well, that was the part about not wanting to sound like a Canadian -- but yeah,
you are correct in saying that it would be better to treat the depression.
However, the current medical system in the US is not set up to do that.
Depends on what it is. I'd still be against Gruss' plan, because he
lead, follow, or get out of the way
You sound like W prior to the Iraq invasion. Are you saying there is no room
for planning? No importance on going ahead properly? That any plan, even a
bad one, is better than none?
Gruss.come on.
On 6/22/06, Gruss Gott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gMoney wrote:
You sound like W prior to the Iraq invasion. Are you saying there is no room
for planning? No importance on going ahead properly? That any plan, even a
bad one, is better than none?
I'm saying that we need to be solution oriented with all of these
policy issues. In this case I
Agreed: your solution sucks, but at least you have one :)
I really don't know what I would do...the problem seems too big and complex
for an idiot like me. All i really know is that I would start by
decriminalize marijuana, and redeploying those resources towards the harder,
more destructive
gMoney wrote:
All i really know is that I would start by
decriminalizing marijuana
YEEESSS!
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:210065
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Here's a plan:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060417/news_mz1e17zieden.html
On 6/23/06, Gruss Gott wrote:
I'm saying that we need to be solution oriented with all of these
policy issues. In this case I understand your objection, I have the
same one. However neither of us have a
Yeah we're doing pretty well in California in terms of experimenting with
alternatives, and this program addresses the basic issue that most people
object to - incarcerating people just for being users. It isn't perfect, but
we don't live in a perfect world, and this treats drug use like what it
Just to interject, I think it also needs to be treated as a personal
responsibility issue.
On 6/23/06, Robert Munn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah we're doing pretty well in California in terms of experimenting with
alternatives, and this program addresses the basic issue that most people
object
+1
On 6/23/06, Jerry wrote:
Just to interject, I think it also needs to be treated as a personal
responsibility issue.
--
---
Robert Munn
www.funkymojo.com
~|
Message:
Sam wrote:
Here's a plan:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060417/news_mz1e17zieden.html
Yeah, that's good. But I'd still like to go farther to address the
supply/demand issues. I want to take the profit of drug sales and the
secondary crime out of demand.
Depends on what it is. I'd still be against Gruss' plan, because he wants
me to pay for other people to get high, just because they claim they can't
stop.
I'd be much more willing to pay for treatment facilities. Isn't depression
successfully treated every day? If some person is depressed, and
gMoney wrote:
Depends on what it is. I'd still be against Gruss' plan, because he wants
me to pay for other people to get high
That just seems like common sense to me.
It depends on what you value. If you value lower crime, lower taxes,
and money in your pocket then my method (or something
Assuming your method would work, which I don't think it will.
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:15 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust these guys?
It depends on what you value. If you value
I guess my answer is that I don't accept the two optionsthere has to be
a better solution than what we are currently trying, but stops well short of
me paying junkies to get high.
I admittedly don't know what that solution is.
On 6/22/06, Gruss Gott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It depends on
gMoney wrote:
I guess my answer is that I don't accept the two optionsthere has to be
a better solution than what we are currently trying, but stops well short of
me paying junkies to get high.
I agree, but I don't know either. What I do know is that something is
always better than
I am with you on the general idea. I view drug use as a medical health issue
rather than a criminal issue. I also look at it as a states' rights issue.
Let each state decide how to treat drugs. Personally, though, I don't see
simple legalization of all drugs as the answer. Even in super-liberal SF
The states rights stuff only works when the growing, manufacturing, sale and
use happen within the same state.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 3:15 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust these guys
21, 2006 2:15 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust these guys?
I am with you on the general idea. I view drug use as a medical
health issue
rather than a criminal issue. I also look at it as a states' rights issue.
Let each state decide how to treat drugs. Personally
AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: So, does anyone still trust these guys?
The states rights stuff only works when the growing,
manufacturing, sale and
use happen within the same state.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006
. Who was
he killed by, one the incumbent's drug running thugs.
-Original Message-
From: deadcityskin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 8:57 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: So, does anyone still trust these guys?
Ok, so if I set up a farm, and prohibit
RoMunn wrote:
I am with you on the general idea. I view drug use as a medical health issue
rather than a criminal issue. I also look at it as a states' rights issue.
Let each state decide how to treat drugs. Personally, though, I don't see
simple legalization of all drugs as the answer. Even
Nick wrote:
assassinated for wanting to get tough on the drug crime. Who was
he killed by, one the incumbent's drug running thugs.
Which is why you legalize it. That removes demand which removes money
which removes power which removes corruption.
So what of the people that just want to use all day?
You going to allow them to just sit there and smoke crack all day until they
OD? What happens when they are told they've had their fill for the week?
When they get violent and go to a dealer because they were turned away from
the government
How?
The demand is still there, but now it's on the state. The people still need
money to pay for their state sponsored drugs, those with the money have the
power, those without the money steal to get it.how have you solved
anything?
On 6/21/06, Gruss Gott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick
But those same corrupt people in power would push to keep it illegal
publicly.
_
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:10 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust these guys?
Nick wrote:
assassinated for wanting to get
This is what I meant that it is a complicated issue. A nick pointed out, big
growers/dealers/distributors are a problem, but that's a function of drugs
being illegal. Still, no one wants to legalize crack, etc. so what do you do
with those drugs and the crime related to them? As you suggest, you
RoMunn wrote:
This is what I meant that it is a complicated issue. A nick pointed out, big
growers/dealers/distributors are a problem, but that's a function of drugs
being illegal. Still, no one wants to legalize crack, etc. so what do you do
with those drugs and the crime related to them? As
Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:44 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust these guys?
Controlled substances would work the same way. Let's say a yuppie
wanted to use. He'd go to his local clinic, apply for his drug of
choice, pay
Not sure if the one in Vancouver is successful, only found this:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060103/heroinstudy_20060103/20060103?hub=Health
The one in Germany seems to work.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/5043766.stm
But keep in mind that's end of the
Sam wrote:
But keep in mind that's end of the road. It does nothing for the
recreational users and what about drug use in clubs and bars?
You're right, but it does eliminate most all users so addicted they're
will to prostitute themselves, steal, or kill.
The recreational users will still
Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:53 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust these guys?
To answer Nick - yes the government would be providing housing to
non-productive members of society but it gets 3 major benefits for its
money:
1
Nick wrote:
But the people that don't want it, aren't going to use it.
Then you're not eliminating the associated crime and essentially
burying your head in the sand.
The truth is, there are some people that are so addicted they will do
what they can to get drugs including murder. By
I've just discovered what I really hate about your idea: you want ME to pay
for someone else to get high.
Screw that.
On 6/21/06, Gruss Gott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick wrote:
But the people that don't want it, aren't going to use it.
Then you're not eliminating the associated crime
g Do I detect a streak of Calvinism? I am not sure what I think about the
idea myself, but I think Gruss is right that it would case a drop in crime. I
mean -- Amsterdam is *not* known as a violent place. I do dislike the idea of
further governement nannyismBy the way, I am not saying there
Gruss is right when he points out that my money is currently being wasted on
a fruitless war against drugs. Gruss is wrong when he suggests that the
answer is for me to instead pay for them to get high.
I don't do drugs. I'm not addicted. Someone else chose to do drugs, someone
else got addicted,
hmm soo... do you think there should be no schools if you (hypothetically)
don't have children? There might be an argument to be made that this advances
the common good.
Dana
NO NO NO. GG's letting his social liberalism overwhelm is fiscal
conservatism.
Schools educate children and turn them into productive adults.
Drug addiction destroys a person's life and prevents them from being
productive adults.
One i'll pay for, one I won't.
On 6/21/06, Dana Tierney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hmm soo... do you think there should be no schools if you
gMoney wrote:
NO NO NO. GG's letting his social liberalism overwhelm is fiscal
conservatism.
It's about the right solution for the problem rather than a rigid
adherence to a philosophical framework. So let's define the problem:
Highly addictive controlled substances are responsible for
gMoney wrote:
Schools educate children and turn them into productive adults.
Drug addiction destroys a person's life and prevents them from being
productive adults.
There's empirical data that shows that paying for the drugs can take a
criminal and turn him/her into a productive citizen.
Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:38 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust these guys?
There's empirical data that shows that paying for the drugs can take a
criminal and turn him/her into a productive citizen
Since it's a gamble that would make it fiscally liberal.
Here are some good points from both sides, appears to be from 1998.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/closetohome/viewpoints/
On 6/21/06, Gruss Gott wrote:
I say that because your stance will require an infinite amount of
money from taxpayers.
Sam wrote:
Since it's a gamble that would make it fiscally liberal.
I guess I don't really care what the label is, just that the problem
goes away. The incentives for personal responsibility in this case
have failed.
Dana won't be surprised to learn that my motivation to fix the problem
is
Suppose that drugs would allow some people to become productive adults. I don't
want to sound like a damn Canadian but I have heard the idea expressed -- by
medical doctors -- that a lot of illegal drug users are actually
self-medicating for depression. Hypothetically, assuming that is true,
On 6/16/06, Gruss Gott wrote:
But they're going to do that anyway. They like drugs and the drugs
they like are highly addictive.
What I mean by regulation is creating needle parks that anyone could
go to to get clean drugs. Of course there'd need to be all kinds
rules, etc, but the
Sam wrote:
Don't most states have laws making possession of small amounts just a
fine and not a crime? I know NY and NV do.
They do, but those laws don't override federal law so if the feds want
to, they can still prosecute.
This makes no sense. Three strikes means three felony convictions,
And here I always just thought it meant a fun weekend.
I obviously view illegal drug abuse as a health problem which does not
judge the users. You seem to advocate the criminal view which does
derogatorily judge the users.
On 6/19/06, Gruss Gott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using drugs doesn't make you a felon. Getting caught and going through
the system, which includes making deals, or going to trial determines
that.
Wait, so things that are illegal are only bad if you get caught? So
you're ok with drug
oh heck -- I may need to go but just wanted to point out that ye be wrong here
yet again. A quick google reveals the following, which concern more complicated
issues but do seem to indicate that in California and Arizona at least, yes you
can.
On 6/19/06, Dana Tierney wrote:
oh heck -- I may need to go but just wanted to point out that ye be wrong
here yet again. A quick google reveals the following, which concern more
complicated issues but do seem to indicate that in California and Arizona at
least, yes you can.
yeah but they are saying that is the way it *should* be, not that this is the
way it is:
More than 7,000 people are doing three-strikes sentences in California
prisons, while an additional 35,000 are serving longer sentences as well under
the law's two-strike provisions. Of those 7,000
A sad fact of the US prison system is how much money we are pissing away
every year on non-violent drug offenders.
On 6/19/06, Dana wrote:
yeah but they are saying that is the way it *should* be, not that this is
the way it is:
More than 7,000 people are doing three-strikes sentences in
RoMunn wrote:
A sad fact of the US prison system is how much money we are pissing away
every year on non-violent drug offenders.
Does that mean you're with me on the great drug-use-is-a-crime-problem
experiment? That is, drugs, like sex, is a health issue. No amount
of legislation will get
Just because something was non-violent or a drug offence doesn't mean it
wasn't a major crime.
Trafficking, Auto Theft, other similar items.
-Original Message-
From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 7:22 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone
I don't know how many of these people are dealers or pimps that just
happen not to be beating someone down at the time. Two violent
felonies and they're still caught with drugs? Hello.:) Aren't felons
supposed to avoid the criminal element?
On 6/19/06, Dana Tierney wrote:
yeah but they are
gMoney wrote:
Just make that info public...shut up all these
bleeding hearts.
I'll repeat that one of the most patriotic things an American can do
is be concerned when their government is denying liberty to someone
without due process. It's a fundamental principle on which our
country was
'
what Limbaugh says speaks for itself.
Pretty funny how you've never been able debunked anything he's said.
On 6/14/06, Dana Tierney wrote:
um... anyone who thinks Rush Limbaugh is an authority does not get
to quibble over sources, lol.
Dana wrote:
'
what Limbaugh says speaks for itself.
You'd have to take the rantings of a drug addict seriously first.
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209621
Archives:
Sorry Tim, I do not believe that you know everything taking place in the US
military. The rest of your post, well, it's not logical. I don't want to engage
with you over it but I am not going to discuss troop uprisings and the like. I
am just not.
Nope, you are supposed to believe it of me and
no Sam, it doesn't say that at all.
If you scroll down and read the rest you'll see the discrepancies
were
within the bounds and shouldn't have been published before they were
weighted
More interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Talk:2004_U
whatever. Pintos sucked.
Famous for exposing the dangers of the Ford Pinto?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto
More recently, it has been argued (in a well-known 1991 law review
paper by Gary Schwartz [2], among others) that the case against the
Pinto was less clear-cut than commonly
so I hear. Mind you, I don't believe everything I hear.
They were non-uniformed fighters supporting a murderous backwards theocratic
regime in Afghanistan that housed and nutured Al Qaeda. Remember them? These
thugs fought against coalition troops in Afghanistan who went there to
destroy Al
ummm yeah and then the machines added some and subtracted some ... obviously we
are not going to agree on this, as you don't want to question the machines.
Yes, in a way they did, just so happened that instead of mind meld they
setup machines at various locations and those that cared, or were
They should not have considered postponing the election, is the answer to that
question.
So you think that they shouldn't have looked at all options, or do you think
they shouldn't have told us about it?
~|
Message:
always *possible*, I suppose, but then so is rainfall in Albuquerque in June ;)
Seriously,if you dig into that article it says that multiple teams of
statisticians all arrived at the same conclusion. So either they are all wrong
or all biased. Personally, I don't think either of those is
You advocate legalizing drugs but dismiss the users? How does that work?
On 6/16/06, Gruss Gott wrote:
Dana wrote:
'
what Limbaugh says speaks for itself.
You'd have to take the rantings of a drug addict seriously first.
So how does that Al-Jazeera kool-aid taste?
On 6/16/06, Dana wrote:
so I hear. Mind you, I don't believe everything I hear.
--
---
Robert Munn
www.funkymojo.com
~|
Message:
Yes, it does. :P
On 6/16/06, Dana Tierney wrote:
no Sam, it doesn't say that at all.
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209640
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Yes, we are told that most of the people in Guantanamo were fighters. Except
that one of the ones we know about was actually a chauffeur. Hmm. So I say yeah
buddy to your concern about review, which is that heart of my issue with the
place. As for pulling people from their homes, not sure. This
I understand.
On 6/16/06, Dana Tierney wrote:
whatever. Pintos sucked.
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209642
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Subscription:
If you think that questioning the integrity of an administration that has
demonstrated its mendacity time and again makes me a sucker, well... have a
nice day. I am sure nothing I could say would change your mind.
I didn't call anyone names. I made a comment and you identified
yourself. I
Couldn't half be wrong and the other half be biased?
-Original Message-
From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:51 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust these guys?
always *possible*, I suppose, but then so is rainfall
well Sam I have work to do and don't have time to guess which section you are
misreading. Please provide a quote and I'll see if I can help you with the big
words ;)
Yes, it does. :P
On 6/16/06, Dana Tierney wrote:
no Sam, it doesn't say that at all.
Sam wrote:
You advocate legalizing drugs but dismiss the users? How does that work?
I advocate legalized, but regulated, drugs. Like Morphine.
Making drugs illegal is foolish for the same reason all do-gooder laws
are stupid: you can't legislate morality or intelligence. But making
drugs
Just exploring your position for inconsistencies. I am inclined to the position
that they are prisoners of war, personally, but I understand why you disagree.
We can't just execute them because the world would freak out, and because
they may still have intelligence value.
Is that what you
WTF?
Drugs = anal sex?
Have you ever meet a crack head living in your lily-white bubble?
It's not a drug you want to be legalized. How would it be regulated?
Like morphine? It does wonders for the heroine world doesn't it?
So legalize H and regulate it means people will get it the same way
they
On 6/16/06, Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WTF?
Drugs = anal sex?
This reminds me of a recent South Park Episode Chef asked this
question - more or less...
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209652
Pintos and rice ... m
Oh, wait...
g
--- On Friday, June 16, 2006 3:27 PM, Dana Tierney scribed: ---
whatever. Pintos sucked.
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209654
Archives:
Sam wrote:
Let's try this again, you advocate REGULATING drugs but dismiss all the users?
I advocate a solution a la the Netherlands and Switzerland. As you
pointed out, you know a few addicts, therefore prevention via
legislation has failed. Further, the threat of jail does not deter a
On 6/16/06, Gruss Gott wrote:
I advocate a solution a la the Netherlands and Switzerland. As you
pointed out, you know a few addicts, therefore prevention via
legislation has failed. Further, the threat of jail does not deter a
crack addict who needs crack: both for the use of crack and for
Sam wrote:
nothing different except you allowed them to get addicted in the first
place.
But they're going to do that anyway. They like drugs and the drugs
they like are highly addictive.
What I mean by regulation is creating needle parks that anyone could
go to to get clean drugs. Of
They were non-uniformed fighters supporting a murderous backwards theocratic
regime in Afghanistan that housed and nutured Al Qaeda. Remember them? These
thugs fought against coalition troops in Afghanistan who went there to
destroy Al Qaeda's base of operations and give the Afghan people a chance
Drunken letchers living off the public trough for the last century,
perhaps? ;-)
On 6/14/06, Jerry Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Descended from crooks and criminals?
Chappaquiddick?
Ted Kennedy in general?
Making a family living out of politics (eating off the public their
whole
Well, I disagree with the conclusion that he was appointed, because there
was an election. It isn't Bush's fault that the case ended up in court. Gore
was the one who went to the courts. As any lawyer will tell you, be careful
what you ask for when you go to the courts, because you can never be
, 2006 7:39 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust these guys?
Tom Ridge the color-coded man.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-
12-postpone-elections_x.htm
Who was saying it?
_
From: Dana Tierney [mailto
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust these guys?
So... the American people just sort of achieved mind meld and and selected
him? Three guys on a streetcorner having a smoke, or what?
~|
Message: http
But couldn't it have been a bad statistical model?
-Original Message-
From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:54 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust these guys?
you passed over a statement like this to focus on a 6
Sure, but sometimes you make changes while refining that are wrong. While
your intentions were good, you made a mistake.
-Original Message-
From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:22 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust
So you think that they shouldn't have looked at all options, or do you think
they shouldn't have told us about it?
-Original Message-
From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:04 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust
I posted it earlier. In the Rolling Stone article they claimed they designed
this model to be more accurate than ever.
-Original Message-
From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:38 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust
The Constitutions states that it is up to the individual states to figure it
out.
-Original Message-
From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:44 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust these guys?
cmon Jerry
But did they still count all the dead people that voted?
-Original Message-
From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:52 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust these guys?
There was a recount in Illinois. Here are some
So when the electors went to DC and cast their ballots they didn't elect
him?
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 11:01 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust these guys?
Bush was elected in 2004
Dana wrote:
well, I always thought that the point of all those Holocaust memorials was to
make sure that the Holocaust never happened again. Right? But it's ok with
you if people get put in camps, as long as they are Arab?
That's off the deep end for so many reasons but 2 core ones:
1.)
People have been released if we believe they aren't involved.
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 9:36 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust these guys?
That's off the deep end for so many reasons but 2
Nick wrote:
People have been released if we believe they aren't involved.
You've been reviewing cases and recommending releases then?
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209418
Archives:
In my spare time. Yes.
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:06 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: So, does anyone still trust these guys?
You've been reviewing cases and recommending releases
RoMunn wrote:
They were non-uniformed fighters supporting a murderous backwards theocratic
regime in Afghanistan that housed and nutured Al Qaeda. Remember them? These
thugs fought against coalition troops in Afghanistan who went there to
destroy Al Qaeda's base of operations and give the
That description sounds a lot like the Bushes.
--- On Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:17 AM, Robert Munn scribed: ---
Drunken letchers living off the public trough for the last century,
perhaps? ;-)
On 6/14/06, Jerry Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Descended from crooks and criminals?
Amazing, isn't?
One family that has controlled Democratic politics for decades looks
and acts a lot like one family that has controlled Republican politics
for decades.
Which both look and act a lot like hereditary families in an aristocract.
On 6/15/06, Howie Hamlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah - oh, the irony...
--- On Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:28 PM, Jerry Johnson scribed: ---
Amazing, isn't?
One family that has controlled Democratic politics for decades looks
and acts a lot like one family that has controlled Republican politics
for decades.
Which both look and act a
1 - 100 of 497 matches
Mail list logo
