The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Realistically, Who's Really Gonna Win the 2008 Presidential Election?

  • Thread starter Thread starter yuty
  • Start date Start date
Ignore the results from Iowa tonight. Think national organizations and money.

The Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton.

The Republicans will nominate Mitt Romney.

This will all happen by the middle of February, which means most American voters will be so sick of either of them by the middle of next year, they'll be looking for any other option. (There's at least 6 months between February and the conventions next summer. Think about what we're going to do to both of these individuals in the media in the intervening 6 months!!! Yipes!)

So, my prediction is: Sometime around May or June, McCain and Lieberman will form an independent party for the presidency--and it will get serious consideration from all sides of the political spectrum.

Feel free to quote this post and throw it back in my face in about 6 months.

A4A
 
So, my prediction is: Sometime around May or June, McCain and Lieberman will form an independent party for the presidency--and it will get serious consideration from all sides of the political spectrum.

Feel free to quote this post and throw it back in my face in about 6 months.

Oh, we will. We certainly will.
 
Two L.A. voters hit the trail

http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...0851.story?page=1&coll=la-headlines-frontpage


DES MOINES — A presidential election is a conversation about the nation's future, but all Richard Brenner was hearing in Van Nuys were fragments, disconnected bits and pieces.

He wanted more. He yearned for a lively discussion, some policy, a vision. While presidential candidates swarmed through early primary and caucus states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in the nominating process, they often ignored California.

"By the time we get to see people in California, it's already decided," he said.

Brenner was frustrated. Then, as he Rollerbladed one Sunday in Balboa Park, it came to him: If the candidates wouldn't come to Van Nuys, he would go to the candidates. He would go to Iowa to experience them, uncut, plunging himself into the middle of the conversation that he couldn't hear from home.

He would become a political tourist.

Brenner scoured the Internet for a new winter coat -- his first in more than 20 years -- and settled on a brown bomber jacket with a thick woolly lining. He bought boots and plane tickets. He read up on the candidates' positions.

On Saturday, five days before the Iowa caucuses, he got up at 3 a.m., thoughts of the impending flight making it impossible to sleep. To get to Iowa, Brenner, 53, had to defy his fear of flying and his dislike of the cold. In Southern California, the temperature hovered around 70. In Des Moines, it was 25 degrees and dropping.

Brenner's wife, Leslie, 58, was traveling with him. Both Democrats, the couple primarily wanted to see their party's front- runners; neither had preferences among the contenders.

"There's a lot to be said for being in the mix, to get out there and look at it, to know what's going on in your country," she said.

After checking in at a hotel near the golden-domed Capitol in downtown Des Moines, the couple drove in their rented Jeep to the first political event: a John Edwards rally at East High School two miles away.

Getting out of the car, Richard tugged his jacket against his neck and cursed the cold. (Bald and energetic, Brenner bears a passing resemblance to Yul Brynner but jokes that he looks more like the Addams Family's Uncle Fester.)

At 7 p.m., the Brenners were half an hour early, but the gym was already packed. More than 1,000 people had come to hear the former North Carolina senator talk. The couple found two seats close to the podium, but behind Edwards.

Mari Thinnes Culver, wife of Iowa's Democratic Gov. Chet Culver, and Elizabeth Edwards, the candidate's wife, introduced Edwards, who wore a blue suit and hiking boots.

The Brenners listened intently -- Leslie with her head cocked to one side, Richard at times cupping his hand around his ear -- as Edwards talked, mixing the personal (his grandparents' humble circumstances in a mill town) with the political (fighting corporate greed). He described the upcoming general election as "the great moral test of our generation."

After the 40-minute speech, Edwards took questions from the crowd on healthcare, education and medical malpractice.

A middle-age woman who wore an orange "Save Darfur" T-shirt got teary as she talked briefly of the plight of people there.

Several times, Edwards' wife whispered in his ear, apparently to remind him of a particular point or message.

After Edwards finished speaking, people gathered around him. The Brenners weren't interested in fighting their way to meet the candidate, though Richard had enjoyed every moment of the spectacle -- crying babies, cheering steelworkers, John Fogerty blasting through the speakers. But more than anything, he delighted in hearing the candidate in person.

"Watching him on TV, I thought he was slick," said Richard, who saw a different Edwards at the rally. "He told his story, and there was passion in his story."

Half an hour later, Culver walked into the downtown restaurant where the Brenners were having dinner. As she walked by their table, Richard called out: "Nice speech tonight."

She slowed down, smiled and shook his hand before murmuring an appreciation and moving on.

Over chicken livers and salad, the couple dissected their first day as political tourists.

At times, the rally had felt like "a cross between a pure American experience and scenes from 'The Manchurian Candidate,' " said Richard, who is fond of movie metaphors.

"Wow," his wife responded, "what makes you say that?"

Richard said he enjoyed the crowd's enthusiasm but was a bit put off by the lack of diversity as well as the ubiquitous flags. He liked Edwards' apparent willingness to talk about tough subjects such as the security company Blackwater USA, under investigation for a shooting that left 17 Iraqis dead.

Edwards' suggestion that questioning the war in Iraq can also be a form of patriotism -- "I thought was brilliant," Richard said.

"He's not as shallow as I thought," Leslie said.

The following morning, the Brenners wanted to hear Barack Obama speak in Knoxville, 40 miles southeast of Des Moines. On their way out of the hotel, they bumped into former President Clinton. They would see him again later that night, stumping for his wife at Carlisle Middle School, about 12 miles south of the capital.

Arriving at the Obama rally, Richard couldn't find a parking spot. He drove onto a private driveway and parked.

"We're from L.A.," he told the owner of the house. "We're here to see Obama. Can I park here? It'll only be an hour or so." The Iowan supported Edwards, but he courteously allowed the Brenners to park at his house.

About 400 supporters from the small town had packed the school auditorium. A young staffer offered the Brenners standing room onstage with the senator from Illinois.

Obama, wearing a black suit, talked about a need for change in Washington and argued that -- unlike his opponents, perhaps -- he isn't jaded by politics. He joked about the embarrassing discovery that he is related to Vice President Dick Cheney (the two are distant cousins) and finished with his oft-repeated anecdote about the woman who invented the campaign's trademark chant: "Fired up." As he tells it, he met Edith Childs, 59, on a swing through Greenwood, S.C. He had been in a foul mood, but her chant lifted his spirits, and he adopted it for his campaign. It shows, he says, the power of one voice.

Behind him, the Brenners appeared more animated than at the Edwards rally -- often laughing and clapping.

"It was nice looking out into the crowd, watching their faces," Richard said later. Obama, talking about civil rights and "how everybody has a responsibility," was moving, he said. "Here he is, the son of a single mother, and he's running for president, and he has a legitimate shot -- that's inspiring to me."

Obama's message of change resonated with the Brenners.

The couple had long felt disenchanted with the Bush administration and disillusioned by government in general.

In recent years, they said, politicians on both sides had taken the country in the wrong direction: The war in Iraq has become a costly failure -- morally and economically -- and America has lost its standing in the world. At home, education and healthcare have faltered. The elderly are marooned with tiny Social Security checks, while the young struggle with expensive student loans. The government's priorities have become skewed to benefit the powerful.

The Brenners felt separated from the political process -- profoundly unable to change their country.

"I hate feeling that way," said Leslie, who described herself and Richard as "practicing idealists."

"I agree 100%," Richard said.

Watching a movie about President Kennedy one night before coming to Iowa, he had cried. At times, he said, he doesn't recognize his country.

"I just don't feel that the government has any response to people like us," he said.

Richard and Leslie came of age in Chicago during the 1960s. He grew up in a Jewish middle-class family, she in a family struggling against poverty. They lived in different neighborhoods but took part in the same civil rights marches and in the same Vietnam War protests. Mike Royko, who skewered City Hall in his Daily News columns, helped form their political consciousness.

In 1977, they met in a music studio at Columbia College in Chicago, where both had enrolled -- Richard to study film, and Leslie the arts.

After college, Richard tended bar at Wise Fools Pub, a well-known blues bar. But the cold was getting to him and in 1980, he persuaded Leslie to abscond to California. They got married the following year. In Los Angeles, they worked hard and put away money for their dream: to own a restaurant. It took 20 years. In 2000, the Brenners went into partnership with three friends, becoming co-owners of Hugo's Restaurant, a West Hollywood institution.

For their vacations, the Brenners sought out quirky adventures, renewing their vows in front of an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas and traveling to the Burning Man festival in an RV. Last month, they trekked around the Grand Canyon.

Now they were on the campaign trail -- to see Hillary Rodham Clinton.

On Sunday afternoon in Traer, a small town 90 miles northeast of Des Moines, the Memorial Building was overflowing.

A deejay played the Clinton campaign soundtrack: KT Tunstall and other female vocalists. A young emcee was revving up the crowd of about 300 people, who were jammed wall to wall into the community center. He threw T-shirts to those with the loudest shouts of support for Clinton, giving the event a game-show feel.

Leslie noticed that a Marc Jacobs T-shirt was lost on the woman who nabbed it. "Who's Marc Jacobs?" she heard the woman asking.

For the first time, the Brenners sat in front of the candidate. They had listened to Edwards and Obama looking at their backs.

Clinton, wearing a dark-green suit, was joined by her daughter, Chelsea. The New York senator emphasized her experience, toughness and passion to fix the nation's healthcare system. She talked of foreign policy issues -- ending the war in Iraq -- and a need to reform student loans. She did not take questions.

Afterward, she moved around the room, chatting with supporters.

The Brenners spoke to her briefly. Clinton grew up near Richard's childhood home in Chicago, and the two reminisced about a legendary sandwich shop in the neighborhood.

Driving back to Des Moines in a thick fog, Richard and Leslie talked about the candidates they had seen. Richard was most impressed by Clinton ("succinct") while Leslie had become partial to Obama ("inspiring"). But the biggest eye- opener had been how easy it was to get close to the candidates.

In the coming days, they would see Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware. They would go to a house party with Obama's wife, Michelle. For a bipartisan experience, they ventured into Republican territory. They would watch football with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and sneak into former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's Des Moines headquarters and meet his sister, Pat Harris.

Later Richard likened the trip to another experience, almost 20 years ago. It was at Game 1 of the 1988 World Series.

Seated in the top deck at Dodger Stadium, he watched an injured Kirk Gibson propel a ball into the right-field stands, then limp through the game-winning home run and into baseball history. (The Dodgers went on to win the Series.)

He felt joy in the fact of being there. "It wasn't virtual but real," he said.

During this trip, it had been the small gestures beyond the sound bite (Elizabeth Edwards whispering prompts in her husband's ear; Obama cracking up on stage after telling a joke) and the sometimes poignant questions from the crowd (the woman choking back tears when talking about Darfur; the veteran asking about medical care) they had enjoyed most.

"You see that glow in people's faces," Richard said. "They want to believe."

He and his wife might still.

The trip had renewed their faith in the political process.

They had heard the call in Iowa.
 
Kucinich: Vote for Yourself
Dennis Kucinich is the politician we've been asking for. So why aren't gays supporting him for president?
By Rachel Dowd

If you go by certain polls, Dennis Kucinich is a shoo-in for the presidency of the United States. For instance, in Democracy for America’s online poll of more than 150,000 potential voters, the congressman from Ohio took 32% of the vote -- more than Hillary Clinton (4%) and Barack Obama (14%) combined. A staggering 77% of respondents in a nationwide poll by IndependentPrimary.com choose him as the best candidate for the job; and, according to a query posed by the Virginia Democratic Party this December, 30% of the democrats in that state would back him if the primary were held today.

Of course there are other polls. Notably, the one last November from Hunter College in New York, which found that 63% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual likely voters will cast their ballots for Clinton in the primaries, followed by 22% for Obama and 7% for John Edwards. Interestingly, when asked to rank the gay rights most important to them, half of the respondents said, “legalizing gay marriage.” Not a strong point for these candidates.

Let’s review: Of the seven Democratic contenders, only former Alaska senator Mike Gravel and Kucinich support gay marriage. The rest are content with federally recognized civil unions or domestic partnerships. On other important gay issues, Kucinich, like his competitors, supports a trans-inclusive employment nondiscrimination act, a federal hate-crimes law covering sexual orientation and gender identity, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” access to survivor benefits, equal tax treatment for same-sex couples, unfettered gay adoption, and funding for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment.

But let’s say you’re like the 79% of gays in the Hunter poll who don’t consider gay rights the most important issue affecting your vote. In that case it might be important to note that Kucinich is the only Democratic candidate to oppose the Iraq war from the outset, when it was political suicide to do so. He supports not-for-profit universal health care, withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreeement and World Trade Organization until all countries agree to the same environmental and human rights standards, and raising the minimum wage. He’s pro-choice and pro–medical marijuana, and he introduced impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney.

In short, he’s the candidate we’ve been asking for. So why aren’t you voting for Dennis Kucinich?

We caught up with the candidate in New Hampshire on the eve of the Iowa primaries to ask him what he thought about being the very dark horse in the race for the Democratic nomination.

How intimidating is it to be the long shot in the run for the Democratic nomination?

Not at all. People in the LGBT community understand what it’s like to go against the odds. They’ve been doing that their whole lives. And there are a lot of Americans that face long odds every day as to whether they’ll have a job, health insurance, education, housing. So I understand what it’s like to be a long shot. But long shots do win, and they win when people stand up for what they believe in.

Like, say, marriage equality.

If the LGBT community doesn’t stand for marriage equality and supports a candidate without an established record of supporting it early and consistently, then how can you ever hope to win? If you don’t vote your heart, your heart never wins.

Anyone who saw the Logo Forum learned a lot about the different candidates. They can still go to the website because it’s still up. They can see how people responded in the moment to the question and see whose heart is open and whose isn’t. Hillary Clinton is essentially saying, “It’s not time yet.” And Senator Edwards is having quite a bit of difficulty with it. Why? What’s that about? This issue becomes not only a question of where we are on the issue but where we stand with ourselves—as inevitably any issue that concerns the LGBT community does. Anyone who would have to wring their hands over the issue of marriage equality doesn’t get it.
To me it’s a very simple question of equal protection of the law. It’s a constitutional issue, and as president of the United States, I’m going to make sure that people are not denied equal protection of the law for any reason, including sexual orientation.

What do you say to gays who think you’re unelectable and therefore a wasted vote?

People have to know that they can win. It’s not about what candidate wins. Will LGBT people be winners in this election? The only way you can win is to have the courage to vote for what you want. A courageous vote is the only vote worth casting. As a community of people with courage, the LGBT community has been able to demonstrate a great deal of courage and authenticity. So why would politics represent something different than what our lives represent?

I’m not disappointed what the people in the community do. It’s their right to choose whomever they want. But I think there needs to be a pretty open and candid discussion about how you get to where you want to go if the people you’re traveling with don’t want what it is you want.
If you want marriage equality and you vote for someone who isn’t for marriage equality, then you can’t complain later on that you don’t have marriage equality. If you want marriage equality, then support someone who stands for it -- because that demonstrates integrity. It’s really simple. You want health care, and you vote for a candidate who’s in favor of propagating a for-profit system? Then you can’t afford health care. You want to end the war in Iraq, and you vote for someone who decides to keep the troops there until 2013 or longer? And the next year you say, “Gee, I wish we were out of Iraq.” You know what? You voted for that candidate. You have to take responsibility for the consequences of your vote. This is a moment when people have to take responsibility not just for their decision but the consequences of that decision.

What responsibility do the candidates have?

We are in a period right now when candidates are unlikely to take responsibility for the consequences of their decision. We may say we’re wrong, but there’s no consequence for that decision. John Edwards can vote for the war. He can say he was wrong. But where is the consequence? And it doesn’t show any change in judgment when he says of Iran, all options are on the table.

The most important decision anybody running for president would have to make is whether to send young men and women to battle, to put their lives in danger. If you’re wrong, how do you say you're sorry to the parents of a dead soldier? How do you say you’re sorry to the millions of innocent Iraqis who have lost their lives to a war based on lies? How do you say you’re sorry to taxpayers whose government borrowed money from China to finance this war in Iraq?

If elections are only about voting for the winner, we’re going to have a Republican because the Democrats aren’t establishing a clear enough difference between who we are and who they are.

Don’t Democrats these days essentially think it’s safer to play the center line?

Playing it safe means forgoing marriage equality. That’s accommodating a system that’s ready to deny people fundamental human rights. To me, the minute you stop fighting for your rights is the minute you start losing your rights. That’s what’s happening in America today. The wiretapping, the eavesdropping, the government going into people’s health records and financial records. We’ve stopped fighting for our rights. The peace movement has basically given up.

So what I represent is courage to stand up for what I believe in and to demonstrate to other people that it’s possible to stand up for what they believe in. That’s the way to win. Victory isn’t measured by what happens on a certain day in New Hampshire or Iowa, Nevada or Michigan or South Carolina. Victory is determined by one’s own integrity expressed every moment. The minute we stop doing that, we become something the system describes.

But why should it take courage to vote for what you’ve been asking for?

I think there’s a winner’s psychology, which the mass media propels, that promotes a false consensus. And actually it often disenfranchises people, because people keep voting against their own interests.

The one great gift the LGBT community has given to the world is personal authenticity, integrity, and the courage to be who you are in an open and uncompromised way. There’s real power there. You’re going to give that up to vote for someone because they might win and they don’t stand for marriage equality? To me, that’s antithetical to the entire movement and counterproductive to the point of being worrisome.

This is the one community that should be strong enough. If you make concessions on the issue of marriage equality, the possibility of it happening is going to diminish. The reason any gains have been made is because people were willing to go out on a limb. And you know what? That’s where the fruit is -- out on the limb.

Anyone who has watched the final minutes of a football game only has to look at quarterback’s face to realize if he stops believing he can win, the game is lost. Is there a point when you give up the game?

That’s a good analogy. OK, let’s say it gets to be fourth down with 99 yards to go. I’m not going to punt.

So you’re not getting out.

You got it.

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid51398.asp
 
You want me to go away? What have I done to you?

And this thread has gone about the same as if it was in CE&P. I have no idea what it is you people fear there.

People who overspecify from a generalization (saying that you wish a crowd would disperse is not the same as saying an individual in the crowd is not welcome).

People who say "you people" when posting to a large and diverse group, as if we were a monolith, and seem to have absolutely no idea how insulting and belittling that is.

Just a couple of examples.
 
metta, could you link to big long articles like that, quoting salient points or paragraphs, instead of just pasting in the entire thing?

Just a request. It does not obligate you in any way.
 
For whatever reason? Are you kidding me? Have you seen CE&P? (Don't answer that, of course you have.) That place is f'n' freightening. Chance* and his ilk? (I didn't use a real name.) Oiy!

All I want to say is that I wish they would all just go away.

f*n freightening?

pardon me while i correct ur spelling (frightening)

ilk?

i resemble that remark :rolleyes:

i wouldn't be afraid ........ of a forum for god's sakes

we don't bite

but u seem easily intimidated

so to each his own

:wave:
 
Glad to see Kucinich not taking it lying down :)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080105/ap_on_el_pr/abc_debate


Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich filed a complaint with the FCC on Friday after ABC News excluded him, fellow Democrat Mike Gravel and Republican Duncan Hunter from its prime-time debates on Saturday.
Kucinich argued that ABC is violating equal-time provisions by keeping him out of the debate and noted that ABC's parent Walt Disney Co. had contributed to campaigns involving the four Democrats who were invited.
"ABC should not be the first primary," the Ohio congressman said in papers filed at the Federal Communications Commission.
 
In which case, we could end up with Hillary Clinton as President and Rudy Giuliani as Vice President.


:bartshock


Actually I can think of much worse scenarios.

At least they're both smart, hard working and competent, and neither is a neocon or religious nut.
 
Actually I can think of much worse scenarios.

At least they're both smart, hard working and competent, and neither is a neocon or religious nut.


gotta move this to CE+P section, so that Nick is on record with a kinda sorta positive description of Rudy :rolleyes:

cheers
 
gotta move this to CE+P section, so that Nick is on record with a kinda sorta positive description of Rudy :rolleyes:

cheers


I've told you before, I twice voted for Giuliani for Mayor.

And I don't regret those votes.
 
Examples of what? Hypocrisy? Reading comprehension issues? He didn't say he wanted "a crowd" to "disperse"... he said, "All I want to say is that I wish they would all just go away." As to your second point, you seem to be so thin-skinned you fabricate "insulting and belittling" from common, nonderogatory words, yet have the audacity to have issue with my so-called "overspecification from a generalization".

Thanks for responding though.
There's this thing called an analogy. Since you object to the concept, or at any rate to mine, let me explain in common, literal terms: "I wish they would all go away" does not mean "I wish each and every one of these people would resign from JUB and never post here again." No, it does not; though the words, on their face, do appear to say that; just as when a tired person pulls the covers over hir head and says "Leave me alone!" to the people trying to get hir up for some "fun" activity, s/he does NOT mean "Everyone abandon me and allow me to live a solitary existence for the rest of my life."

Oops, that was another analogy. My apologies. :-)

My point is that the person who said "I wish they would all go away" was not attacking you.

On the other hand, 'you people' is on the "Flamer Bingo" card as a phrase used to insult everyone on a comment thread in respectable blogs (which this, of course, is not). This is especially so when a) it's the person's first post on the thread and b) it's followed by further belittling comments such as 'you are too timid to come to CE&P' (paraphrase).

You may not have encountered the term 'text semantics' before, but you can hardly fail to notice it (in fact your comment quoted here shows that you understand it in basic form). Therefore I conclude that your comment quoted above is disingenuous at best, and an attempt to start a flamewar at worst.

I will participate in no such thing. Nonetheless I'll be very interested to see whether you respond to this, and in what form.
 
Actually I can think of much worse scenarios.

At least they're both smart, hard working and competent, and neither is a neocon or religious nut.
Rudy is a paleocon and a different kind of nut (an admirer of Mussolini, in fact).
 
On the topic of the thread, I'd just like to point out that winning the Iowa Caucuses is not a predictor for ending up in the White House. In fact, in the past 30 years only two Iowa Caucus winners, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Dubya in 2000, have gone on to occupy the White House.

Which does not bode well for Obama and Huckabee. This is good news to me on both sides (though only mildly wrt Obama).
 
I've told you before, I twice voted for Giuliani for Mayor.

And I don't regret those votes.

Hmm...I thought that most new yorkers were disapointed with Giuliani's performance as mayor prior to 9/11. If Bush was visible right after 9/11, instead of hiding in the sky, I don't think that Giuliani would not be as popular as he is today. But Amerians were desperate for some form of leadership at the time and he was the only face that they saw.
 
IC07: Actually, I apologize for the condescension. That was uncivil of me. It seemed to me that my meaning was an obvious one that you were willfully ignoring. Let me put it another way: I didn't mean that the poster under discussion literally asked a crowd to disperse, but that his 'I wish they all would go away' was intended as a plea for CE&P participants to stop acting in a way that distressed him. And yes, I could be wrong; maybe he really does wish they all would quit JUB for good. While my interpretation skills are above average, they are not perfect.

I think you probably Googled "you people" -- and my guess would be that would return too many hits to be useful. Try "Flamer Bingo" -- I've provided a link to the Google results for your convenience.

My use of 'these people' is in the part where I say what the post does NOT mean. If it's offensive, that supports my point: "See, something offensive like 'X' is what is NOT meant."

As for participation in political discussion, I prefer to do that where the level of discourse is high; where clear, cogent writing is valued; and where rules of civility apply and are enforced. On my favorite such website, my opening sentence on my post to you would probably have appeared as "Thr's ths thng clld n nlgy" once the mods saw it. I momentarily forgot myself when it appeared you were ignoring my (to me obvious) point to focus on the literal meaning of what I said.

From what I've heard from others, and seen in this thread and in the previous posts of some notorious CE&P posters (not including you), I don't have much hope that CE&P is an environment where I'd be comfortable contributing to the discussion. I will, however, look for myself.*

*Not that I expect to find myself in CE&P, at least not until after I post there!:D
 
If I had to bet on it, Hillary.

If I were American, fuck knows who i'd vote for in a primary, but in the Presidential Election I think i'd vote for her or Obama against any of the republicans.

Rudy is the most entertaining to read about though, fuck me he's wierd!
 
I've told you before, I twice voted for Giuliani for Mayor.

And I don't regret those votes.

my memory must've failed me ;)

that happens

i don't recall u fighting any of the frequent rudy attacks though :(

u voted 2x for giuliani?

i think ur getting me worked up :p

have a good weekend
 
Back
Top