Thursday, March 06, 2008

Blogging Angry

I have avoided blogging for close to a week. I try not to 'blog angry' because I have found that you often say something in the heat of anger that you regret later. I try to cool down, to let a clearer head prevail so that I can write more reasonably.

Not today.

No, I am still angry beyond words. I am disgusted by what is laughingly referred to as our political system. We live in horrific times where we are ruled by a group of clowns pretending to be acting "in our best interests."

Bullshit.

We have a government that is now openly taking measures to censor films that don't pass the muster of religious bigots like Charles McVety. We have a government that is actively attempting to take away not just a woman's right to choose or control her body and trying to call it "Protecting a womans" right to choose, in a perfect example of Orwellian doublespeak. This government that ran on transparency, accountability has become the most secretive, most centralized in Canadian history. They pass an "Accountability Act" but haven't quite got around to getting the regulations in place, allowing their top aids to easily go back and forth in the Ottawa lobbying industry. They allow no-bid military contracts, spending billions on ships and planes the CF itself doesn't want. Hell, it seems while they were hammering the previous Liberal government for being corrupt, their operatives where attempting to buy the vote of a dying man for "financial considerations".

They are smug, authoritarian and undemocratic. They are natural-born liars and thieves, every one of them.

There is only one thing worse than the CPC right now and that is the Liberal Party of Canada and their spineless milquetoast leader, Stephane Dion. He has allowed the CPC to rule for as thought they have a majority, while desperately trying to tell us how bad they are.

Case in point - the vote on C-484. A clear attempt by the so-cons to try to introduce fetal personhood into Canadian law by stealth (and not very stealthy since ever fetus fetish blogger has stated that is exactly what the bill is for), a clear attempt to start the re-criminalization of abortion and the resulting enslavement of Canadian women. So what does Dion do? Does he whip his caucus to ensure this obvious piece of social conservative nonsense doesn't pass? No! Does he even show up to vote himself? No! Where was he? Holding a party for female reporters and politicos to celebrate International Woman's Day.

Are you fucking kidding me?!? He was holding a party to talk to women instead of actually doing something to protect their rights from the authoritarian fascist jerks that want to take them away. I guess he had more important priorities, eh?

Dion is not a leader. Not even close. He is a chickenshit, spineless worm.

The NDP doesn't get off either, hell no. While this is going on, they are carrying water for the Conservatives on the Cadman affair, looking to attack the Liberals when they actually do something right. No, they seem very interested in making sure there is proper packaging for candy cigarillos, so kids don't mistake them for the real thing. Or trying to help the Bloc pass legislation to allow the CRTC to regulate violence on TV (yes, I'm sure Charles McVety is pretty happy too). Thanks but as an adult and a parent, I think I can make those decisions on my own, I don't need a mindless bureaucrat or MP deciding this stuff for me. Honestly, the economic illiteracy and nanny-statism of my former party is really breathtaking sometimes.

I've really had enough, and I suspect a lot of other folks out there have too.

Well enough is enough. They say the best way to get out of a hole is to stop digging. I say the best way to beat a crooked game is to simply not play. It is clear that voting doesn't matter. The Conservatives in many ways, turned out to be just as dishonest and power-hungry as the Liberals. The Liberals turned out to be as socially conservative as the very so-cons they warned us about in the last election. The NDP has stopped being the conscience of Canada and become a junior version of the Trudeau Liberals of the '70s, now just as opportunistic and power thirsty as the others.

We cannot rely of slick and dishonest salesman to protect our freedoms, we can only rely on ourselves. People laughed at me a little over a year ago when I became a market anarchist. They thought my position of not participating in a corrupt electoral system was silly. Well, after a year of nonsense and the bullshit of the last week, I feel completely vindicated.

So instead of relying on these jackasses, lets just do it ourselves. Ignore whatever silly laws the pass. Don't pay their taxes (as much as you can). Refuse to participate in their fixed game.

And fuck 'em. All of them.

Labels: , , ,

35 Comments:

At 11:50 PM, Blogger The Mound of Sound said...

Mike: The ranks of Libs who aren't as demoralized as you are rapidly thinning. This thing is turning into a fucking joke.

 
At 11:52 PM, Blogger leftdog said...

Mike.
Amen!

 
At 11:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right On!

Today I tossed my LPC membership in the re-cycling bin, and cancelled my monthly donation. I've had it!
The LPC failed to protect me and the woman of Canada. Hell, they helped pass this bill to second reading.
I don't care who wins the next election. I'm done. I now proudly consider my self to be a non-voter.

Diana
Just another non-voting Canadian.

 
At 12:08 AM, Blogger Erik said...

Mike, you write well while angry - keep it up!

 
At 12:09 AM, Blogger Dame said...

Very well said !! I Guess we have To Dismiss the present LIb. leadership as First ..
enough is enough,,,

 
At 12:09 AM, Blogger jj said...

You bet. There now seems to be no part of the government or opposition that's untouched by the rot of corruption and entitlement, nobody that actually works for the people. We grind away, propping these bastards up year after year, and this is what it comes to.

*discouraged*

 
At 12:31 AM, Blogger Saskboy said...

If only the people who didn't vote because they are pissed off, took their vote to a party that could make a change, or made a party that would. The problem of course is the media doesn't want to cover more parties, so nothing outside of the top 4 have a shot in being talked about, and only the top 2 are talked about seriously.

 
At 12:50 AM, Blogger Godammitkitty said...

I definitely understand where you're coming from, Mike.

*cheers* to Blogging While Angry!

GDK

 
At 12:58 AM, Blogger Scott in Montreal said...

Well Mike, it's been a day of reckoning all right. I have virtually the same exact misgivings about Layton's NDP and Dion's LPC.

Myself, this became the tipping point spurring me to finally join the Greens, but I completely respect your decision. Best to you. Nicely written, even if angry.

 
At 8:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My thoughts exactly, thanks.
-HT

 
At 12:43 PM, Blogger Boris said...

"So instead of relying on these jackasses, lets just do it ourselves. Ignore whatever silly laws the pass. Don't pay their taxes (as much as you can). Refuse to participate in their fixed game."

 
At 12:44 PM, Blogger Boris said...

Shit, meant to say "yeah that!".

 
At 1:26 PM, Blogger Ron said...

Like I noted on my blog: 60% of Albertans didn't bother going to the polls in the last provincial election. I'm working to bring that to 100%!

Great post, Mike.

Trying to vote your way out of this kinda mess is like turning on more taps to avoid a shower.

 
At 3:07 PM, Anonymous Anshu said...

Just curious, but does nobody who reads this blog vote Libertarian?

 
At 3:45 PM, Blogger Erich Jacoby-Hawkins said...

"So instead of relying on these jackasses, lets just do it ourselves. Ignore whatever silly laws the pass. Don't pay their taxes (as much as you can). Refuse to participate in their fixed game."

And end up in jail for exercising your freedom? Small comfort.

How about voting for improved democracy and practical, science-based government that still respects personal responsibility & choice in a market system? Vote Green Party.

 
At 4:00 PM, Blogger Ron said...

anshu: I *ran* as a Libertarian candidate back in the 80s in BC, if that answers your question.

My problem is: every time I ever voted, some yo-yo would insist I was consequently giving them a "mandate" of some sort. So now I just abstain and ignore the government as best I can. That means (in a nutshell) that the distinction between legal/illegal for me is just a factor in risk assessment; I do what I do based on what I see as right or wrong instead, and I view the whole idea of permission as a concept that properly only applies to children.

 
At 4:04 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Anshu,

We don't have one and even if we did....

erich,

"And end up in jail for exercising your freedom? Small comfort."

You don't change a crooked system playing by the crooked rules. Sometimes making changes isn't comfortable.

And the fact that I would "end up in jail for exercising my freedom" IS the problem, not just a dearth of choices in a crooked system.

I'm sure their are lots of nice folks in the Green Party, but they are still trying to play by the crooked rules in the fixed game.

No thanks.

 
At 4:17 PM, Blogger Frank Frink said...

Righteous, Mike.

Thanks for articulating what many of us are thinking so well.

 
At 4:27 PM, Blogger JimBobby said...

Whooee! Good boogin', Mike.

"I'm sure their are lots of nice folks in the Green Party, but they are still trying to play by the crooked rules in the fixed game."

We're all nice folks in the Green Party. There pretty much only one game and yer right about the crooked rules and fixed-ness of it. But unless it is made better, ordinary folks like you an' me are gonna suffer. We can't opt out of society, entirely.

Some folks figger we can maybe do some good in the system despite the systemic flaws. The system is oppressive but omnipresent and only by changing it can we get relief from it.

Well, that, or movin' up to Peace River. (Hi, Ron :))

As much as possible, I try optin' out of tyrannical stuff like taxes an' parkin' tickets an' dog licenses. And church.

JB

 
At 5:35 PM, Blogger Chimera said...

"And end up in jail for exercising your freedom? Small comfort."

Actually, it's doubtful it would get that far. There simply aren't enough jails to accomodate all of us if we absolutely insist on telling the government to fuck off.

I do it on a regular basis. Nobody's busting any speed records to get my ass in jail, although it might happen sometime. And when it does, I've got a little list of things they can do for me -- like elective surgery that I need, but can't get done because the waiting list is too long and keeps getting longer. Prisoners get preferential medical treatment, so they can bloody well treat me!

The jails we have now are already overcrowded to the point where, local to me, the guards are taking "job action" to protest bad working conditions! They're overworked and not getting paid for it, so they've refused to do overtime.

Nah. I think jail is an empty threat.

Mike: Blogging While Angry feels good sometimes, don't it? Great stuff!

Somebody oughta start a BWA blogroll...

 
At 4:42 AM, Blogger Nastyboy said...

MikeTYping while angry is a good thing, just don't drink and type, that's gotten me into trouble a few times.

I can't agree with you more. I didn't vote in this last Alberta election. I couldn't bring myself to it.

Posted about it here:

http://themsfightinwords.blogspot.com/2008/03/apathetic-and-proud-ofwhatever.html

Chimera

Somebody oughta start a BWA blogroll...

Good idea. I'll work on that once I sober up. If I remember.

 
At 4:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We have a government that is now openly taking measures to censor films that don't pass the muster of religious bigots like Charles McVety."

No, we have a government that is not giving tax breaks to some films. What's the big deal? It's not censorship, it's just not putting MY tax dollars into crap films. If you want to fund the film you are completely free to do so, freer in fact, since you have more of your own money due to the Harper tax cuts.
Why not get angry about what really happened instead of making it into something it isn't?
Is Canada best served by having rational debates or by spouting partisan lies like you have just done?

 
At 4:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

All you cranky liberals should start a new party. You could call it, hmmm......., the Reform Party! That name isn't being used any more.

 
At 6:23 PM, Blogger Mike said...

anon 4:20 -

The problem is it is guys like McVety who are deciding what is "crap films" and thus, based on content, what films ought to receive the additional financial benefit. For many this is the difference between going into production and not. That is de facto censorship. Conversely films these guys DO approve of - anti-gay, anti-evolution CRAP - will get funding.

If the government wants to give tax credits to encourage film production in Canada, it give it to all productions. Or it gets rid of for everyone. Honestly, if you don't tax dollars funding the film industry (actually what I would prefer) then get rid of it completely.

What the Cons are doing is letting cocksuckers like McVety decide what is crap or what worthy of support. Sorry, that prick doesn't decide for anyone what is crap.

If you don't think that is censorship, then you are stupid prig and really out to fuck off. McVety getting the government to anything is dangerous.

anon 4:23 -

Yeah, that worked our great for the original Reform Party eh? They are now a highly centralized authoritarian party that pays no respect to the grass roots - just ask the folks in Rob Anders riding or in Toronto Centre.

No thanks - like I said, no use playing a crooked game. Screw the system, it is best ignored until it goes away.

 
At 8:21 PM, Blogger Josh Gould said...

And the fact that I would "end up in jail for exercising my freedom" IS the problem, not just a dearth of choices in a crooked system.

No, it would be just punishment for attempting to free ride on the system.

One cannot effect political or social change by "opting-out" - the "system" is all we have and change does not occur by burying your head in the sand and waiting for things to change on its own.

 
At 8:41 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Free Ride? How, exactly, is refusing to participate in a system I consider illegitimate taking a "free ride"? How is refusing to pay taxes and instead, using that money on services I actually voluntarily use a "free ride"?

"burying your head in the sand and waiting for things to change on its own."

No, but neither is that what I am recommending either. I an saying to drop out of the corrupt system and replace it with a voluntary and alternative system. If memory serves, guys like Gandhi and MLK effected change by marching and striking - taking direct action - not by playing by the crooked electoral rules of their respective systems. In the end, both of their society's and system changed because they were being bypassed and had to change to survive.

Honestly, if you think my excercising my freedom of choice and freedom to do as I wish so long as if does not harm others, is somehow slacking or leeching off the system or somehow "free riding" then Josh, you are no less an authoritarian than the so-con twits who would outlaw homosexuality or force everyone to be Christian or Muslim.

And that is a pity.

 
At 9:12 PM, Blogger Josh Gould said...

Free Ride? How, exactly, is refusing to participate in a system I consider illegitimate taking a "free ride"? How is refusing to pay taxes and instead, using that money on services I actually voluntarily use a "free ride"?

Are you building your own roads, sewers, sewage treatment plants, water systems, public health systems, schools, and establishing your own courts?

You are advocating that people opt out of paying for elements of civil order and government that are enjoyed all the time. Effective laws and government are not free, and they are NOT optional. Your voluntary system does not exist; nor is it likely to taking humans as they are.

No, but neither is that what I am recommending either. I an saying to drop out of the corrupt system and replace it with a voluntary and alternative system. If memory serves, guys like Gandhi and MLK effected change by marching and striking - taking direct action - not by playing by the crooked electoral rules of their respective systems. In the end, both of their society's and system changed because they were being bypassed and had to change to survive.

Neither Gandhi nor MLK advocated for anything as radical as you're proposing. For that matter, Gandhi's dream was hardly fully realized in light of the Partition and, for example, the influence of Hindu Nationalism.

Honestly, if you think my excercising my freedom of choice and freedom to do as I wish so long as if does not harm others, is somehow slacking or leeching off the system or somehow "free riding" then Josh, you are no less an authoritarian than the so-con twits who would outlaw homosexuality or force everyone to be Christian or Muslim.

To a libertarian or anarchist, it would seem that anyone suggesting that living in "non-voluntary" states is both necessary and desirable is an authoritarian.

And that is a pity.

More's the pity that you are actually advocating more apathy as a response to... apathy (however justifiable). I'm not happy with the CPC government in particular, but there time will come. In the meantime, I will continue attempting to convince my fellow citizens of why the current goings-on in Ottawa are a threat to the liberty of Canadians and, indeed, our democracy generally.

If you cannot hope to convince people to vote against the culture of neglect and moronic partisanship and demand better, I see exactly zero reason to have hope that your particular dreams of a voluntary society have a hope in hell of coming to fruition.

To my mind, it's a lot easier to give up in favour of ineffective "direct action" - frankly, most people are too apolitical and distracted by the minutiae of daily life to be convinced of the need for massive social change.

 
At 9:54 PM, Blogger Mike said...

"Are you building your own roads, sewers, sewage treatment plants, water systems, public health systems, schools, and establishing your own courts?"

Yes, actually, exactly that. Not all at once, but at some point yes.

"You are advocating that people opt out of paying for elements of civil order and government that are enjoyed all the time."

I don't "enjoy" having one third to one half of my income taken without my consent and spent on things I do not agree to - wars in far off places, subsidies for Oil and Gas companies, tax breaks for the rich. I would happily pay for police and fire. But the problem is I don't have the choice. My money is taken and spent against my will by the same government that sees fit to tell me ho I can or cannot act, think or speak.

"Effective laws and government are not free, and they are NOT optional. Your voluntary system does not exist; nor is it likely to taking humans as they are."

Sorry, if they are not optional and not free, then I am a slave. I am not a slave nor will I be. I would hardly call what we have as "effective". I guess I have a more optimistic view of humans than you do. I've seen plenty of times where people cooperate and live in peace without the need of state intervention - actually we probably do it most of the time anyway.

"More's the pity that you are actually advocating more apathy as a response to... apathy (however justifiable). "

If you think that, then you should read this post and these comments again. I am not advocating apathy, I am advocating abandoning a course of action that time and time again has simply not worked. I am advocating abandoning the system were we await for action from stringers on high and encouraging people to act on their own and find alternative ways to get the services they need from places other than government. That is certainly not apathy.

I mean, if I am a member of the KKK that realizes the Klan is wrong, do I try to reform the Klan from the inside, or do I just quit and join or form a different group? You are advocating I stay in the Klan and keep it going because to do anything else is 'apathy'.

"If you cannot hope to convince people to vote against the culture of neglect and moronic partisanship and demand better, I see exactly zero reason to have hope that your particular dreams of a voluntary society have a hope in hell of coming to fruition."

Every year we vote, and every year, nothing changes. Fewer people are voting because they feel their vote doesn't count, and from what I see they are right. We have no real choices, there is no one to vote for. And the system ensures any vote is tallied and counted unfairly. 40% of people who vote giving majority powers to any party is not a fair system. And it won't change if we keep playing in it and using it, because as long as we go along, it has no incentive to change. THAT was my point about Gandhi and MLK - they didn't follow the British Colonial law or Jim Crow or ask nicely to have it reformed in some legislature, they filled the jails, refused to obey and created their own structures to replace those of the existing state. THAT mad the changes.

People will act voluntarily when the realize they government and the state can only operate as long as we choose to obey. I am advocating choosing something different and building alternatives.

 
At 11:15 PM, Blogger Josh Gould said...

Yes, actually, exactly that. Not all at once, but at some point yes.

Uh-huh. The infrastructure of an industrialized country is not really within the grasp of small groups of people to replicate.

I don't "enjoy" having one third to one half of my income taken without my consent and spent on things I do not agree to - wars in far off places, subsidies for Oil and Gas companies, tax breaks for the rich. I would happily pay for police and fire. But the problem is I don't have the choice. My money is taken and spent against my will by the same government that sees fit to tell me ho I can or cannot act, think or speak.

Too bad for you. Life isn't perfect and you can't always get what you want, like the song says. The government does not tell how to act, think, or speak apart from entirely reasonable bounds based in criminal and civil law (simple drug possession as a potential exception).

Sorry, if they are not optional and not free, then I am a slave. I am not a slave nor will I be. I would hardly call what we have as "effective". I guess I have a more optimistic view of humans than you do. I've seen plenty of times where people cooperate and live in peace without the need of state intervention - actually we probably do it most of the time anyway.

No, I have a realistic view of humans; yours is ridiculously over-optimistic. I firmly believe, for example, that common sense is altogether uncommon. People make do without state intervention because there is no state to intervene as some sort of alien entity. Day-to-day life is governed by institutions and mores that have grown in complexity as our economics and social life have become ever more complicated by technology and social change. "Government" as such is just the modern equivalent of village elders - a subset of the whole, but a part of it nonetheless.

If you think that, then you should read this post and these comments again. I am not advocating apathy, I am advocating abandoning a course of action that time and time again has simply not worked. I am advocating abandoning the system were we await for action from stringers on high and encouraging people to act on their own and find alternative ways to get the services they need from places other than government. That is certainly not apathy.

Right. Sure. Why not? I've no doubt that, if you go down to the Rideau Centre and start encouraging people to join you in the construction of parallel, voluntary sewage treatment systems and courts, you will get many enthusiastic converts to the cause.

I mean, if I am a member of the KKK that realizes the Klan is wrong, do I try to reform the Klan from the inside, or do I just quit and join or form a different group? You are advocating I stay in the Klan and keep it going because to do anything else is 'apathy'.

I won't even address this. You may as well have used the Nazi Party for the analogy, and it would be no less ludicrous or offensive.

Every year we vote, and every year, nothing changes. Fewer people are voting because they feel their vote doesn't count, and from what I see they are right. We have no real choices, there is no one to vote for. And the system ensures any vote is tallied and counted unfairly. 40% of people who vote giving majority powers to any party is not a fair system.

BS. Plenty has changed. Just look at the history of the last 50 years. That mass social movements were oft-required to effect change does not alter the fact that the system itself was changed time and again. Anyhow, BC may well change its electoral system in 2009, and if *Japan* could effect electoral reform and privatize the massive corruption and patronage machine that was the postal savings system, then anything is possible.

And it won't change if we keep playing in it and using it, because as long as we go along, it has no incentive to change. THAT was my point about Gandhi and MLK - they didn't follow the British Colonial law or Jim Crow or ask nicely to have it reformed in some legislature, they filled the jails, refused to obey and created their own structures to replace those of the existing state. THAT mad the changes.

And yet the United States still exists in more or less the same form. That change was effected is beside the point - sometimes politicians, whether they be Lyndon Johnson or Clement Atlee, see the writing on the wall and respond accordingly. If your point was that civil disobedience is often an effective method for political and social change, then I'd certainly agree. Perhaps when you and many others in this country are subject to real rather than imagined oppression, I'll stand beside you. Until then, know only that I am no more a slave than you are. Claiming otherwise is laughable.

People will act voluntarily when the realize they government and the state can only operate as long as we choose to obey. I am advocating choosing something different and building alternatives.

No government will exist in the same form indefinitely. If change is merited and popular, it will happen through some means or another, and so we'll just end up with a somewhat different social order - and a different sort of government. Of course, that change might be far more uncomfortable (read: violence!) than you seem to believe, but if there is violence inherent in the system, it's only because such violence is at least somewhat inherent in everyone.

 
At 12:42 PM, Blogger Ron said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 2:37 PM, Blogger Ron said...

Josh:

Are you building your own roads, sewers, sewage treatment plants, water systems, public health systems, schools, and establishing your own courts?

The "you owe [some kind of allegiance or payment or obedience] for your infrastructure" argument is a false one that could be identically used to foster the notion that citizens of pre-war Germany "rightly owed" obedience and support to Hitler's regime since that's where they got their schooling, youth groups, roads, trains and legislation from. It's a bogus argument suggesting that contracts incurred by thugs impose some sort of legitimate obligation on all who peripherally benefit.

I firmly believe, for example, that common sense is altogether uncommon.

OK, but if you're suggesting that people need government because they are too dumb to make the right choices if left to their own devices, you'll have a hard time convincing me those *exact* same dummies can cleverly elect a legitimate and sensible government to which my obedience can rightly be compelled.

The infrastructure of an industrialized country is not really within the grasp of small groups of people to replicate

That's just not true--private companies of varying sizes build a wide variety of large scale "infrastructure" type projects all the time, ranging from roads through power development and telecommunications networks--and the entire original US turnpike system was floated on privately offered 3% bonds and user-pay tolls.

 
At 6:04 PM, OpenID clermont1095 said...

I know what you mean. I always vote conservative but every time some baby-killing, man-hating, statist, social engineering, free-speech hating liberal or dipper wins.

Or does democracy only suck when the conservative wins in lefty-land...?

 
At 7:16 PM, Blogger Ron said...

clermont1095: The first thing to keep in mind is that democracy is just a tool, not an all-purpose end point; democracy is merely one of a number of methods for making group decisions--and it has its proper use but *only* in limited circumstances, and only in situations where all in the group have explicitly agreed to abide by the outcome. It is *not* ethically sufficient to impose a democratic decision by saying "you were born here so you have to put up with what we do".

So "democracy" doesn't suck any more than a hammer sucks; it all depends on how and where you use it.

The other things to keep in mind are 1) that there is no magic number (ie a majority of some type ) where something that is wrong to do becomes magically right, and 2) that majority or not, non-aggressive folks have a right to simply be left alone to live their lives, no matter how much surrounding people think it's OK to force them to help with or pay for something.

 
At 11:32 PM, Blogger Mike said...

My claremont, everything is just us and them, black and white with you, isn't it.

I take it from your comment that you vote conservative because you expect them to pass laws that will take away the rights of and try to control the lives of, other people who don't share your particular view of the world.

Well, that is the problem, isn't it? Every vote in our rigged system is a vote to take away the rights and invade the lives of those who don't agree with you. Very authoritarian.

Plus, I suggest you actually look at the CPC you seem to hold so highly - the are still the largest spending Canadian government EVER. Yes the gave tax cuts, but with not corresponding spending cuts, its a ticket to deficit. They said they would be open and transparent, but we have a PMO that is micromanaged and highly centralized. They have stalled freedom of information, not implemented regulations on lobbyists and in general have been as corrupt and secretive as the Liberals ever were.

So, exactly what did you vote for again? Was it the authoritarian, women-enslaving, misogynistic, Christaliban, corporatist, statist, social-engineering, free speech hating Conservative?

See, they hyperbole works both ways, friendo. Now, how about you actually read what I wrote and what we have been saying in the comments before you say something else foolish? Like how all of this is somehow sour grapes over an election that happened over 2 years ago (note that I don;t vote anyway).

Pay attention to Ron, he's a very smart man.

 
At 9:13 PM, Blogger Stephen said...

Thank you for stating so eloquently what so many of us are feeling.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home