What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Paul Ryan is the Real Deal

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
56,557
Reaction score
19,230
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
Paul Ryan is one of the most thoughtful thinkers in DC. Here's his speech for Constitution Day. He effectively makes the case for the importance of the Rule of Law in order to protect Liberty. Something the current Regime in the White House doesn't grok.

Thanks very much for your kind introduction. It’s always a pleasure for me to speak to Hillsdale folks. Your mission here at the Kirby Center is a great example of what Hillsdale College is all about – that is, in the words of James Madison, “liberty and learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual and surest support.”

In addition to those of you who’ve joined us today, I’m told that these remarks are being webcast live for the benefit of Hillsdale students back in Michigan, where it is currently 8:30 a.m. – or, as most college students call it, the crack of dawn. Your scholarly passion for human freedom must be powerful indeed.

This Saturday, we celebrate the 224th birthday of the Constitution written by the Framers in Philadelphia. In paying tribute to this inspired document, I want to talk about how we should think about the Constitution, and why that matters.

Usually, our defense of the Constitution is presented as a defense of America’s founding principles and values, and rightfully so. But our constitutional system is not just a collection of principles; it embodies an approach to government with profound practical implications for both our freedom and our prosperity. When that system is threatened, both freedom and prosperity suffer.

Freedom is lost by degrees, and the deepest erosions usually take place during times of economic hardship, when those who favor expanding the sphere of government, abuse a crisis to persuade free citizens that they should trade in a little of their liberty for empty promises of greater economic security.

We all remember what Benjamin Franklin said about that trade – that those who would make it deserve neither liberty nor security. But in such cases, when liberty is lost, it is our fault as champions of the Constitution, for failing to mount a sufficiently persuasive and effective defense. And I believe our defense falls short when we fail to connect our timeless principles and values to the urgent economic issues facing the factory worker in Janesville, Wisconsin who is suddenly unable to provide for his family, or, in your case, the recent college graduate who finds herself in one of the worst job markets in recent memory.
PaulRyanAntidote

We can strengthen our defense of liberty if we remember to keep in mind those who are struggling to make ends meet. What makes our Constitution such an extraordinary document is that, in making the United States the freest civilization in history, the Founders guaranteed that it would become the most prosperous as well. The American system of limited government, low taxes, sound money and the rule of law has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed.

I want to talk today in particular about the last of those – the rule of law, which is absolutely essential to all the other benefits of our system, to the prosperity and freedom of our country, and to the well being of all Americans, especially the most vulnerable.

What is the rule of law? When the Declaration of Independence cited as justification “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” the Founders were channeling Aristotle, who wrote that the rule of law in principle means that, quote, “God and intellect alone rule.”

Aristotle defined the law as “intellect without appetite,” by which he meant justice untainted by the self-interest of those in power.

The great difficulty we encounter in striving to meet Aristotle’s ideal was best summed up by James Madison: “if men were angels, no government would be necessary. And if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

But, as Madison reminded us, men are no angels, and government is “administered by men over men.” Grounded in a proper understanding of human nature, our Founders tackled this challenge head-on with a brilliant Constitution and a healthy separation of powers, binding all men to the same set of laws and preventing any one man or group of men from gaining enough power to declare themselves above the law.

The Constitution secures other rights long understood to be essential to the rule of law, such as the right to due process, meaning that the laws of the land must be transparent, consistent, and equally applied to all men, so that no man may be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty or property.

This constitutional cornerstone of our free society is also a critical precondition for a free and dynamic economy. Without the rule of law to safeguard the ownership of property and the enforcement of contracts, it makes little sense for an investor to put his capital at risk helping an entrepreneur to pursue a dream, advance an idea, and ultimately grow a business that creates good-paying jobs for Americans.

For decades, the U.S. economy has been a magnet for investors, entrepreneurs, and workers, because we enjoy some of the strongest and most transparent legal protections in the world. These protections provide a stable environment for business investment – stability that is undermined when the discretionary power of bureaucrats is enhanced.

Many countries around the world remain mired in grinding poverty for lack of the institutions necessary to guard property and contracts from the appetites of local despots and their cronies. Their economies are highly unstable, and the fate of business investment is often subject to the whims of a single person, or a small group of bureaucrats.

The good news is that the United States still enjoys an enormous edge over most of the world when it comes to the strength of our institutions and our reputation for respecting the rule of law. But we are moving in the wrong direction, and we would be fools to believe that job creators haven’t noticed.

Let me give you just a few examples of how the rule of law in this country has been degraded over the past few years, and replaced by the rule of man.

Monetary Policy....


Read the whole thing:

Paul Ryan: Restoring the Rule of Law - Ricochet.com
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
It is unfortunate that what he says is so very basic that most people have forgotten it. It is also unfortunate that it will be vilified by the Left.
 

8537

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
7,754
Reaction score
729
Points
83
Location
New England's West Coast
oh gawd.....help us, please:

Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve abandoned the so-called Taylor Rule near the end of the century after the tech bubble collapsed, and a growing body of evidence supports the idea that the Fed kept interest rates too low for too long throughout the past decade, helping to fuel the enormous housing bubble that caused the financial crisis of 2008.

The Fed abandoned the Taylor Rule in the late 1990s? Really now?
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
oh gawd.....help us, please:

Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve abandoned the so-called Taylor Rule near the end of the century after the tech bubble collapsed, and a growing body of evidence supports the idea that the Fed kept interest rates too low for too long throughout the past decade, helping to fuel the enormous housing bubble that caused the financial crisis of 2008.

The Fed abandoned the Taylor Rule in the late 1990s? Really now?

Just when I thought this board was safe from abject stupidity you appear.

However, according to Taylor, the rule was not followed in part of the 2000s, possibly leading to the housing bubble.
 

8537

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
7,754
Reaction score
729
Points
83
Location
New England's West Coast
oh gawd.....help us, please:

Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve abandoned the so-called Taylor Rule near the end of the century after the tech bubble collapsed, and a growing body of evidence supports the idea that the Fed kept interest rates too low for too long throughout the past decade, helping to fuel the enormous housing bubble that caused the financial crisis of 2008.

The Fed abandoned the Taylor Rule in the late 1990s? Really now?

Just when I thought this board was safe from abject stupidity you appear.

However, according to Taylor, the rule was not followed in part of the 2000s, possibly leading to the housing bubble.
Oh, I see. You don't understand the Taylor Rule and you were too lazy to go to Wikipedia.

Color me unsurprised.

"Part of the 2000's" is not the end of last century, and there was good reason not to apply a strict interpretation of Dr Taylor's version of his rule in the early 2000's. I bet with just a little bit of thinking even YOU can figure out why a conservative interpretation was abandoned for a period in the early 2000's.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
oh gawd.....help us, please:



The Fed abandoned the Taylor Rule in the late 1990s? Really now?

Just when I thought this board was safe from abject stupidity you appear.

However, according to Taylor, the rule was not followed in part of the 2000s, possibly leading to the housing bubble.
Oh, I see. You don't understand the Taylor Rule and you were too lazy to go to Wikipedia.

Color me unsurprised.

"Part of the 2000's" is not the end of last century, and there was good reason not to apply a strict interpretation of Dr Taylor's version of his rule in the early 2000's. I bet with just a little bit of thinking even YOU can figure out why a conservative interpretation was abandoned for a period in the early 2000's.

As usual you beclown yourself.
Out of an enormous and important speech you manage to carp on one tiny detail. How do you know they didnt start abandoning a rule they never explicitly adopted until 1999? Actually that is about right.
Clown.
 

Zona

A guy in ariZONA
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
13,874
Reaction score
999
Points
48
Location
Phoenix, AZ.
Paul Ryan is one of the most thoughtful thinkers in DC. Here's his speech for Constitution Day. He effectively makes the case for the importance of the Rule of Law in order to protect Liberty. Something the current Regime in the White House doesn't grok.

Thanks very much for your kind introduction. It’s always a pleasure for me to speak to Hillsdale folks. Your mission here at the Kirby Center is a great example of what Hillsdale College is all about – that is, in the words of James Madison, “liberty and learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual and surest support.”

In addition to those of you who’ve joined us today, I’m told that these remarks are being webcast live for the benefit of Hillsdale students back in Michigan, where it is currently 8:30 a.m. – or, as most college students call it, the crack of dawn. Your scholarly passion for human freedom must be powerful indeed.

This Saturday, we celebrate the 224th birthday of the Constitution written by the Framers in Philadelphia. In paying tribute to this inspired document, I want to talk about how we should think about the Constitution, and why that matters.

Usually, our defense of the Constitution is presented as a defense of America’s founding principles and values, and rightfully so. But our constitutional system is not just a collection of principles; it embodies an approach to government with profound practical implications for both our freedom and our prosperity. When that system is threatened, both freedom and prosperity suffer.

Freedom is lost by degrees, and the deepest erosions usually take place during times of economic hardship, when those who favor expanding the sphere of government, abuse a crisis to persuade free citizens that they should trade in a little of their liberty for empty promises of greater economic security.

We all remember what Benjamin Franklin said about that trade – that those who would make it deserve neither liberty nor security. But in such cases, when liberty is lost, it is our fault as champions of the Constitution, for failing to mount a sufficiently persuasive and effective defense. And I believe our defense falls short when we fail to connect our timeless principles and values to the urgent economic issues facing the factory worker in Janesville, Wisconsin who is suddenly unable to provide for his family, or, in your case, the recent college graduate who finds herself in one of the worst job markets in recent memory.
PaulRyanAntidote

We can strengthen our defense of liberty if we remember to keep in mind those who are struggling to make ends meet. What makes our Constitution such an extraordinary document is that, in making the United States the freest civilization in history, the Founders guaranteed that it would become the most prosperous as well. The American system of limited government, low taxes, sound money and the rule of law has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed.

I want to talk today in particular about the last of those – the rule of law, which is absolutely essential to all the other benefits of our system, to the prosperity and freedom of our country, and to the well being of all Americans, especially the most vulnerable.

What is the rule of law? When the Declaration of Independence cited as justification “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” the Founders were channeling Aristotle, who wrote that the rule of law in principle means that, quote, “God and intellect alone rule.”

Aristotle defined the law as “intellect without appetite,” by which he meant justice untainted by the self-interest of those in power.

The great difficulty we encounter in striving to meet Aristotle’s ideal was best summed up by James Madison: “if men were angels, no government would be necessary. And if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

But, as Madison reminded us, men are no angels, and government is “administered by men over men.” Grounded in a proper understanding of human nature, our Founders tackled this challenge head-on with a brilliant Constitution and a healthy separation of powers, binding all men to the same set of laws and preventing any one man or group of men from gaining enough power to declare themselves above the law.

The Constitution secures other rights long understood to be essential to the rule of law, such as the right to due process, meaning that the laws of the land must be transparent, consistent, and equally applied to all men, so that no man may be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty or property.

This constitutional cornerstone of our free society is also a critical precondition for a free and dynamic economy. Without the rule of law to safeguard the ownership of property and the enforcement of contracts, it makes little sense for an investor to put his capital at risk helping an entrepreneur to pursue a dream, advance an idea, and ultimately grow a business that creates good-paying jobs for Americans.

For decades, the U.S. economy has been a magnet for investors, entrepreneurs, and workers, because we enjoy some of the strongest and most transparent legal protections in the world. These protections provide a stable environment for business investment – stability that is undermined when the discretionary power of bureaucrats is enhanced.

Many countries around the world remain mired in grinding poverty for lack of the institutions necessary to guard property and contracts from the appetites of local despots and their cronies. Their economies are highly unstable, and the fate of business investment is often subject to the whims of a single person, or a small group of bureaucrats.

The good news is that the United States still enjoys an enormous edge over most of the world when it comes to the strength of our institutions and our reputation for respecting the rule of law. But we are moving in the wrong direction, and we would be fools to believe that job creators haven’t noticed.

Let me give you just a few examples of how the rule of law in this country has been degraded over the past few years, and replaced by the rule of man.

Monetary Policy....


Read the whole thing:

Paul Ryan: Restoring the Rule of Law - Ricochet.com

What are you thoughts on him making those kids..MAKING THEM get those shots? Big gubment?
 

Charles_Main

AR15 Owner
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
16,692
Reaction score
2,248
Points
88
Location
Michigan, USA
Paul Ryan is one of the most thoughtful thinkers in DC. Here's his speech for Constitution Day. He effectively makes the case for the importance of the Rule of Law in order to protect Liberty. Something the current Regime in the White House doesn't grok.

Thanks very much for your kind introduction. It’s always a pleasure for me to speak to Hillsdale folks. Your mission here at the Kirby Center is a great example of what Hillsdale College is all about – that is, in the words of James Madison, “liberty and learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual and surest support.”

In addition to those of you who’ve joined us today, I’m told that these remarks are being webcast live for the benefit of Hillsdale students back in Michigan, where it is currently 8:30 a.m. – or, as most college students call it, the crack of dawn. Your scholarly passion for human freedom must be powerful indeed.

This Saturday, we celebrate the 224th birthday of the Constitution written by the Framers in Philadelphia. In paying tribute to this inspired document, I want to talk about how we should think about the Constitution, and why that matters.

Usually, our defense of the Constitution is presented as a defense of America’s founding principles and values, and rightfully so. But our constitutional system is not just a collection of principles; it embodies an approach to government with profound practical implications for both our freedom and our prosperity. When that system is threatened, both freedom and prosperity suffer.

Freedom is lost by degrees, and the deepest erosions usually take place during times of economic hardship, when those who favor expanding the sphere of government, abuse a crisis to persuade free citizens that they should trade in a little of their liberty for empty promises of greater economic security.

We all remember what Benjamin Franklin said about that trade – that those who would make it deserve neither liberty nor security. But in such cases, when liberty is lost, it is our fault as champions of the Constitution, for failing to mount a sufficiently persuasive and effective defense. And I believe our defense falls short when we fail to connect our timeless principles and values to the urgent economic issues facing the factory worker in Janesville, Wisconsin who is suddenly unable to provide for his family, or, in your case, the recent college graduate who finds herself in one of the worst job markets in recent memory.
PaulRyanAntidote

We can strengthen our defense of liberty if we remember to keep in mind those who are struggling to make ends meet. What makes our Constitution such an extraordinary document is that, in making the United States the freest civilization in history, the Founders guaranteed that it would become the most prosperous as well. The American system of limited government, low taxes, sound money and the rule of law has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed.

I want to talk today in particular about the last of those – the rule of law, which is absolutely essential to all the other benefits of our system, to the prosperity and freedom of our country, and to the well being of all Americans, especially the most vulnerable.

What is the rule of law? When the Declaration of Independence cited as justification “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” the Founders were channeling Aristotle, who wrote that the rule of law in principle means that, quote, “God and intellect alone rule.”

Aristotle defined the law as “intellect without appetite,” by which he meant justice untainted by the self-interest of those in power.

The great difficulty we encounter in striving to meet Aristotle’s ideal was best summed up by James Madison: “if men were angels, no government would be necessary. And if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

But, as Madison reminded us, men are no angels, and government is “administered by men over men.” Grounded in a proper understanding of human nature, our Founders tackled this challenge head-on with a brilliant Constitution and a healthy separation of powers, binding all men to the same set of laws and preventing any one man or group of men from gaining enough power to declare themselves above the law.

The Constitution secures other rights long understood to be essential to the rule of law, such as the right to due process, meaning that the laws of the land must be transparent, consistent, and equally applied to all men, so that no man may be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty or property.

This constitutional cornerstone of our free society is also a critical precondition for a free and dynamic economy. Without the rule of law to safeguard the ownership of property and the enforcement of contracts, it makes little sense for an investor to put his capital at risk helping an entrepreneur to pursue a dream, advance an idea, and ultimately grow a business that creates good-paying jobs for Americans.

For decades, the U.S. economy has been a magnet for investors, entrepreneurs, and workers, because we enjoy some of the strongest and most transparent legal protections in the world. These protections provide a stable environment for business investment – stability that is undermined when the discretionary power of bureaucrats is enhanced.

Many countries around the world remain mired in grinding poverty for lack of the institutions necessary to guard property and contracts from the appetites of local despots and their cronies. Their economies are highly unstable, and the fate of business investment is often subject to the whims of a single person, or a small group of bureaucrats.

The good news is that the United States still enjoys an enormous edge over most of the world when it comes to the strength of our institutions and our reputation for respecting the rule of law. But we are moving in the wrong direction, and we would be fools to believe that job creators haven’t noticed.

Let me give you just a few examples of how the rule of law in this country has been degraded over the past few years, and replaced by the rule of man.

Monetary Policy....


Read the whole thing:

Paul Ryan: Restoring the Rule of Law - Ricochet.com

What are you thoughts on him making those kids..MAKING THEM get those shots? Big gubment?

Yep, and a huge Mistake. No excuses for it from me.

Though I will say, he has admitted he was wrong, and said if he could do it again he would do it different.

I know, Being he is a Republican you can't forgive him, but I bet if he was a Liberal Democrat and made a big Mistake and said I am sorry I learned my lesson, You would give him a pass.
 

8537

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
7,754
Reaction score
729
Points
83
Location
New England's West Coast
Just when I thought this board was safe from abject stupidity you appear.
Oh, I see. You don't understand the Taylor Rule and you were too lazy to go to Wikipedia.

Color me unsurprised.

"Part of the 2000's" is not the end of last century, and there was good reason not to apply a strict interpretation of Dr Taylor's version of his rule in the early 2000's. I bet with just a little bit of thinking even YOU can figure out why a conservative interpretation was abandoned for a period in the early 2000's.

As usual you beclown yourself.
Out of an enormous and important speech you manage to carp on one tiny detail. How do you know they didnt start abandoning a rule they never explicitly adopted until 1999? Actually that is about right.
Clown.

How do I know they didn't start abandoning the rule? Because I can do the basic math required to compute the Taylor Rule.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
60,567
Reaction score
18,545
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
In 2007, a wrongheaded Supreme Court decision…

‘Wrongheaded,’ so much for Ryan’s ‘understanding’ of the rule of law.

Telling also how conservatives fail to understand or acknowledge the rule of law when it comes to privacy rights, due process rights, and equal protection rights. They need to exhibit a better understanding and concern for the rights of individual Americans, not the rights of corporations.
 

ladyliberal

Progressive Princess
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
291
Points
48
Paul Ryan probably is "one of the most thoughtful thinkers in DC", or at least in Congress. Nevertheless, this speech is more an overtly partisan critique of Democratic policies than a general analysis of the Constitution. I could dispute much of Ryan's logic (and some of his facts), but given the length of the speech I don't have the patience. I do want to take issue with his interpretation of the Constitution and the "rule of law", though.

Ryan seems to view the purpose of the Constitution as fundamentally to protect property rights. In this, his Constitution Day speech, he pays no tribute to other rights Americans hold dear (speech, religion, reproductive, privacy, protections in criminal proceedings, bearing of arms, local [IE, state] rule, etc.). It is true historically that the Constitution was often seen as primarily a way of protecting property rights. However, these views were often just plain morally wrong. This philosophy lead not only to laissez faire practices like child labor and unsafe workplaces, but also to that ultimate enshrinement of property rights over human rights: slavery.

Ryan also equates liberty with property. They aren't the same-- someone who is ten times richer is not ten times freer, and the income tax does not violate any essential liberty. On this (at least some of) the framers agreed. Virginia's Declaration of Rights (Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) protected life, liberty, and "the means of acquiring and possessing property". However, Jefferson and Franklin (who Ryan enlists in an attempt to make much the opposite point) believed in taxes and thus elided any mention of property from their own list of unalienable rights.

Ryan's thesis, judging from his title, is that the rule of law has disappeared (it needs to be restored). From the text of his speech, it is clear that Ryan's problem is not with Congress, or the courts, or with past presidents (except perhaps Bush, whose TARP program is criticized), but rather with the current occupant of the Oval Office. Taken to its logical conclusion (which Ryan certainly does not do) this suggests that Obama is an illegitimate President who should be resisted by any means possible, including no doubt impeachment. This attempt to delegitimize a Democratically elected official would, if effective, do far more harm to the rule of law than any actions of the Obama administration (such transparently illegal activities as having the EPA regulate emissions).

I don't mean to suggest Ryan is evil, he's just a professional partisan who pursues political advantage at the expense of intellectual honesty, and one who has a philosophy with which I genuinely disagree.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
Paul Ryan probably is "one of the most thoughtful thinkers in DC", or at least in Congress. Nevertheless, this speech is more an overtly partisan critique of Democratic policies than a general analysis of the Constitution. I could dispute much of Ryan's logic (and some of his facts), but given the length of the speech I don't have the patience. I do want to take issue with his interpretation of the Constitution and the "rule of law", though.

Ryan seems to view the purpose of the Constitution as fundamentally to protect property rights. In this, his Constitution Day speech, he pays no tribute to other rights Americans hold dear (speech, religion, reproductive, privacy, protections in criminal proceedings, bearing of arms, local [IE, state] rule, etc.). It is true historically that the Constitution was often seen as primarily a way of protecting property rights. However, these views were often just plain morally wrong. This philosophy lead not only to laissez faire practices like child labor and unsafe workplaces, but also to that ultimate enshrinement of property rights over human rights: slavery.

Ryan also equates liberty with property. They aren't the same-- someone who is ten times richer is not ten times freer, and the income tax does not violate any essential liberty. On this (at least some of) the framers agreed. Virginia's Declaration of Rights (Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) protected life, liberty, and "the means of acquiring and possessing property". However, Jefferson and Franklin (who Ryan enlists in an attempt to make much the opposite point) believed in taxes and thus elided any mention of property from their own list of unalienable rights.

Ryan's thesis, judging from his title, is that the rule of law has disappeared (it needs to be restored). From the text of his speech, it is clear that Ryan's problem is not with Congress, or the courts, or with past presidents (except perhaps Bush, whose TARP program is criticized), but rather with the current occupant of the Oval Office. Taken to its logical conclusion (which Ryan certainly does not do) this suggests that Obama is an illegitimate President who should be resisted by any means possible, including no doubt impeachment. This attempt to delegitimize a Democratically elected official would, if effective, do far more harm to the rule of law than any actions of the Obama administration (such transparently illegal activities as having the EPA regulate emissions).

I don't mean to suggest Ryan is evil, he's just a professional partisan who pursues political advantage at the expense of intellectual honesty, and one who has a philosophy with which I genuinely disagree.
It was understand that property rights were the fundamental right underpinning everything else. Lord McCauley made this explicit in his speeches, even though they antedate the Constitution this must have been common belief going back to the Enlightenment.
Your thesis about "taking it to the logical conclusion" is a good example of a reductio ad absurdum. I am surprised you didnt suggest the GOP wants Obama executed for treason.
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,662
Points
48
Location
Maine
How I envy those of you who have at least one potenital candidate in whom you trust.

I haven't felt that way about any candidate EVER in my adult lifetime.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
How I envy those of you who have at least one potenital candidate in whom you trust.

I haven't felt that way about any candidate EVER in my adult lifetime.

You need to see someone about that.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$515.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top