Author Topic: Social Conservatives ForTheWin  (Read 35100 times)

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #50 on: February 22, 2012, 12:28:14 PM »
And there is what scares non-religious people. That pretty much reads that you would like to dictate what my morals should be to me, no thanks, I don't need you or Santorum to tell me how to live my life. Nevermind that Santorum hasn't done one thing to my knowledge to indicate he is a true fiscal conservative anyways. This is why we can't have nice things, the social conservatives support fiscal liberals instead of fiscal conservatives.

But you see no problem with dictating the morals of those who disagree with you.  People of radically dissimilar moral values are unlikely to be viable cohabitants of a nation.  We have convinced ourselves that a heterogeneous culture--"diversity"--is our birthright.  How wrong we are.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

red headed stranger

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,263
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #51 on: February 22, 2012, 12:30:19 PM »
I think the Foster Friess asprin joke turned off a lot of women. There is a subtext to that comment that seems to belie the opinion that only a loose woman would want to use the pill, and by extension that only loose women are in favor of access to abortion.  Many of the aforementioned educated Women take umbrage with such an attitude because they use contraception as a means of responsible family planning. They do not take the pill so they can screw indiscriminately.  

Santorum has said that he doesn't want to ban contraceptives. Obama said that he doesn't want to ban guns . . .

It is very clear that Santorum is not sympathetic to those who would want to use contraceptives. Since he hasn't shown that he is a small government kind of guy, that gives some people pause.  

While it may be a fiscally conservative thing to oppose federal subsidy of contraceptives, to zero in on that one particular issue when there is so much waste everywhere makes many women feel singled out.  
« Last Edit: February 22, 2012, 01:21:29 PM by red headed stranger »
Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #52 on: February 22, 2012, 12:32:07 PM »
Here's the problem: You cannot have fiscal conservatism with hedonomics.  The kind of economy we all say we want depends on a certain moral perspective and certain moral values.  

Santorum may not be the right messenger--and I'm not saying he is--but the issues will at some point have to be addressed.  Right now what we call "politics" is really impossible.  You cannot have representative government and/or politics when both government and media see nothing wrong with lying, large and small, on a daily basis.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #53 on: February 22, 2012, 12:35:24 PM »
I think the Foster Friess asprin joke turned off a lot of women. There is a subtext to that comment that seems to belie the opinion that only a loose woman would want to use the pill, and by extension that only loose women are in favor of access to abortion.  Many of the aforementioned educated Women take umbrage with such an attitude because they use contraception as a means of responsible family planning. They do not take the pill so they can screw indiscriminately. 

Santorum has said that he doesn't want to ban contraceptives. Obama said that he doesn't want to ban guns . . .

It is very clear that Santorum is not sympathetic to those who would want to use contraceptives. Since he hasn't shown that he is a small government kind of guy, that gives some people pause. 

While it may be a fiscally conservative thing to oppose federal subsidy of contraceptives, to zero in that one particular issue when there is so much waste everywhere makes many women feel singled out. 

The problem isn't loose women, it's a loose culture, men, women, and children.  Of course telling Americans they can't do what they want when they want anytime they want regardless of the consequences has become a difficult sell, hasn't it?  It wasn't always that way, but who remembers any more how we got here, right?

Fact is, men like loose women, except when they're married to them, but that's another thread...
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

MikeB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 923
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #54 on: February 22, 2012, 12:37:13 PM »
But you see no problem with dictating the morals of those who disagree with you.  People of radically dissimilar moral values are unlikely to be viable cohabitants of a nation.  We have convinced ourselves that a heterogeneous culture--"diversity"--is our birthright.  How wrong we are.

So now I have to convert to your and Santorum's beliefs or move out of the country? Yeah, that will work with those independent voters.  :O

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #55 on: February 22, 2012, 01:08:50 PM »
Here's the problem: You cannot have fiscal conservatism with hedonomics.  The kind of economy we all say we want depends on a certain moral perspective and certain moral values.  

Santorum may not be the right messenger--and I'm not saying he is--but the issues will at some point have to be addressed.  Right now what we call "politics" is really impossible.  You cannot have representative government and/or politics when both government and media see nothing wrong with lying, large and small, on a daily basis.

I disagree. And honestly, I believe that fiscal conservatism... with teeth would do way more to stem the American hedonistic society than any amount of social conservatism combined with "business as usual, maybe some window dressing" in the fiscal department would.

The problem I have with social conservatism is that it's presumptive and Santorum's proclimations about women, birth control etc. absolutely make my skin crawl. Just like the perfect example earlier in this thread of how Obama does not like RKBA, but won't do anything against it.

Someone like Ron Paul, given free reign to shape the American budget as he saw fit would do infinitely more to restore "traditional values" than a million Rick Santorums could accomplish. Refusing to subsidize any "licentious behavior" is the key. And social conservatives could accomplish MORE of what they say they actually want, and capture the "squishy middle" where American elections are won and lost, if they'd just shut up about the goofier aspects of their own personal beliefs, when instead, they could sell it much more easily as a much broader package of not funding anything not explicitly outlined in the Constitution.

And I'd point out, even the most arguably socially conservative POTUS we've had in everyone's living memory, St. Ronald Reagan himself, (This is the guy who appointed Ed Meese in several roles after all...) despite talking a good talk, and IMO actually believing it, didn't exactly SHRINK the fed.gov either. What really happened is that growth and spending just got shunted to areas more politically acceptable to conservative interests.

Anyone concerned about the "moral climate" in America would be wise to actually support the ones most willing to cut off the money supply that subsidizes what they don't like, and just be silent on actual moral proclamations. A generation or two without the welfare state would keep millions more legs closed than all the tin-foil hattery from the quasi-pulpit in the world.
I promise not to duck.

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #56 on: February 22, 2012, 01:33:54 PM »
And there is what scares non-religious people. That pretty much reads that you would like to dictate what my morals should be to me, no thanks, I don't need you or Santorum to tell me how to live my life.

THe vibes a person gives off are as important in politics as their actual politics. This is why.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #57 on: February 22, 2012, 01:42:04 PM »
So now I have to convert to your and Santorum's beliefs or move out of the country? Yeah, that will work with those independent voters.  :O

Liberals have set the beliefs of America for decades.  And, no, I have no plans to convert you.  The hope is we will all convert to beliefs that advance the nation entire.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #58 on: February 22, 2012, 01:45:20 PM »
I disagree. And honestly, I believe that fiscal conservatism... with teeth would do way more to stem the American hedonistic society than any amount of social conservatism combined with "business as usual, maybe some window dressing" in the fiscal department would.

The problem I have with social conservatism is that it's presumptive and Santorum's proclimations about women, birth control etc. absolutely make my skin crawl. Just like the perfect example earlier in this thread of how Obama does not like RKBA, but won't do anything against it.

Someone like Ron Paul, given free reign to shape the American budget as he saw fit would do infinitely more to restore "traditional values" than a million Rick Santorums could accomplish. Refusing to subsidize any "licentious behavior" is the key. And social conservatives could accomplish MORE of what they say they actually want, and capture the "squishy middle" where American elections are won and lost, if they'd just shut up about the goofier aspects of their own personal beliefs, when instead, they could sell it much more easily as a much broader package of not funding anything not explicitly outlined in the Constitution.

And I'd point out, even the most arguably socially conservative POTUS we've had in everyone's living memory, St. Ronald Reagan himself, (This is the guy who appointed Ed Meese in several roles after all...) despite talking a good talk, and IMO actually believing it, didn't exactly SHRINK the fed.gov either. What really happened is that growth and spending just got shunted to areas more politically acceptable to conservative interests.

Anyone concerned about the "moral climate" in America would be wise to actually support the ones most willing to cut off the money supply that subsidizes what they don't like, and just be silent on actual moral proclamations. A generation or two without the welfare state would keep millions more legs closed than all the tin-foil hattery from the quasi-pulpit in the world.

For people to turn down government largesse, to be willing to surrender their freedom for give-aways, is itself a decision predicated on a moral view of the universe.  You are putting the cart before the horse.  You expect hedonists to vote for fiscal conservatism?  Hedonists do not care about long-term solvency.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

MikeB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 923
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #59 on: February 22, 2012, 01:58:00 PM »
For people to turn down government largesse, to be willing to surrender their freedom for give-aways, is itself a decision predicated on a moral view of the universe.  You are putting the cart before the horse.  You expect hedonists to vote for fiscal conservatism?  Hedonists do not care about long-term solvency.

Seriously? Just because someone may want to use birth-control, or drink a beer, or smoke a plant, or have sex without being married, they are incapable of caring about long-term solvency?

I think the 40% of the population that vote independent would disagree with you, they usually support fiscal conservatives, just not social ones who are for big government and control of their lives.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,288
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #60 on: February 22, 2012, 02:12:12 PM »
And social conservatives could accomplish MORE of what they say they actually want, and capture the "squishy middle" where American elections are won and lost, if they'd just shut up about the goofier aspects of their own personal beliefs...

I'm not sure how realistic that really is. I don't think Rick Santorum wanted to focus his campaign on birth control, or that Sarah Palin wanted to be the wolf hunting candidate. A hostile media shaped their campaigns for them.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,288
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #61 on: February 22, 2012, 02:14:03 PM »

I think the 40% of the population that vote independent would disagree with you, they usually support fiscal conservatives, just not social ones who are for big government and control of their lives.

Why would you believe that?
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #62 on: February 22, 2012, 02:18:40 PM »
For people to turn down government largesse, to be willing to surrender their freedom for give-aways, is itself a decision predicated on a moral view of the universe.  You are putting the cart before the horse.  You expect hedonists to vote for fiscal conservatism?  Hedonists do not care about long-term solvency.

No, but I am not a "fiscal conservative." I am a libertarian.

I expect people to vote and fight for freedom.

[Of course, long-term solvency is not really as important as you seem to think]
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #63 on: February 22, 2012, 03:16:04 PM »
So you say.  I know, if we can stay just one stride ahead of the tiger... =D
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,288
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #64 on: February 22, 2012, 03:18:27 PM »
I expect people to vote and fight for freedom.

I'd like that, too, President Bush, but people rarely fight for freedom as much as we would like them too.

They'd rather freak out about the non-possibility that any of the current pres. candidates will ban birth control.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #65 on: February 22, 2012, 03:20:29 PM »
Seriously? Just because someone may want to use birth-control, or drink a beer, or smoke a plant, or have sex without being married, they are incapable of caring about long-term solvency?

I think the 40% of the population that vote independent would disagree with you, they usually support fiscal conservatives, just not social ones who are for big government and control of their lives.

That's your straw man.  I'm not an apologist for Roman Catholicism and its priorities.  I went rogue on that long, long, long ago.  I'm talking about the moral predicates that underpin the virtuousness that various of our Founding Fathers saw as essential to our Constitutional Republic.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

Regolith

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,168
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #66 on: February 22, 2012, 04:10:52 PM »
Here's the problem with Santoram: The founding fathers would not support Santoram's view of what is "essential to our Constitutional Republic." The type of "liberty" that Santoram espouses (as seen in this video, where he states that "God gave us rights and freedom to pursue his will") is one that predates the enlightenment and the ideals that propelled the Revolution and is antithetical to everything the founders fought for. This makes Santoram an ultra-conservative, and one that the majority of the founders would actively loath.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. - Thomas Jefferson

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt the Younger

Perfectly symmetrical violence never solved anything. - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth

MikeB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 923
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #67 on: February 22, 2012, 04:44:52 PM »
That's your straw man.  I'm not an apologist for Roman Catholicism and its priorities.  I went rogue on that long, long, long ago.  I'm talking about the moral predicates that underpin the virtuousness that various of our Founding Fathers saw as essential to our Constitutional Republic.

Not a straw man, just guesses at what you define as Hedonism.

My guess is our morals aren't all that different, but someone like Santorum makes me very nervous with what I consider to be an almost mentally ill need to constantly talk about and espouse his religious beliefs. As a non-believer I have a bit of an aversion to people that need to invoke God to make all their arguments.


MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,948
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #68 on: February 22, 2012, 04:49:32 PM »

They'd rather freak out about the non-possibility that any of the current pres. candidates will ban birth control. guns

FTFY. It has been a few years now and it hasn't happened yet.
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,948
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #69 on: February 22, 2012, 05:00:54 PM »
Here's the problem with Santoram: The founding fathers would not support Santoram's view of what is "essential to our Constitutional Republic." The type of "liberty" that Santoram espouses (as seen in this video, where he states that "God gave us rights and freedom to pursue his will") is one that predates the enlightenment and the ideals that propelled the Revolution and is antithetical to everything the founders fought for. This makes Santoram an ultra-conservative, and one that the majority of the founders would actively loath.

It would kind of seem to run up against that whole 'separation of church and state' that the Founders were so keen on.
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #70 on: February 22, 2012, 05:37:44 PM »
For people to turn down government largesse, to be willing to surrender their freedom for give-aways, is itself a decision predicated on a moral view of the universe.  You are putting the cart before the horse.  You expect hedonists to vote for fiscal conservatism?  Hedonists do not care about long-term solvency.

Hardly.

Like everything else, there are dependent hedonists, and self-supporting hedonists. 

Right now, looking at the tax rolls, and the entitlements, 51% of the electorate is still presumably the self-supporting kind in the productive class. Hedonistic in no way excludes enlightened self interest or pragmatism.

God help me, but looking at Romney's platform, assuming he means any of it in even a half-assed way, magic Mormon underpants and all, makes him better than Santorum's own voting record.  And if you want a metric for his brand of social conservatism being "out of touch", while it's a nominal blue/purple state, Pennsylvania is hardly some bastion of Berkleyesque libertine hedonism either.

I promise not to duck.

erictank

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,410
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #71 on: February 22, 2012, 05:48:17 PM »
Anti-Satanism may not be a winning strategy for conservatives but neither will a hash pipe in every pot.  

Santorum's not behind the times, he's ahead of them.  At some point America will be compelled to address the moral delinquencies that made this time possible; it will also be compelled to address who orchestrated the moral disintegration so many feel around them.  It is only natural that Santorum would be accused of promoting theocracy by people who themselves have spend decades trying to create a materialist utopia on earth that is nothing less than a secular theocracy.

Re-read Amendment 1 and assorted writings on the division between church and state, re-examine Santorum's various public statements over the last month wherein he spouts his religious-based totalitarian policy intents, and think about why the Founders DID NOT INTEND THIS TO BE A "Christian nation". Or a Jewish one, or a Muslim one, or a Buddhist one... This *IS* a secular nation, where those who choose to worship may do so as they choose, and those who do not are free in that respect as well, and the government gets to keep its nose out of the whole thing. Religion is NOT the be-all, end-all answer to "moral failures" real or imagined - given the very public failings of assorted prominent and widespread religious types over the years, one might in fact argue convincingly that religion might be the OPPOSITE of the answer, at least on an organized level. You worry about yours, I'll worry about mine. I'm doin' all right on that score, and any failings I might have are between me and God.

You, and Mr. Santorum, can feel free to live your lives in accordance with the will of the Roman Catholic Church as you choose - I have precisely zero issue with that.  What I *DO* have an issue with is an attempt by agents of the government, or would-be agents, to force the will of the Roman Catholic Church upon NON-Roman-Catholics including myself, my wife, my friends... And Santorum's blatant freaking hypocrisy doesn't help him, either. Stay out of my face about it on a personal level, and don't make government policy based on it on an official level.

I'm less worried about Joe Q. Public taking a toke and having sex with his girlfriend without having to worry about her getting pregnant than I am about our government spending twice as much money as it actually has to spend in a year, EVERY year, because no one in charge is willing to even CONSIDER turning off the tap. I'm more worried about a "compassionate-conservative"  ;/ government which can pass odious and unConstitutional bills like the grossly-offensively-named "USA PATRIOT" Act without it even being *READ* before the vote; about a government which insists that the only way we can allow citizens to travel about the country is for them to show their papers (what is this, a WW2 movie?!?  [barf]) and submit to being irradiated and seen naked or having breast, buttocks, and genitals groped - or, all too often, BOTH; about a government which is so frightened about what might happen if we permitted people to decide for themselves what they can put into their own bodies (and hold them responsible for any negative consequences to self or others) that it's preferable to that government to institute policies whereby agents of the government can seize - and KEEP - your home and land and car and bank assets if someone else plants a couple of marijuana plants on the corner of your property, and can send masked stormtroopers to break down your door and stomp your pets and throw your wife and kids up against the wall and point machineguns at them if they think that you have an ounce of pot in your cookie jar; about a government in place because we (society) keep vacillating between one branch of the Modern American Political Machine to the other and back again, and the situation KEEPS GETTING WORSE. A government which can deliberately lose track of thousands of firearms sold over the protest of the dealers to known or suspected criminals who will take them across our southern border, and then try to use those firearms as a reason to violate the RKBA of tens of millions of us who are not any part of any problem. A government which uses unwarranted searches and GPS tracking and wiretaps and datamining to monitor schoolkids and those who speak out about this country's problems. A government which seeks to curtail and VIOLATE individual liberties, rather than protect them.

Santorum is not going to fix ANY of that. He wants to *EXPAND* it. (To be fair, so do Romney and Obama.) I'm not going to be voting for ANY of those rat-bastard statists, but I'm almost certainly going to be stuck with one of them, instead of having someone who will actually at least TRY to make things better for us all. So-called "social conservatives" for the LOSS, is more like it. :mad: :'(

gunsmith

  • I forgot to get vaccinated!
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,173
  • I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #72 on: February 22, 2012, 06:42:06 PM »
There is no such thing as "separation of Church and State" in the COTUS.

 Most if not all the founding fathers were Deist of one kid or another, nearly all gov't functions at the time included prayer.

The phrase  "separation of Church and State" is from one of Thomas Jefferson's letters, I wish we could govern based on all of TJ's letters/quotes "carry a gun on your walks"  [popcorn]

As a kid in public school last century, we had school prayer ( ended when I was in 3rd grade ) there was zero problem with it.
Politicians and bureaucrats are considered productive if they swarm the populace like a plague of locust, devouring all substance in their path and leaving a swath of destruction like a firestorm. The technical term is "bipartisanship".
Rocket Man: "The need for booster shots for the immunized has always been based on the science.  Political science, not medical science."

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,948
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #73 on: February 22, 2012, 06:58:10 PM »
There is no such thing as "separation of Church and State" in the COTUS.
 

Well, I guess that depends upon if you consider the Bill of Rights to be part of the COTUS. I agree with you on the Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists, but SCOTUS has interpreted the First Amendment as the basis for the separation doctrine since 1878.
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

red headed stranger

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,263
Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
« Reply #74 on: February 22, 2012, 08:03:28 PM »
Quote
As a kid in public school last century, we had school prayer ( ended when I was in 3rd grade ) there was zero problem with it.

I believe a solution to the school prayer issue is to get rid of the institution of Public Education.  At this point it is just a political football that the left and the right squabble over.  
« Last Edit: February 22, 2012, 08:11:10 PM by red headed stranger »
Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it