Repubicans for a day

0 views
Skip to first unread message

WILDE SALAS

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
Why the hell are Democraps voting in a Republican primary?? If it was the other
way around you'd have Geraldo (laugh) and all the others screaming right wing
conspiracy. But not a peep last night about why these Democraps would be doing
this. Are any of you Dems really gonna vote for McCain over Gore?? Hell no!

J.H. Smith

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
WILDE SALAS wrote in message
<20000223142936...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...

Admit it. You're Al Gore pretending to be G.W. Bush, aren't you?

- John

Randy

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
In article <20000223142936...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
wilde...@aol.com (WILDE SALAS) wrote:

> Why the hell are Democraps voting in a Republican primary?? If it was
the other
> way around you'd have Geraldo (laugh) and all the others screaming right wing
> conspiracy. But not a peep last night about why these Democraps would be doing
> this. Are any of you Dems really gonna vote for McCain over Gore?? Hell no!

I intend on voting for McCain. I have voted mostly Democratic in my
life. You just can't grasp the fact that some people will vote for who they
belive is the best candidate. Besides, if you listen to Bradley's latest stump
speech backwards, it says, McCain's the man.

Matt

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
That is not true, most of the non-republican vote came from independents who
legitimately want McCain.


WILDE SALAS <wilde...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000223142936...@ng-ck1.aol.com...

z

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
Well, Michigan in its wisdom decided that you don't have to be a party
member for the primary. Just points up the nuttiness of the system.

In article <20000223142936...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
wilde...@aol.com (WILDE SALAS) wrote:
> Why the hell are Democraps voting in a Republican primary?? If it
> was the other
> way around you'd have Geraldo (laugh) and all the others screaming
> right wing
> conspiracy. But not a peep last night about why these Democraps
> would be doing
> this. Are any of you Dems really gonna vote for McCain over Gore??
> Hell no!

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


qjohnshaft

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
In article <20000223142936...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
wilde...@aol.com (WILDE SALAS) wrote:
>Why the hell are Democraps voting in a Republican primary?? If
it was the other
>way around you'd have Geraldo (laugh) and all the others
screaming right wing
>conspiracy. But not a peep last night about why these Democraps
would be doing
>this. Are any of you Dems really gonna vote for McCain over
Gore?? Hell no!
>
At one point, Michigan did try to have primaries in which you
had to declare a party on your voter registration and you could
vote in that primary only. A lot of people raise hell saying
they didn't want to be force to declare any form of alliegance
to a particular party in order to vote, so the two parties
backed down. It has had some weird effects, a lot of pro-union
democrats who hate foreigners crossed over to vote for Buchanon
in Republican primaries in 92 and 96.
From the polling they did on voters, quite a few democrats
and independants said they would vote for McCain over Gore,
which given what lying litte tool Gore is, isn't too much of a
reach. If Bush is the candidate, they are just trading one
shifty legacy over another.

The-Trainers

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
I got two guesses, maybe they both apply to different Democrat voters.

1) They voted for McCain because they WANT him to run against Gore
because they fear Bush can beat Gore but they assume McCain can't.

2) They really can't stand Gore or Bradley

The first one troubles me a whole lot more than the second.

MT

Ji7nx1

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
<1) They voted for McCain because they WANT him to run against Gore
because they fear Bush can beat Gore but they assume McCain can't.

2) They really can't stand Gore or Bradley
>

most people like mccain and would be happy if he was president even if they are
for al gore. so if mccain gets the nomination they would be happy no matter who
wins. i know lots of people really dont like that nasty smirk on bush.

WILDE SALAS

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to

>I intend on voting for McCain. I

>have voted mostly Democratic in my

>life. You just can't grasp the fact that

>some people will vote for who they

>belive is the best candidate

Why do independents and some Dems like McCain? Just because they believe they
can trust him? If your a Democrat you probably disagree with him on guns,
abortion, education, defense, etc. What is it besides his trustworthiness? Vote
for him all you want, but as has been said, he can't win a Republican nominee
with Dems and independents. >Besides, if you listen to Bradley's

>Besides, if you listen to Bradley's

>latest stump

>speech backwards, it says, McCain's

>the man.

Ha Ha. Mildly amusing.

z

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
I appreciate his honesty and forthrightness, as compared to the rest of
the candidates; however he seems to be running on the Ross Perot ticket
to some degree, if you catch my drift.

In article <20000224120243...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *

The-Trainers

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
I hope that is the case, but I do wonder if the Democrats that crossed
party lines to choose McCain were mostly doing it out of honest desire
for McCain to be president or if they were doing it because they fear
Bush might well beat Gore.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

MT

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Matt wrote:

> That is not true, most of the non-republican vote came from independents who
> legitimately want McCain.
>
>
> WILDE SALAS <wilde...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000223142936...@ng-ck1.aol.com...

The-Trainers

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to

That is a nice comforting theory, do you have any facts to back that up?

I hope you are correct, but I have seen nothing as yet that supports
that theory.

I would be happy with anyone other than Gore or Bradley.

Bush or McCain makes no difference to me, as long as the Democrats
lose this time.

MT


Randy

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
In article <20000224120243...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
wilde...@aol.com (WILDE SALAS) wrote:

> >I intend on voting for McCain. I
>
> >have voted mostly Democratic in my
>
> >life. You just can't grasp the fact that
>
> >some people will vote for who they
>
> >belive is the best candidate
>
> Why do independents and some Dems like McCain? Just because they believe they
> can trust him? If your a Democrat you probably disagree with him on guns,
> abortion, education, defense, etc. What is it besides his
trustworthiness? Vote
> for him all you want, but as has been said, he can't win a Republican nominee
> with Dems and independents. >Besides, if you listen to Bradley's

I'd consider myself an Independent and have no problem voting Rep. if
I agree with some of their positions. I do disagree with McCain on quite
a bit but Gore seems to lie so much, you can't even believe him when he
says he's
lying. I hapopen to think campaign finance reform is one of the most important
issues in America today. I'm so tired of special interests with money
runnng this country.

>
> >Besides, if you listen to Bradley's
>
> >latest stump
>
> >speech backwards, it says, McCain's
>
> >the man.
>
> Ha Ha. Mildly amusing.

sknaht

Black Jester™/The Voltairian

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:17:02 -0800, z
<gzuckier...@my-dejanews.com.invalid> wrote:

{Well, Michigan in its wisdom decided that you don't have to be a party


{member for the primary. Just points up the nuttiness of the system.

Not the state. The people who run the State Party. It's the dumbest
thing you can think of.

I think many of the independants voting McCain are backing Buchanan,
with the Liberal image Bush gave McCain they likely figure McCain can
help Buchanan win the presidency really easily.

Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco Buday
Free-Lance Writer; Humourist; Mental Patient
Vancouver, BC

The My Ego Times: http://MyEgoTimes.virtualave.net/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"As you have the power, sir, to do some service to letters, I implore
you not to clip the wings of our writers so closely, nor turn into
barndoor fowls those who, allowed a start, might become eagles;
reasonable liberty permits the mind to soar--slavery makes it creep."
-- Voltaire [A Letter To A First Commissioner]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Randy

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
In article <38b5cc96...@news.lightspeed.bc.ca>,
fo...@mysite.van.bc.ca wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:17:02 -0800, z
> <gzuckier...@my-dejanews.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> {Well, Michigan in its wisdom decided that you don't have to be a party
> {member for the primary. Just points up the nuttiness of the system.
>
> Not the state. The people who run the State Party. It's the dumbest
> thing you can think of.
>
> I think many of the independants voting McCain are backing Buchanan,
> with the Liberal image Bush gave McCain they likely figure McCain can
> help Buchanan win the presidency really easily.
>

You must be huffing something. Buchanan does not have the support
of Independents. He barely has any support, sans the radical right.
Buchanan, if he runs, will be lucky to garner 5%.

Andre5B95

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
My take on this, as an independent who will be voting for McCain on March 7 is
that Bush should stop whining and focus on being a little more resourceful with
his $$. If Bush wins, consider it testimony to why special interests and soft
donations are killing our system. It was assumed that he was going to win, not
because of anything he's done, but because he raised so much money without
taking federal matching funds. Until there is a clear independent party with a
candidate and primary, I should be allowed to vote for whomever I please. In
the past it was Clinton, now it is going to be McCain. The religous right/far
right/establishment should get the thought out of their heads that the majority
are supporting them.

If a candidate can support Bob Jones University by speaking there, and then ask
for my vote, then that candidate is on crack.

Black Jester™/The Voltairian

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
On 26 Feb 2000 23:55:35 GMT, andr...@aol.com (Andre5B95) wrote:

{My take on this, as an independent who will be voting for McCain on March 7 is


{that Bush should stop whining and focus on being a little more resourceful with
{his $$. If Bush wins, consider it testimony to why special interests and soft
{donations are killing our system. It was assumed that he was going to win, not
{because of anything he's done, but because he raised so much money without
{taking federal matching funds. Until there is a clear independent party with a
{candidate and primary, I should be allowed to vote for whomever I please. In
{the past it was Clinton, now it is going to be McCain. The religous right/far
{right/establishment should get the thought out of their heads that the majority
{are supporting them.

Bush will win. McCain is just there to create the illusion of
competition. Both of them are pretty much the same anyway.
Globalists. McCain should refrain from being pro-life till he can
apply such principles to his own family.

{If a candidate can support Bob Jones University by speaking there, and then ask


{for my vote, then that candidate is on crack.

Well, to be fair, Mr. Pratt wasn't guilty of bigotry just for showing
up at a pro-gun rally with nazi guests. I hardley think any one can
be guilty by association like that. So why would Bush be?
Although he should have done as Keyes and bad mouthed BJ's policies.

I don't think Bush himself is bigoted against Catholics or Minorities.
It's just Bush Sr.'s lodge brothers and protestant extremists in Bush
Jr.'s camp that may be.

Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco Buday
Free-Lance Writer; Humourist; Mental Patient
Vancouver, BC

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"As you have the power, sir, to do some service to letters, I implore
you not to clip the wings of our writers so closely, nor turn into
barndoor fowls those who, allowed a start, might become eagles;
reasonable liberty permits the mind to soar--slavery makes it creep."
-- Voltaire [A Letter To A First Commissioner]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Erasmus Brown

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
Andre5B95 wrote:

> If a candidate can support Bob Jones University by speaking there, and then ask
> for my vote, then that candidate is on crack.

My Dad went to college in SC in the 50s, and even THEN he said he & his buddies
made fun of people who went to Bob Jones.

Black Jester™/The Voltairian

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 16:44:38 GMT, "Kirk" <lone...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

{
{
{"Black JesterT/The Voltairian" wrote:
{
{> I don't think Bush himself is bigoted against Catholics or Minorities.


{> It's just Bush Sr.'s lodge brothers and protestant extremists in Bush
{> Jr.'s camp that may be.

{
{
{ Good point, that you shouldn't be judged guilty just because you associate
{with those who are.
{
{ As for anti-Catholicism, Congress just approved its new house religious
{guy -- a Protestant minister. I didn't even know they had a resident holy
{man, but they do.

A good question is why they have a resident holy man? Can't these
guys just go to church like everyone else to see one?

{ Anyway, the position has always been held by a Protestant minister, and
{even though a bipartisan committee in Congress voted for a Catholic priest
{this time, the Congress as a whole overruled it.

That was stupid since the biggest electoral prizes are Catholic
states, although Catholics don't tend to whine much. Probably should.

{ Interestingly enough, while the suggestions for applicants state that no
{denomination will be held over another, it also says that being married and
{having a family will be a consideration in who gets picked.
{
{ Which pretty much leaves out Catholic priests.
{
{ -- Kirk

That's why there shouldn't be one. I think congress is establishing a
church in having one, whether they choose a Catholic Piest or Not.

A Catholic Priest would have cost less I'd imagine.

Andre5B95

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
>Bush will win. McCain is just there to create the illusion of
>competition. Both of them are pretty much the same anyway.
>Globalists. McCain should refrain from being pro-life till he can
>apply such principles to his own family.

If you say so, I see a clear distinction between the both of them. And if you
think that McCain not being 100% prolife is a downfall, then you are out of
touch. If anything it allows prochoice proponents to give him a look.

>Well, to be fair, Mr. Pratt wasn't guilty of bigotry just for showing
>up at a pro-gun rally with nazi guests. I hardley think any one can
>be guilty by association like that. So why would Bush be?
>Although he should have done as Keyes and bad mouthed BJ's policies.

In a presidential election, there are numerous choices of where you can speak.
If out of all of those choices, you elect to speak at bigoted institutions,
then you're either an idiot, or you support them. Either way, I won't vote for
a candidate who does that. If bush spoke at a KKK rally, could we
dissassociate him? If he brought Farrakhan up on stage with him, could we
dissassociate him? Of course not, it may not be fair, but that's politics in
America.


>
>I don't think Bush himself is bigoted against Catholics or Minorities.
>It's just Bush Sr.'s lodge brothers and protestant extremists in Bush
>Jr.'s camp that may be.

OK, that makes it all right. Please, I can't believe the morale majority isn't
cutting into Bush for this one.
>

z

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
it was assumed he was going to win, and he got all the cash, because he
was annointed by the high priests of the wholly owned subsidiary of
international big business co. that is the Republican party, as the
most malleable candidate.
Of course, BJU disapproves of Protestant/Catholic mixed marriages, so
by speaking there Bush probably lost his own vote.

In article <20000226185535...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,


andr...@aol.com (Andre5B95) wrote:
> My take on this, as an independent who will be voting for McCain
> on March 7 is
> that Bush should stop whining and focus on being a little more
> resourceful with
> his $$. If Bush wins, consider it testimony to why special
> interests and soft
> donations are killing our system. It was assumed that he was
> going to win, not
> because of anything he's done, but because he raised so much money
> without
> taking federal matching funds. Until there is a clear independent
> party with a
> candidate and primary, I should be allowed to vote for whomever I
> please. In
> the past it was Clinton, now it is going to be McCain. The
> religous right/far
> right/establishment should get the thought out of their heads that
> the majority
> are supporting them.

> If a candidate can support Bob Jones University by speaking there,
> and then ask
> for my vote, then that candidate is on crack.

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *

WILDE SALAS

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
So if John McCain goes on CNN it follows he must have the same beliefs as Ted
Turner right? Catholics should be offended that John McCain thinks they're so
gullible and ignorant.

Black Jester™/The Voltairian

unread,
Feb 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/29/00
to
On 28 Feb 2000 13:20:45 GMT, andr...@aol.com (Andre5B95) wrote:

{>Bush will win. McCain is just there to create the illusion of


{>competition. Both of them are pretty much the same anyway.
{>Globalists. McCain should refrain from being pro-life till he can
{>apply such principles to his own family.
{
{If you say so, I see a clear distinction between the both of them. And if you
{think that McCain not being 100% prolife is a downfall, then you are out of
{touch. If anything it allows prochoice proponents to give him a look.

No, it allows prochoicers to destroy McCain. Because, lets face it,
Keyes is getting him ready for Gore's attacks. If he can't tell his
own daughter not to have an abortion, how dare he tell any one else's
daughter not too. He would have more crediblity as a 100% prochoicer.

{>Well, to be fair, Mr. Pratt wasn't guilty of bigotry just for showing


{>up at a pro-gun rally with nazi guests. I hardley think any one can
{>be guilty by association like that. So why would Bush be?
{>Although he should have done as Keyes and bad mouthed BJ's policies.
{
{In a presidential election, there are numerous choices of where you can speak.
{If out of all of those choices, you elect to speak at bigoted institutions,
{then you're either an idiot, or you support them. Either way, I won't vote for
{a candidate who does that. If bush spoke at a KKK rally, could we
{dissassociate him? If he brought Farrakhan up on stage with him, could we
{dissassociate him? Of course not, it may not be fair, but that's politics in
{America.

Bush was only guilty of being spineless. Is McCain going to be
attacked for attending a pro-life rally that praised a woman who
killed an abortion doctor?

{>I don't think Bush himself is bigoted against Catholics or Minorities.


{>It's just Bush Sr.'s lodge brothers and protestant extremists in Bush
{>Jr.'s camp that may be.
{
{OK, that makes it all right. Please, I can't believe the morale majority isn't
{cutting into Bush for this one.

The above makes up the Moral Majority. I never said it was ok, I am
just being fair.

Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco Buday
Free-Lance Writer; Humourist; Mental Patient
Vancouver, BC

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"As you have the power, sir, to do some service to letters, I implore
you not to clip the wings of our writers so closely, nor turn into
barndoor fowls those who, allowed a start, might become eagles;
reasonable liberty permits the mind to soar--slavery makes it creep."
-- Voltaire [A Letter To A First Commissioner]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

arad...@my-deja.com

unread,
Feb 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/29/00
to
I have been a Republican since the day I turned 18. I have voted
Republican with very few exceptions for the last fourteen years. I am
also a Catholic, maybe not a very good one, but still a Catholic. I
never realized places like bob jones university existed, and I am
amazed it does. I am even more amazed that Bush would visit a place
like that, and let's face it, if he really felt that thier position on
Catholics and interracial dating was wrong, he would've said something.
Why did it slip his mind? My thought is that maybe it really didn't
become important until he realized that he offened alot of Catholics
and minorities. I don't care who runs against Bush, he or she has my
vote. The more I think about it, the more it gnaws at me. I would
rather vote for a potted plant the Bush at this point. It's not like
we don't have enough difficulty between people, the man who wants to be
president doesn't have the foresite to spot a situation like this. Let
us also not forget the California has alot of Catholics, and as more
and more of us understand what bob jones university and it's supporters
stand for, the polls will show McCain and Keyes picking up support.
Just for the record, I do not belong to a cult, the Pope is not the
anti-christ and I am not waiting for a call from Rome to make war on
protestants. I am also getting a little sick of the moral majority
running the Republican party.


In article <20000228082045...@ng-xe1.aol.com>,


andr...@aol.com (Andre5B95) wrote:
> >Bush will win. McCain is just there to create the illusion of
> >competition. Both of them are pretty much the same anyway.
> >Globalists. McCain should refrain from being pro-life till he can
> >apply such principles to his own family.
>
> If you say so, I see a clear distinction between the both of them.
And if you
> think that McCain not being 100% prolife is a downfall, then you are
out of
> touch. If anything it allows prochoice proponents to give him a look.
>

> >Well, to be fair, Mr. Pratt wasn't guilty of bigotry just for showing
> >up at a pro-gun rally with nazi guests. I hardley think any one can
> >be guilty by association like that. So why would Bush be?
> >Although he should have done as Keyes and bad mouthed BJ's policies.
>
> In a presidential election, there are numerous choices of where you
can speak.
> If out of all of those choices, you elect to speak at bigoted
institutions,
> then you're either an idiot, or you support them. Either way, I
won't vote for
> a candidate who does that. If bush spoke at a KKK rally, could we
> dissassociate him? If he brought Farrakhan up on stage with him,
could we
> dissassociate him? Of course not, it may not be fair, but that's
politics in
> America.
> >

> >I don't think Bush himself is bigoted against Catholics or
Minorities.
> >It's just Bush Sr.'s lodge brothers and protestant extremists in Bush
> >Jr.'s camp that may be.
>
> OK, that makes it all right. Please, I can't believe the morale
majority isn't
> cutting into Bush for this one.
> >
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Andre5B95

unread,
Mar 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/1/00
to
>So if John McCain goes on CNN it follows he must have the same beliefs as Ted
>Turner right? Catholics should be offended that John McCain think

Does CNN not allow interracial couples? Please try harder in this debate.
When you run for political office, you have to be careful of the company you
keep.

z

unread,
Mar 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/1/00
to
If he were on CNN specifically to praise the place and kiss Turner's
behind, yeah.

In article <20000228155502...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,


wilde...@aol.com (WILDE SALAS) wrote:
> So if John McCain goes on CNN it follows he must have the same
> beliefs as Ted

> Turner right? Catholics should be offended that John McCain thinks
> they're so
> gullible and ignorant.

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *

Black Jester™/The Voltairian

unread,
Mar 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/2/00
to
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 11:29:08 -0800, z
<gzuckier...@my-dejanews.com.invalid> wrote:

{If he were on CNN specifically to praise the place and kiss Turner's
{behind, yeah.

Bush wasn't kissing Bob Jones' butt. He wasn't even considering the
issue. He was just his usual spineless and diplomatic self.

z

unread,
Mar 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/2/00
to
So the paper has a front page article talking about the possibility of
McCain running on the Reform ticket. Can I call them or what?

In article <016a9754...@usw-ex0106-048.remarq.com>, z


<gzuckier...@my-dejanews.com.invalid> wrote:
> I appreciate his honesty and forthrightness, as compared to the
> rest of
> the candidates; however he seems to be running on the Ross Perot
> ticket
> to some degree, if you catch my drift.

> In article <20000224120243...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,


> wilde...@aol.com (WILDE SALAS) wrote:
> > >I intend on voting for McCain. I
> > >have voted mostly Democratic in my
> > >life. You just can't grasp the fact that
> > >some people will vote for who they
> > >belive is the best candidate
> > Why do independents and some Dems like McCain? Just because they
> > believe they
> > can trust him? If your a Democrat you probably disagree with him
> > on guns,
> > abortion, education, defense, etc. What is it besides his
> > trustworthiness? Vote
> > for him all you want, but as has been said, he can't win a
> > Republican nominee
> > with Dems and independents. >Besides, if you listen to Bradley's

> > >Besides, if you listen to Bradley's
> > >latest stump
> > >speech backwards, it says, McCain's
> > >the man.
> > Ha Ha. Mildly amusing.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages