MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 24, 2008 7:14:12 GMT -5
The last thing I believe is the Republicans are running away with it. They SHOULD, because the democrats chose two horrific candidates and are leaning toward the worst possible human being on the planet for the job, but I will NEVER underestimate the stupidity of a country that elected Bill Clinton twice and a put a crackhead mayor in office in DC.
Hillary has experience? At WHAT?
Being married to a politician is NOT experience. Though she may be a power hungry bitch, she has NEVER done anything until she used her celebrity to carpet bag the morons in the state of NY into electing her.
Hillary is a socialist swine, who would be far more dangerous to this country and your rights than anyone else. She would have the government control everything. Big brother would be telling you what to do, and what to think. She is an extremist.
I agree she would be a polarizing lightning rod and would have trouble getting her socialist plans passed, but make no mistake, she is as unqualified and inexperienced as they come.
She married someone. That's her experience. No elected offices, and before that, she was just some over corrupt lawyer whose partners are all in jail.
What does she do at the first sign of trouble? Stages a crying act and turns herself into "the victim." Works every time on the idiots.
Fuck that whore.
I respect that you are behind Edwards, though he is not getting the nomination. I don't think Edwards is a good choice either, but he's the lesser of the three evils.
The best thing that can happen right now is for Edwards to bow out. Polls say most of his support would go to Obama, and it would be a good step toward ending the Hillary threat to our nation.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 24, 2008 8:43:44 GMT -5
Edwards is the consumate 'third wheel.' The guy who wont leave the party to let the happy couple left in the room with him "get it on." To see his putrid numbers bringing up the rear of every one of these primaries is a hoot. Get out of the race already, you jackoff.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 24, 2008 12:37:33 GMT -5
Ahhh, the ole "taxes are for socialists" gag. Give it a rest...WHO, if not tax payers, is going to pay down the credit debt that W has run up?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 24, 2008 14:14:57 GMT -5
Not just taxes--the whole government controls everything/big brother thing these Clintons want.
No country has ever taxed itself into prosperity. The first thing you do is CUT government spending before you turn to the taxpayers. W is not running for President so his policies are irrelevant. Clinton wants to up spending and taxes.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 24, 2008 14:19:14 GMT -5
So now getting OUT of Iraq is being construed as "UPPING SPENDING?"
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 24, 2008 14:20:57 GMT -5
Clinton's only saying whatever it takes to get elected. She changes her opinions based on the audience, and when you factor in her socialist universal health disaster, she will destroy an industry AND increase spending.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 24, 2008 14:22:51 GMT -5
"She changes her opinions based on the audience"
This is called pandering. Can you name a politician who DOESN'T pander?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 24, 2008 14:32:39 GMT -5
No one is as extreme as the Clintons when it comes to that. No one. I would say Obama doesn't pander. He's been fairly consistent in his views from day one.
Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt politician in the race. Her ONLY concern is being power hungry and imposing her socialistic views on the people. And when the going gets tough, she cries (as long as cameras are rolling so she can look like a victim).
She is by far the worst choice for this job.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 24, 2008 14:52:15 GMT -5
Obama panders...believe me Obama panders. His history of "present" votes, as pointed out by Hilary, is pandering in the way of non-participation. Everyone panders, and Huckabee and Romney are the biggest panderers of all. If pandering is a quantitatively measurable thing, I'd say that McCain does it the least.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 24, 2008 14:56:29 GMT -5
Fair enough. But Obama has been more consistent when it comes to sticking to his guns. "Present" votes are not quite the same as flip flopping. Obama was anti-war when it wasn't popular. I have no doubt he would be anti-war today if the war was the most popular issue going. Hillary would be pro-war if the people were more pro-war.
She is the worst of all of them--maybe even worse than her husband.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 24, 2008 15:29:02 GMT -5
Truth be told, the FLIP-FLOP argument holds NO water with me whatsover. Every politician will always always always accuse his/her opponent of being inconsistent and flip-flopping.
Bush accused Kerry. Gore accused Bush. Clinton accused Bush. They all accuse eachother of this and it's the boy who cried wolf and this point, and all I see you doing here, Balls, is towing the party line.
Politicians are not allowed to change their minds? Apparently not? Would you rather have a world full of arrogant politicians are rigid and narrow minded and never allow themselves to possibly become enlightened on issues to the point of changing their stance for the better? I'm not condoning pandering - pandering can not be excused as becoming "enlightened" - pandering is pandering. But the "flip flop" accusation doesn't mean anything anymore and it's really just a generic unfounded generalization that politicians always throw at their opponents.
I'm so tired of politicians, and even worse, their sheep supporters, of tossing out sound-bites as arguments pro or con. Give me some substance.
If you want to label Hilary as a Flip Flopper, cite me a laundry list of issues she has gone on record as making a 180 in her thinking. You probably heard Ann Coulter say "Ohhh that bitch Hilary is a flip-flopper" and now your running with it as though it's the gospel.
Spare me the sound-bites from Fox News, and give me some specifics.
You want specifics from me? Obama claims to tow the liberal line in terms of gun control. He once voted, despite the vehement opposition of his own party, to allow retired police officers to carry concealed weapons after some type of police organization financially supported one of his campaigns. Whether you agree with the stance or not, he clearly pandered and compromised his public stance for financial support. I'm sure he has a litany of these types of pandering in his closet.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 24, 2008 15:49:35 GMT -5
The old "every politician" does it argument is weak to me, because in the case of the Clintons, it's far more extreme. If a normal politician drives drunk and runs you over, the Clintons drive drunk, run you over, stop the car, back up, and hit you again. They are so far more extreme in every bad thing a politician does that it's just not comparable. Compared to the Clintons, pretty much any politician is a straight shooter with no baggage. Coming up with a list of Hillary flip flops shouldn't be too hard. It can be done with a lot of politicians. I'm sure if I asked you to do the same with Bush, you could in some things. But it's just so much more extreme with her. Just a quick search. Here's her record on the war, cut and pasted from an article without permission: On October 10, 2002, Clinton spoke to the Senate in favor of a use-of-force resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, saying: "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt.” On December 15, 2003, when it was clear there were no large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Clinton’s support was unwavering. "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force,” she told the Council on Foreign Relations. "We have no option but to stay involved and committed.” On April 20, 2004, Clinton told CNN’s Larry King that she did not "regret giving the president the authority,” noting that Saddam Hussein "had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade. In October 2005, amid growing anti-war sentiment, Clinton still told the Village Voice: "I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal . . . I don’t think it’s the right time to withdraw.” By November 2005, Hillary was softening her stance, saying in a letter to constituents: "If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed.” On December 18, 2006, Clinton went even further, saying on the "Today” show: "I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.” On January 13 of this year, Clinton spoke from Baghdad about President Bush’s call for a troop surge: "I don’t know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work.” On January 17, Clinton called for a cap on the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, and suggested withholding funds for the Iraqi government. Finally, on January 27, Clinton hit the campaign trail in Iowa and demanded that the president "extricate our country from this before he leaves office.” The Journal opines: "What’s troubling about Mrs. Clinton’s record on Iraq is that it tends to follow, rather than lead, public opinion . . . =================== Flip flop on immigration: But just three short years ago, Mrs. Clinton took a different tack, boasting that she was "adamantly against" foreigners who enter the country illegally and saying that the U.S. should consider imposing a national ID card system. "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants," Clinton said in a Feb. 2003 radio interview. Clinton said the U.S. "might have to move toward an ID system even for citizens" in order to combat illegal border crossings, or implement "at least a visa ID, some kind of an entry and exit ID." A position paper issued by her Senate office urged that citizenship be made available for illegals and argued that get-tough immigration policies were impractical. Saying she opposes "one-sided solutions that simply sound tough," Mrs. Clinton urged the U.S. to create "a path to earned citizenship for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes [and] respecting the law." In an apparent bid to have it both ways, the top Democrat explained: "I neither support illegal immigration nor the enactment of fruitless schemes that would penalize churches and hospitals for helping the truly needy . . . We should not unduly punish the overwhelming majority of immigrants who work hard, raise families, pay their taxes, and contribute to their communities." =========================== Oh hell, why not just watch Hillary debate herself? www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 24, 2008 17:03:16 GMT -5
The War? That's the point you are grandstanding on.
Wanna know who else flip-flopped on the war? Just about everyone in Congress and the Senate who based their initial support for the war on facts that were arguably fabricated by the Bush administration. Whether you believe that Bush fabricated them or not, the initial "facts" presented turned out to be factually incorrect and scores of Senators and Congressmen changed their support 180 degrees.
Two things wrong with your logic there. Either this was not a case of her flip-flopping, but rather becoming enlightened on the issue once the real facts were uncovered, just as everyone else in Congress and the Senate was. OR, she did flip flop along with many many others, therefore although guilty of flip-flopping, she is not guilty of flip-flopping any more excessively than hundreds of other members of the legislative branch.
As far as your immigration example goes....at what point did she claim that she is now in favor of illegal immigration. Man oh man, talk about spin doctoring. She comes out and says that she is against illegal immigration, and favors a national ID system. She then says that she is not in favor of wasting time and money on man-hunting and punishing illegal immigrants that are already here, then she says she is in favor of charitable treatment of illegal immigrants who are already here, who sincerely need it. She never said she was against immigrants (who are PEOPLE), she said she was against illegal immigration (a criminal act of sneaking into this country). She's basically saying, let's cut bait, deal with the illegals who are here, perhaps matriculate them into contributing members of society, and get tough on immigration so that we can stop waves of people coming into this country illegal from now on. How did you not come to that interpretations of what you posted? Ann Coulter told you how to interpret it?
I don't want you to misinterpret this "argument" Balls as an indication that I am carrying signs and wearing funny hats at Hilary 2008 rallies. I just really take exception to people casting very thin, very superficial dispersions on the candidates they are not voting for. I had a very similar argument with some other people about Rudy. They kept saying, "Rudy sucks. Rudy is an adulterer." I had the same response - give me some REAL tangible reasons why you don't like Rudy.
Hilary is a bitch. Hilary is a socialist (ummm, really, she isn't). Hilary is a flip floper. Those accusations are meaningless because they are accusations that can be hurled at any politician and weakly supported with spin-doctored stupid little sound-bites.
If you are so opposed to Hilary because you truly believe she is a socialist, then give me a list of programs she supports or plans to implement that are socialist in nature.
If you that opposed to Hilary being President, tell me why? Tell me that you support the war 100% and you don't want the troops to pull out, so you want a President that will keep them there. Tell me that you want social security privatized (I'd tell you to read Adam Smith's book on economics, but that's neither here nor there) and that Hilary will never do that. Gimme something that I can sink my teeth into rather than just telling me what an evil bitch you THINK she is.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 24, 2008 17:19:35 GMT -5
McCain has held fairly true to his war stance. So has Obama. She is NOT saying deal with the illegals that are here. She has no position. She changes her position based on the audience. Hillary is the most corrupt politician out there. If you really have to ask about why she is wrong, then there's no way to convince you. I do want Social Security privatized. Universal health care is a socialist ideal. She stands for absolutely nothing except increasing her own power. You want socialist quotes from Hillary, just type in Hillary Clinton Socialist on Yahoo, and you will get a ton: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." "I certainly think the free-market has failed." "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." You can watch the last one here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YPUo7Cj084I don't THINK she is an evil bitch. I know it.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 24, 2008 17:47:19 GMT -5
Again Balls, I'm not arguing Hilary for President.
I just wish that people could articulate their preference for one candidate over another, and sound bites and name calling doesn't cut it for me.
You want privatized social security, Hilary doesn't. Put a check mark in the CON column - fair enough. You want the war perpetuated, she doesn't....another valid stance. Stick to those types of arguments please.
She has a position on immigration, however much like the backside of Jason Giambi's baseball card, you are interpreting it to fit your crusade against her.
""It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."" -- I am flabbergasted that you not only cited this as a "socialist" position but have any critique on this statement at all. This is not socialism Balls. This is one of the .... no scratch that .... this is THEE basic tenant that this country was founded upon. In the words of Jackass and the world's most popular Lebanese disc jokey, "Ponderous. Fuckin' Ponderous!"
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 24, 2008 18:17:49 GMT -5
McCain Looks Ahead to General Election as Candidates Gear Up for Final Florida Debate
John McCain — fresh off wins from South Carolina and New Hampshire but by no means the crowned front-runner in the Republican presidential race — appears to be trying to speed up the primary clock to the general election, directly taking on Hillary Clinton on Thursday and projecting himself as the “Democrats’ worst nightmare.”
Ahead of the GOP candidates’ final debate before Tuesday’s Florida primary, the Arizona senator is positioning himself as the candidate his party needs to hold on to the White House.
Speaking to FOX News Thursday morning, McCain started by launching an attack on Clinton for her Iraq war position. McCain said Clinton and her rival Barack Obama share the same position on Iraq, but brushed aside the Illinois senator to size up Clinton as the challenger of note in a hypothetical general election.
“I am absolutely astonished that Senator Clinton, a leading candidate on the Democrat side, says she wants to surrender in Iraq, she wants to wave the white flag. After all the sacrifice we’ve made in this surge, which everybody knows is succeeding, she wants to surrender and bring the troops home, and set a date for withdrawal,” he said. “I have never, never in American history heard of a leading candidate for president of the United States that wants to surrender to the enemy.”
McCain’s campaign also released a new Web ad asserting he’s the Democrats’ biggest threat in the GOP field. The ad quotes Clinton, Obama and Democratic candidate John Edwards saying McCain’s name in rapid-fire succession at a debate in South Carolina earlier this week. Pundits then appear onscreen to offer their predictions that McCain would be the hardest challenge to the Democratic nominee in November.
While some prominent conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, blast McCain for abandoning the party with moderate positions on immigration and other touchstone issues, the Vietnam veteran and Washington maverick’s campaign is taking pains to cast himself as the candidate with appeal beyond his party, who can emerge the winner against any Democrat.
McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said in a statement, “(Democrats) … fear John McCain most because he’s the one candidate who can rally the conservative Reagan Coalition while appealing to independent voters to win in November. John McCain has the experience, judgment and principled leadership to ensure America’s economic and national security, and lead Republicans to victory in 2008.”
The apparent boost in confidence comes as rival Mitt Romney enjoys an upward tick in the polls ahead of the Florida primary. The latest Mason-Dixon survey taken Jan. 22-23 of 400 likely Republican voters showed Romney at 30 percent in the state to McCain’s 26 percent. The poll’s margin of error is 5 percent. Poll averages still show McCain holding on to a hairline advantage in Florida overall, and Rudy Giuliani falling further behind even as he predicts a last-minute surge of support in the state.
Romney debuted a new Florida TV ad casting himself as more fiscally conservative than McCain and more socially conservative than Giuliani. The ad, to begin airing Thursday night, is called “Winning Combination” and quotes conservative commentators describing Romney’s economic prowess. The successful venture capitalist and former Massachusetts governor continues to hone in on the economy as the federal government grapples with how to head off a potential recession.
A Rasmussen poll taken Wednesday, after former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson dropped out of the race, also showed Romney in the lead. It’s still unclear where Thompson’s supporters will trend, but McCain announced Thursday he’s already picked up Thompson’s former fundraising chairman Scooter Clippard to help head his own money raising efforts.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen told FOX News on Thursday that McCain needs to get through Florida on top. Independents have helped McCain in earlier contests, but Florida’s primary does not allow independents to vote for the Republican candidate, making it a test of his intra-party support. Unlike the other early primary states, Florida’s primary gives the winner all of the state’s pledged delegates.
“This is a huge hurdle. John McCain must win among Republicans, something he has not been able to do yet,” Rasmussen said.
Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, told FOX News the GOP contest is increasingly a race between McCain and Romney, who won Wyoming, Nevada and Michigan and leads in the delegate count. McCain won New Hampshire and South Carolina, and Mike Huckabee took the first-in-the-nation voting in Iowa.
As for Giuliani, Sabato said Florida is a must win. The once unquestioned front-runner nationally and in Florida has slipped to third in Sunshine State polls, and the candidate has even started talking like an underdog, saying he might just surprise the pundits and pull one out on Tuesday. Florida’s voters began sending in mail-in absentee ballots before McCain’s win in New Hampshire on Jan. 8.
“See if you can get us more people that will come out and vote, and we will win this election here in Florida and we’ll go on to the nomination,” he said at a rally in Boca Raton, where the debate is being held.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 24, 2008 18:27:08 GMT -5
I'm sure it's Democrat strategy that they are all talking about gearing up for McCain, but it could backfire.
Obviously with the big Dems talking up McCain, many Republican voters who aren't already unwaveringly committed to one candidate may decide that McCain is the guy and cast their votes his way. This is probably the Dems collective strategy to influence the Republican nomination.
Personally, I think it's a grave mistake on the Dems part. As far as I can tell, and as far as CNN POLLS (not Tom's posts) can tell...McCain is clearly the best shot the Republicans have at winning as he is clearly the most centrist of all conservatives. And as much as you Conservatives piss and moan about centrists, they draw the most votes from the undecided crowd, and frankly they usually leave office with largely heralded Presidencies because they, unlike their extreme (left or right) counterparts actually ARE uniters, not dividers.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 24, 2008 21:43:56 GMT -5
Chris--this bitch has been a part of my life since 1992 in some capacity, either is the first lady (and I use the term lady very loosely) or as the carpetbagging senator whose only qualification for the job was her celebrity. She is the quintessential corrupt politician. Not one aspect of her is real. No character, and character does matter. Hillary Clinton is NOT a leader. She is a follower.
Obama is a leader, who I feel will lead the country in the wrong direction. There are differences.
I would rather run against Obama not because he would be easier to beat, but because he would be the lesser evil should he win.
Obama is so different for me, even though I also think he is unqualified. With Obama, it's all politics. We disagree on the various issues.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 28, 2008 8:09:26 GMT -5
So Obama won in South Carolina, but with the exception of Georgia, it seems the bitch is winning everywhere else. All this, despite what seems like every high profile democrat endorsing Obama. The latest 2 are that drunk murderer Ted Kennedy and JFK's daughter Caroline.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 28, 2008 12:23:47 GMT -5
I'm not wavering on my opinion of Obama. He will not win this nomination. He won in a state where 29% of registered voters are black. There are only a good two or three states that have a percentage of black voters in the 20-30% range.
California, for example, has 7%. When Super Tuesday comes around, I expect to see drastically different results.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 28, 2008 12:25:45 GMT -5
It's amazing that so many prominent people are endorsing him, yet she is still going to kick his ass next week. Frustrating. The democrats have to nominate the least qualified, worst possible choice. That's the bitch.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 28, 2008 12:27:25 GMT -5
And this is why the Democrats are in trouble. They threw bank into either monopolizing the black vote, or the woman vote. Trouble is most of the country will neither vote in a black candidate, nor a woman.
I am sleeping very well at night. Republicans will hold the White House.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 28, 2008 12:27:58 GMT -5
I am still holding out hope for Edwards....an Edwards/McCain election would be the best possible thing for this country. Regardless of the winner, the opposition wouldn't be too displeased with the result. Both men are the most centrist of any candidate in their respective parties.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 28, 2008 12:29:51 GMT -5
I'm no fan of Edwards, but he is easily the least of the evils on the left. But he's just an also ran. He needs to bow out asap to give Obama a shot because rumor is that most of his support goes toward him.
Obama is going to win Georgia, but I don't know if he's even close in any other state.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 28, 2008 13:30:58 GMT -5
CNN Polls show that Edwards stands the best chance of beating Republicans (I know that's not your agenda, but it is mine).
So it's strange to see the supposed candidate best suited for a run-off against McCain, playing the third wheel in the Democrat race. He's not just an also-ran - he is a viable candidate - if he could only make it out of the playoffs.
I hope liberals eventually wise up. In 2008, if you are of a liberal frame of mind, I think it would behoove you to wise up and realize that other things, like fixing the country, takes precedence over showing the world how "enlightened" we are because we have a black man or woman running.
This has ALWAYS been the problem with liberals. The saying "It's the economy, stupid" is lost on liberals and we, as a party, tend to splinter off into our pet-issues, which is retarded. That's why we often break off and throw our support toward these little douchy fringe candidates, taking votes away from our viable candidates.
If anything, Conservatives have always been more unified and have always been of the frame of mind that dictates that even if we disagree on specific issues, getting "our" guy elected is paramount. Usually it is that unification, as opposed to wild-eyed idealism, that gets Republicans elected.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 28, 2008 13:33:42 GMT -5
Are you sure about that? I thought Obama was polling the best against Republicans.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 28, 2008 13:37:54 GMT -5
The last poll I cited, in a back-n-forth with Tom, from CNN showed Edwards as the best suited candidate.
Considering what went down in South Carolina, things may have changed.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 28, 2008 13:38:18 GMT -5
I think Cho's numbers are skewed.
And it does not matter what Edwards shows against the Republicans. He wont have the nomination to test those numbers. He is not only finishing 3rd everywhere, he is finishing a DISTANT 3rd.
He's an also-ran, and its time for him to go.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 28, 2008 13:42:53 GMT -5
You can't say my numbers are skewed...you can say CNN's numbers are skewed...if you so chose.
The poll I cited was over a week ago I think. Like I said, things may have changed drastically considering the weekend's events.
The point is, don't paint Edwards as an off-the-beaten-path fringe candidate....he polls well against Republicans. But alas, I do fear you may be right...he may not make it out of the conference championship.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 29, 2008 9:55:52 GMT -5
Well, at least after today thats the end of Rudy. Enough with him already.
|
|