines.Now, we are free of having really, any dog in the race. We need to focus on what we can do, retrench and fight the fight to make sure the media stays uncensored and the EPA gets unwound from our energy exploration and capture. Education gets free of the grip of the PC driven Progs. The progressives took decades to position themselves where they are now, we don’t have that kind of time. There is a lot to do, we have to start now.

    Comment by FeliciaC — November 7, 2012 @ 8:23 pm - November 7, 2012

  3. Dems came roaring back because the GOP made a lot of mistakes basically from 2002 – 2008. And you could argue that 2010 was a long term mistake because all it did was entrench the notion that the GOP could shrink the electorate and win. Which is not a long term strategy and why all of the “unskewed” poll nonsense backfired.

    Obama inherited a bad economy and two unfunded land wars in Asia.
    He is slowly getting us out of the wars and the cyclical nature of the economy will make it improve somewhat. Now it looks like a a budget deal gets done that “solves” the long term problems our countries face.
    I suspect he will do what Clinton did with Welfare reform which is steal the good GOP ideas and make them his own. And thus join will Clinton as one of the perceived best presidents ever.

    Comment by mike — November 7, 2012 @ 8:24 pm - November 7, 2012

  4. They had one important advantage though over today’s GOP—a media ready to distort its coverage of events to make the president look awful. These days, they will take bad news for the president and try to turn it to his favor by making an issue of anyone who criticizes the president. On Sept 11 of this year, it wasn’t bad news for the president that our flags were being attacked at the Egyptian embassy. It was just bad news for Romney for criticizing the embassy’s response.

    Comment by chad — November 7, 2012 @ 8:25 pm - November 7, 2012

  5. They had one important advantage though over today’s GOP—a media ready to distort its coverage of events….

    It’s time to stop making excuses and get back to work. This is a long struggle, folks, not a quick skirmish decided by an election or two, as I pointed out below. The conservative works for all Americans; we just need to be willing to carry that message into all parts of our country and all segments of our population.

    Also, see Klavan.

    Eric Hines

    Comment by E Hines — November 7, 2012 @ 9:03 pm - November 7, 2012

  6. mike, if 2010 was a mistake, how come then in a D+6 electorate, the Republican House, first elected in that supposedly mistaken year maintained its majority?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 7, 2012 @ 9:08 pm - November 7, 2012

  7. Stage 1: DENIAL

    Comment by Mike R. — November 7, 2012 @ 9:18 pm - November 7, 2012

  8. Conservatives are always better off then leftists. We have loving families, churches, and meaningful lives. We don’t bitterly cling to politics as the source of our validation. If we had won the day, we would not be trolling leftist web-sites gloating, or acting just as nasty and miserable the day after winning an election as we were the day before.

    No, I would always rather be us than them.

    Comment by V the K — November 7, 2012 @ 9:19 pm - November 7, 2012

  9. I truly hope you are right, Dan.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 7, 2012 @ 9:23 pm - November 7, 2012

  10. Eric, I agree that we shouldn’t dwell on excuses and that we need to get back to work. I don’t bring up the media to make an excuse. But I do think it’s appropriate to take stock of what we were up against in this last election so we can better prepare for the next election (e.g., not let Candy Crowley moderate a debate).

    Comment by chad — November 7, 2012 @ 9:24 pm - November 7, 2012

  11. Democrats could put Charles Manson on the ticket and its deranged voters would thumb up. Let’s see…

    He hated the rich… Check
    He murdered a fetus… Pro abortion check
    in the process he murdered a rich white woman… Good check
    He was a drug addict… Check
    He wrote songs, played, he was a celebrity… Check
    He’s got a criminal past… Check
    He was probably into bisexuality… Check

    He’s not quite there with hispanicness or ladyparts… But might improve with time…

    Leftists are like that, totally deprived of dignity or whatsoever quality. Run Manson in san Francisco, he’d take more votes than Nancy Pelosi

    Comment by susan — November 7, 2012 @ 9:31 pm - November 7, 2012

  12. Please do tell me what I’m denying.

    Did not Republicans retain their House majority in an electorate which tilted Democratic?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 7, 2012 @ 9:39 pm - November 7, 2012

  13. Poor North Dallas Thirty. Once again linking to things that don’t establish what he claims they establish.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 7, 2012 @ 9:51 pm - November 7, 2012

  14. Whups, that post belonged on the “Obama won fewer votes in 2012 than W did in 2004″ thread.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 7, 2012 @ 9:52 pm - November 7, 2012

  15. Dan
    2010 was a mistake not because of the gains that were made but because of the post analysis that was done. Based on the results of 2010 Republicans thought that the +7 Dem advantage (not +6 from what I have seen) was not sustainable and they banked on the Minorities staying home. Romney’s internal polling analysis was based on this and thus he felt he didn’t need the minority votes.

    Also I have heard second hand that due to redistricting, there was a disproportionate Dem vs Dem election this year which helped the GOP hold the house. This should hold for at least a few more years. I would not cling to this too hard if I you, instead we need to focus on why the environment was tilted Democratic when the fundamentals say this election should have been a landslide GOP victory.

    Comment by mike — November 7, 2012 @ 9:54 pm - November 7, 2012

  16. A quick answer to question #6 and #12: gerrymandering:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/11/07/how_ridiculous_gerrymanders_saved_the_house_republican_majority.html

    Comment by gerrymander — November 7, 2012 @ 9:54 pm - November 7, 2012

  17. “Please do tell me what I’m denying. Did not Republicans retain their House majority in an electorate which tilted Democratic?”

    That response itself indicates huge denial, when the Republicans lost ground in Senate and in the House (the only question is by how much), and lost the presidency with a candidate who practically whose turnaround in the polls came after he did a major pivot toward center in the debates.

    The more clearly he expressed right-wing views (in public or when speaking to big donors when he thought no one else was listening), the worse he did. And the more pivoted away from those views, the better he did.

    The problem may have been communication of radical-conservative views, but the problem was expressing them too clearly.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 7, 2012 @ 10:04 pm - November 7, 2012

  18. No need to forgive the sentiments in my last post, but do please forgive the typos.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 7, 2012 @ 10:05 pm - November 7, 2012

  19. gerrymander, but gerrymandering also worked against Republican is states like Maryland, Illinois and Washington. Not to mention how liberal interest groups gamed the California map.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 7, 2012 @ 10:11 pm - November 7, 2012

  20. mike, good, very good point in your 2nd ¶ of #15, “we need to focus on why the environment was tilted Democratic when the fundamentals say this election should have been a landslide GOP victory.”

    I also agree that Mitt made a huge mistake in not reaching out more aggressively to minority voters.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 7, 2012 @ 10:14 pm - November 7, 2012

  21. Why it was tilted to the Obama Thug Party?

    Because Obama did two things: he validated all the looters, moochers, and takers, and he promised to make it even easier for them to loot, mooch, and take.

    That’s it. He told people that it’s OK to loot, mooch, and take from others because “they didn’t build that” and for “revenge”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 10:29 pm - November 7, 2012

  22. Furthermore, Romney was right on. More than 47% of the country are looters, moochers, and takers; they believe in stealing other people’s work and whine that it’s mean and selfish for other people to have more money then they do.

    Barack Obama appeals to those who are lazy and who rationalize their laziness by claiming that anyone who has more money than they do stole it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 10:33 pm - November 7, 2012

  23. I do think it’s appropriate to take stock of what we were up against in this last election so we can better prepare….

    Absolutely we should do a hard-nosed post mortem on this election.

    And one of the things we need to analyze is how to by-pass the NLMSM so as to get our message out more effectively. They had an impact, for all that they’re not an excuse.

    Eric Hines

    Comment by E Hines — November 7, 2012 @ 10:57 pm - November 7, 2012

  24. “Barack Obama appeals to those who are lazy and who rationalize their laziness by claiming that anyone who has more money than they do stole it.”

    The fact that this line of thought continues to be written and goes unchallenged in the right wing thoughtmosphere is why Republicans lose elections.

    Candidates pick it up and start repeating it and then lose (see the 47% clip)

    Comment by mike — November 7, 2012 @ 11:38 pm - November 7, 2012

  25. On Sept 11 of this year, it wasn’t bad news for the president that our flags were being attacked at the Egyptian embassy. It was just bad news for Romney for criticizing the embassy’s response

    This does not make any sense. How is it a reflection upon Barack Obama that some Muslims got all angry about a YouTube video and banged up our embassy? How is that his fault? What was he supposed to do about it?

    Meanwhile, Mitt Romney was trying to score political points in the midst of a developing international crisis by blaming Obama for a Twitter message that some staffer posted.

    You are in no position to be making calls about how biased or unbiased the media is if you misunderstand the significance (or lack thereof) of these two events.

    Comment by Levi — November 8, 2012 @ 12:29 am - November 8, 2012

  26. Dan, you’re making the assumption that the United States will still be here in 2016. I’m not sure that it won’t, but the Cloward-Piven strategy seems to playing out nicely.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 8, 2012 @ 1:51 am - November 8, 2012

  27. The fact that this line of thought continues to be written and goes unchallenged in the right wing thoughtmosphere is why Republicans lose elections.

    Comment by mike — November 7, 2012 @ 11:38 pm – November 7, 2012

    Too bad we have proof of how Obama supporters are nothing more than racist looters, moochers, and takers, mike.

    Plus the white racists who threaten to send black people to beat up those who vote for the other candidate.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2012 @ 2:13 am - November 8, 2012

  28. This does not make any sense. How is it a reflection upon Barack Obama that some Muslims got all angry about a YouTube video and banged up our embassy? How is that his fault? What was he supposed to do about it?

    Everything that ever happened anywhere in the world when Bush was President was totally and completely his fault. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of Obama supporters are 9/11 Truthers.

    But of course, Obama is too stupid, ignorant, and feckless to be held to the same standard as Bush. Indeed, that would be racist for us to hold Obama to the same standard as Bush; according to the liberal Levi, Obama needs affirmative action to make up for his skin color.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2012 @ 2:16 am - November 8, 2012

  29. NDT
    I am sure the other side could match you link for link of humans being bad humans.

    So what?
    It does not mean conservatives should write off half of the country.

    Comment by mike — November 8, 2012 @ 2:27 am - November 8, 2012

  30. Oh, I have more reasons than that, mike.

    Perhaps first and foremost, how you and your fellow Obama puppets repeated lies about Mitt Romney’s taxes while endorsing and supporting outright tax cheats and welfare frauds.

    Not to mention your rampant and ridiculousdeficit runup, or the fact that you spent it on taxpayer-funded kickbacks to donors.

    The only consistency in any of your arguments is simple: anyone who thinks you should work and earn your own money and that you’re not entitled to leech off other people is irrevocably evil and hateful no matter what they do or propose, while anyone like Obama and the entire Obama Party who say that you “deserve” to take, loot, and mooch from others instead of working can do whatever they like.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2012 @ 3:30 am - November 8, 2012

  31. How is it a reflection upon Barack Obama that some Muslims got all angry about a YouTube video and banged up our embassy?

    1. There was no protest at Benghazi, it was a planned coordinated terrorist attack.

    2. Obama sat there and watched it, and ignored their pleas for assistance for seven hours while 4 Americans were butchered.

    3. Then, he flew off to a party in Las Vegas.

    4. Then, his administration lied about for weeks, claiming it was all about a video; even going so far as to make an advertisement that ran in Pakistan denouncing the video, and pontificating at the UN that “the future must not belong to those who insult the Prophet of Islam.”

    4. The consulate had been begging for extra security for months, but was repeatedly denied. (Though the State Department did find the money to buy Chevy Volts for the Embassy in Vienna.)

    These are facts.

    This doesn’t matter to Levi, he’s a Cultist and a sociopath. But it is the truth.

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2012 @ 5:54 am - November 8, 2012

  32. Agreed V the K.

    Just like Mike R believes that destroying innocent peoples’ lives for a lie, leaving Americans to die, and then covering it up, Levi clings to the big lie, repeating it over and over hoping people believe it.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 8, 2012 @ 8:14 am - November 8, 2012

  33. This does not make any sense. How is it a reflection upon Barack Obama that some Muslims got all angry about a YouTube video and banged up our embassy? How is that his fault? What was he supposed to do about it?

    This comment is all I need to know that the media was derelict in its duty.

    You do realize we now know for a fact (as in the administration has released time lines etc) that prove the “it was a movie protest gone bad” excuse for Benghazi was a lie?

    This is why the media needs to climb out of the darn can, and actually use a critical eye when covering this president.

    As for the house-if gerrymandering is bad for GOP districts, then it is bad for districts gerrymandered in the democrats favor. I am willing to be the least competitive districts in the nation are blue ones (when Rangle was the congress critter from Harlem, did he ever have a GOP opponent? I know most times he ran unopposed for the general).

    I think the house would do well to dump Boehner but don’t think that is going to happen. But I do think for 2014 that one of the smart things he (or some other house leader should do) is create another contract with America type agreement. I don’t believe the most wonderful, rosy economy is right around the corner. Obamacare is going to see to that (Over the next year lots of full time people are going to see themselves reduced to part time hours and working two or three part time jobs to make ends meet).

    I also think Obama’s energy policies are only going to make energy more expensive (it has gone up a lot in the last 4 years and much of that wasn’t something Bush did, but direct decisions made by the current president).

    If energy is high, food will remain high. There is going to be a large segment of working poor open to a strong message from house and senate candidates.

    Oh, and at some point I suspect the coal industry workers will start jumping ship to the GOP as they see their livelihoods shut down by the Obama EPA.

    Comment by Just Me — November 8, 2012 @ 8:46 am - November 8, 2012

  34. This comment is all I need to know that the media was derelict in its duty.

    And this post is all I need to know that your reading comprehension is lacking.

    But allow me to give you the benefit of the doubt, since you’re responding to a comment that was a response to someone else. At #4, chad said this:

    They had one important advantage though over today’s GOP—a media ready to distort its coverage of events to make the president look awful. These days, they will take bad news for the president and try to turn it to his favor by making an issue of anyone who criticizes the president. On Sept 11 of this year, it wasn’t bad news for the president that our flags were being attacked at the Egyptian embassy. It was just bad news for Romney for criticizing the embassy’s response.

    There’s nothing in there about Benghazi. He was complaining that the media didn’t consider this ‘bad news for the President.’ I disagreed.

    You do realize we now know for a fact (as in the administration has released time lines etc) that prove the “it was a movie protest gone bad” excuse for Benghazi was a lie?

    Do you think it’s a realistic expectation for the administration to know everything about an attack on the other side of the world in a few minutes? When the attack happened, there were dozens of protests throughout the Middle East that were explicitly about the video, so I think it was fairly reasonable for the administration to assume that one of these protests escalated. Indeed, much of the world thought this was the case, including conservatives, who immediately began campaigning with it. Once the investigation began and evidence of a coordinated attack began to emerge, the administration promptly reported that to the American people. This is not what any reasonable person would call lying. It would be a lie to say something like ‘we think the North Koreans are responsible,’ and sticking with that for years and years and years. What the administration did was present a reasonable hypothesis about the attack as early as they could, and revised that hypothesis as they received more information. Keep in mind that it’s almost certainly the case that the video played an important role in the attack, since it presented a tremendous opportunity for the attackers to strike, as the US was dealing with protests in other parts of the world.

    I mean, here’s the thing. You’re saying the administration is lying, but you’re also acknowledging that the administration has released time lines. Why would they be willingly releasing timelines that contradict their lie? Why wouldn’t they try to prevent that information from being released, why would they volunteer it, if they were invested in presenting a lie to the American public?

    This is why the media needs to climb out of the darn can, and actually use a critical eye when covering this president.

    Still, the conservative criticism of Obama on Benghazi was embarrassingly focused on whether or not he called it a terrorist attack. As if this is relevant or in doubt at all.

    Comment by Levi — November 8, 2012 @ 10:11 am - November 8, 2012

  35. How is it a reflection upon Barack Obama that some Muslims got all angry about a YouTube video and banged up our embassy?

    Wow. Just wow.

    Obama LIED, FLAT-OUT LIED about what happened to our embassy… the “Muslims got all angry about a YouTube video” having been completey manufactured and untrue… and Levi is so ill-informed, willfully or otherwise, that he doesn’t even know it. (Or thinks he can pretend not to?)

    I’m slack-jawed.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 8, 2012 @ 10:32 am - November 8, 2012

  36. whether or not he called it a terrorist attack. As if this is relevant or in doubt at all.

    Levi, Obama denied it for two weeks. Obama offered a COMPLETELY FALSE alternative reason for the attack, for two weeks. Even Candy Crowley admitted, after the second debate, that she’d been wrong to give Obama an assist on his lie there. In other words: Candy Crowley has more integrity, and/or knowledge, than you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 8, 2012 @ 10:34 am - November 8, 2012

  37. When the attack happened, there were dozens of protests throughout the Middle East that were explicitly about the video, so I think it was fairly reasonable for the administration to assume that one of these protests escalated.

    Lie

    , much of the world thought this was the case, including conservatives, who immediately began campaigning with it.

    Lie

    Once the investigation began and evidence of a coordinated attack began to emerge, the administration promptly reported that to the American people.

    Lie

    Keep in mind that it’s almost certainly the case that the video played an important role in the attack, since it presented a tremendous opportunity for the attackers to strike, as the US was dealing with protests in other parts of the world.

    Lie

    Now it’s well know Levi’s a coward as well as a liar, so he can’t reply to the facts cited here.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 8, 2012 @ 10:36 am - November 8, 2012

  38. I don´t agree. The Republicans can take the Senate in 2014 and keep the House and Senate even after the 2016 elections and it won´t matter if Obama gets to nominate two or three judges to SCOTUS before December 31 2015. The Court will scewed to the left with activist judges who can shoot down any legislation passed by the Republicans. Obama´s imprint will be there for the next twenty or thirty years.

    Comment by Roberto — November 8, 2012 @ 1:01 pm - November 8, 2012

  39. @Roberto.

    I agree. We’ve kept free speech and the right to bear arms by one judge both times. We also lost the right to freely decline contracts by one vote.

    The damage here is long lasting.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 8, 2012 @ 1:57 pm - November 8, 2012

  40. Do you think it’s a realistic expectation for the administration to know everything about an attack on the other side of the world in a few minutes?

    You clearly haven’t read anything about the time line and what happened other than maybe what MSNBC has provided.

    You do realize that the administration knew within minutes that the embassy was being attacked and Obama was told not long after that. The attack on the embassy began around 2pm in the afternoon eastern time.

    Also, reports from those on site reported that it was terrorists and I read online the day after the attacks that the Libyan government was saying it wasn’t a protest but a planned attack.

    If I can learn from the media that it wasn’t a video, then te president at the very least should have known, and at the very least said “We don’t know at this time” rather than blame a movie and scapegoat the guy who made it.

    Comment by Just Me — November 8, 2012 @ 2:05 pm - November 8, 2012

  41. Thought I’d add…

    Man imprisioned for a year, allegedly for ‘parole violation’.

    Of course, that this wasn’t treated like a parole violation, is completely irrelevent to the case…

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 8, 2012 @ 2:22 pm - November 8, 2012

  42. You clearly haven’t read anything about the time line and what happened other than maybe what MSNBC has provided.

    I don’t waste my money on cable, and if I did I would never watch any of the cable news networks, MSNBC included.

    Okay, with the exception of Rachel. She’s the good one.

    You do realize that the administration knew within minutes that the embassy was being attacked and Obama was told not long after that. The attack on the embassy began around 2pm in the afternoon eastern time.

    Okay? Is that supposed to mean something? I’m sure Obama knew about it quickly, too, especially considering there were riots flaring up all over the region in front of our and our allies’ embassies.

    Also, reports from those on site reported that it was terrorists and I read online the day after the attacks that the Libyan government was saying it wasn’t a protest but a planned attack.

    If I can learn from the media that it wasn’t a video, then te president at the very least should have known, and at the very least said “We don’t know at this time” rather than blame a movie and scapegoat the guy who made it.

    I remember hearing that bit from the Libyan government, too. I’m also sure that our intelligence agencies heard it, and even if they hadn’t, I’m sure they would have gone about their business operating under the assumption that this was a planned attack. In fact, it’s almost a guarantee that anytime an American or westerner is attacked or killed in the Middle East, the intelligence community and the administration assumes it was a planned attack. I mean, these are the times we live in.

    Obama never blamed or scapegoated the person who made the movie, and has in fact stated over and over again that he accepts responsibility. By your own admission, his administration has released timelines, and he’s been completely willing to change how he communicates with the public about the incident as he receives more evidence and conclusive information. If he were lying and if he were trying to scapegoat someone, he would say, “It was not a planned attack, there was a protest over a video and that’s what happened. Also, the person that made the video is completely responsible and I had nothing to do with it, vote for me, vote for me, vote for me!” whenever he was asked about it over the course of weeks and months.

    When something like this happens, you make a best guess, initiative the investigation, and adjust your hypothesis upon receiving new data. By no stretch does this mean that your initial statement, when information was scarcest and when confusion was greatest, a lie. Further, the complete incoherence (he never called it a terror attack! Oh wait he did) with which your party has attempted to prosecute Obama over this reveals your real motivation to be purely political. Makes a million times more sense, especially since it was less than two months before a Presidential election, than, well, whatever it is you guys like to imagine happened.

    Comment by Levi — November 8, 2012 @ 2:59 pm - November 8, 2012

  43. Obama never blamed or scapegoated the person who made the movie

    You are completely out of touch with reality, aren’t you?

    The trailer has been blamed for inciting violence in Libya, Egypt and Yemen. Obama administration officials said Thursday that they have asked YouTube to review the video and determine whether it violates the site’s terms of service, according to people close to the situation but not authorized to comment.

    TOTALLY out of touch.

    After lauding the four slain Americans, Clinton said “This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”

    Really, REALLY disconnected.

    President Obama once again denounced the contents of the “Innocence of Muslims” film trailer and blamed it for the attacks on the Libyan embassy during this speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday morning. He called the video “crude and disgusting.”

    “I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video,” Obama said. “I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.”
    In direct contradiction to a previous statement from his administration, Obama said the 9/11 Benghazi attacks were a result of the video, saying that it “sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.” He went on to say, “There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.”
    The origin of the attacks has been a point of contention for the Obama administration in the past weeks as it first blamed the video for the Libyan embassy attacks and then called them premeditated terrorism, after it was revealed that the White House had prior information regarding the attack.

    My god, Levi, you really ARE a brainwashed idiot who can’t think or do anything for yourself.

    This is what happens when you have liberal parents who brainwash their children from an early age into complete and servile obedience to the Party. You simply are incapable of processing ANY evidence to the contraary of what you’re told; Obama speaks, the Obama Party orders you, and you can’t do anything else.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2012 @ 3:23 pm - November 8, 2012

  44. NDT. It’s clear that our little Fascist believes if he repeats a lie long enough someone will believe it’s the truth.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 8, 2012 @ 7:47 pm - November 8, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.339 Powered by Wordpress