PDA

View Full Version : Paul/Obama Ticket?!




Todd McGreevy
01-05-2008, 08:10 PM
OK, i have had this thought long before tonight's ABC/NH debate... where Ron Paul waxed complimentary about Obama.

What would the chances of a third party effort by a combo ticket of Ron Paul with VP Barrack Obama look like?

Let's face it, the establishment elite in both the Red and Blue parties do not want to see either Paul or Obama get the nod.
(I have not given up yet on Paul via the Republicans).

But what if the voices of the people are eventually drowned out by both the media (did you notice that there was no reporter reporting on Paul's camp's thoughts afterwards? they had 6 reporters before the debate in the spin room, then only 4 after)
and by the elite party leaders??

Seems to me that RP and BO have the interest of their constituents at heart and are the least likely to play the fear card to continue to erode our civil liberties...
I have a lot of friends who support Obama and are Dems but would support Paul if BO was not in the race.

Ron Paul would be the mentor to Barrack Obama and while Ron works on monetary policy Barrack works on foreign relations and reestablishing United States' respect in the world....

Do you think that a third party with Paul/Obama could beat both a Dem and a Republican -- and preempt a Bloomberg spoiler candidacy??

(btw: Ron Paul beat Huckabee and Guiliani and Hunter in my precinct in Bettendorf, IA)

www.ronpaulringtones.org (http://www.ronpaulringtones.org)

fedup100
01-05-2008, 08:11 PM
no

angrydragon
01-05-2008, 08:11 PM
Nope!

Spirit of '76
01-05-2008, 08:11 PM
Put your hands up and step away from the bong!

ronpaulfollower999
01-05-2008, 08:11 PM
NO!

MooCowzRock
01-05-2008, 08:11 PM
Heeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllll Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

ronpaulfollower999
01-05-2008, 08:12 PM
Its like having a Republic/Fascist ticket

Give me liberty
01-05-2008, 08:12 PM
no never never..

kushaze
01-05-2008, 08:12 PM
It would work if Dr. Paul could completely change Obama and his plans for a welfare state. (probably not going to happen, although it would be a hot ticket)

Delaware
01-05-2008, 08:12 PM
OBAMA IS CFR, THAT MEANS HE IS BACKED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT!

Anyway, thats like having a Conservative/Socialist ticket, it wouldnt work even if he wasnt corrupt.

shrapnel88
01-05-2008, 08:13 PM
nope. obama is cfr globalist builderberg scum.

CountryboyRonPaul
01-05-2008, 08:13 PM
Actually it probably would work.

But Pigs would have to fly first.

TNFreedom
01-05-2008, 08:13 PM
Sort of a nice idea I guess but....then you have to analyze BO's policy stances. Not an option. He is the most left wing candidate and Dr. Paul is by far the most right wing candidate in terms of policy. They could not possibly be further apart other than the war.

FreeTraveler
01-05-2008, 08:21 PM
Actually it probably would work.

But Pigs would have to fly first.

QFMFT!

Gimme Some Truth
01-05-2008, 08:23 PM
I think it would do .. but its never gonna happen because domestic policy (welfare) just do not mix

hueylong
01-05-2008, 08:23 PM
get a grip. ron will not run with a big government democrat.

literatim
01-05-2008, 08:23 PM
Hell no! :mad:

theseus51
01-05-2008, 08:24 PM
People who support Obama aren't going to like a small government fiscal conservative at the top of the ticket. People who support Ron Paul are going to think Ron Paul has lost his mind, putting a liberal pro-war Democrat as his VP.

tomveil
01-05-2008, 08:25 PM
OK, i have had this thought long before tonight's ABC/NH debate... where Ron Paul waxed complimentary about Obama.

What would the chances of a third party effort by a combo ticket of Ron Paul with VP Barrack Obama look like?

Let's face it, the establishment elite in both the Red and Blue parties do not want to see either Paul or Obama get the nod.
(I have not given up yet on Paul via the Republicans).

But what if the voices of the people are eventually drowned out by both the media (did you notice that there was no reporter reporting on Paul's camp's thoughts afterwards? they had 6 reporters before the debate in the spin room, then only 4 after)
and by the elite party leaders??

Seems to me that RP and BO have the interest of their constituents at heart and are the least likely to play the fear card to continue to erode our civil liberties...
I have a lot of friends who support Obama and are Dems but would support Paul if BO was not in the race.

Ron Paul would be the mentor to Barrack Obama and while Ron works on monetary policy Barrack works on foreign relations and reestablishing United States' respect in the world....

Do you think that a third party with Paul/Obama could beat both a Dem and a Republican -- and preempt a Bloomberg spoiler candidacy??

(btw: Ron Paul beat Huckabee and Guiliani and Hunter in my precinct in Bettendorf, IA)

I posted this a long time ago on a different forum, and I still tell people that it's my wet dream.

Paul in charge of foriegn policy, Obama overseeing the transition of governmental services. It gives Obama the experience that people say he lacks. It gives Paul an "in" to compromise with congress, and it gives government the transparency that it needs.

ButchHowdy
01-05-2008, 08:26 PM
CFR would never approve

stefans
01-05-2008, 08:26 PM
I can't believe so many people voted yes

Karsten
01-05-2008, 08:27 PM
I predict Obama will win the Democrat nomination anyway, so I don't see how this could work.

tomveil
01-05-2008, 08:27 PM
People who support Obama aren't going to like a small government fiscal conservative at the top of the ticket. People who support Ron Paul are going to think Ron Paul has lost his mind, putting a liberal pro-war Democrat as his VP.

I was an Obama guy before Paul. I'll be an Obama guy if it's him vs. any non-Ron Paul GOP member. The reason that I changed was his waffling on the foriegn policy. I do agree with a lot of his governmental ideas, even though they are different than Paul's. I'd classify myself as a progressive, but realize that government needs to get more EFFICENT before it can get better. And if that means cutting it all together, that's fine with me.

Paulitician
01-05-2008, 08:27 PM
Umm... no, absolutely no chance.

Jobarra
01-05-2008, 08:28 PM
I won't answer on the poll as it seems almost like a Frank Luntz type poll question.

Paul would never have Obama on his ticket while Obama believed in collectivism as he does. To answer the question though, a Paul/Obama ticket would IMO win hands down. Never going to happen though.

Menthol Patch
01-05-2008, 08:30 PM
Obama is a SOCIALIST that would support illegal immigration, ban guns, and NEVER reduce the size of government! The very idea that Ron Paul could run with him is an ABOMINATION.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-05-2008, 08:32 PM
It could win, but why would we want it to?

Devil_rules_in_extremes
01-05-2008, 08:33 PM
Is this a serious question? Obama in a CFR globalist, who pimps for the Establishment. Screw him.

Todd McGreevy
01-05-2008, 08:34 PM
If Obama truly would ban guns, then i totally agree, this will never work... i have to admit that I don't know BO's policy nearly as well as I should, and this forum has helped direct my investigation of Barack...
I would not count Hillary out yet folks... there is waaaay too much invested in her and the dynasty does not like to lose... the Democratic party elite has a lot of control.... so i am just positing some concepts.

Paulitician
01-05-2008, 08:34 PM
Is this a serious question? Obama in a CFR globalist, who pimps for the Establishment. Screw him.
But he's selling "change" ;)

Devil_rules_in_extremes
01-05-2008, 08:35 PM
I can't believe so many people voted yes

Ditto...... That amazes me. Obama's politics aren't even close to Ron Paul. Obama is a socialist, Obama is a gloablist, and Obama probably doesn't understand a damned thing about the Federal Reserve, the Income tax, and Monetary/Economic policy.

Devil_rules_in_extremes
01-05-2008, 08:36 PM
But he's selling "change" ;)

And I have a block of Ice in Death Valley I want to sell ya....

OBAMA IS CFR! I CAN'T BELIEVE PEOPLE ARE STILL VOTING YES!!!

Liberty Star
01-05-2008, 08:36 PM
No way.

They both may oppose Iraq war nd necons' war mongering and negative influence in US policits but RP has much better plan and insight overall. We can break away some young support from Obama if we get the message out clearly and stay consistent.


Obama took some of RP younger supporters in Iowa. But Obama will get attacked in coming days and weeks and some of his shine will wear off but Ron Paul has to be ready to capture more young voters support who are a natural ally and happen to be for Change, anti War and are turned off by pandering ads.

RP has the best chance to beat Obama, if we can effectively establish/market Ron Paul brand and disseminate message of hope and change. Obama and Ron Paul both stand for change, both opposed Iraq war and are tough conteders, RP has edge on foreign policy/fiscal policy issues. One with smarter campaign will win in the end. Both have not been sufficiently scrutinized by the press yet, press has been soft on Obama so far but that will change.

It is surprising why Ron Paul campaign has not been aggressively going after support of big majority of Americans who are very concerned with current course of America and see Bush/Cheney war policies as bad for America. RP need to question judgment of candidates who supported Iraq war policy and show how it undermines American security.

RP need to hit hard on Iraq war/foreign policy issues and how they effect taxes/economy/liberties at home. RP had the foresight and courage to oppose Iraq war years ago and need to capitalize on that. Now will be good time to take a look at our ads for NH and make sure we have the right message of Hope and Change and nothing like the recent controversial, pandering ad that was played in Iowa. Iraq War and its human, financial, liberty costs should be highlighted. We should stick with the message RP sent out in debates, that works. Majority of Americans consider Iraq war a mistake and chances of someone who supported Iraq war going to the White House in 08 are between slim and none.

Devil_rules_in_extremes
01-05-2008, 08:38 PM
No way.

They both may oppose Iraq war nd necons' war mongering influnec in US policits but RP has much better plan and insight overall. We can break away some young support from Obama if we get the message out clearly and stay consistent.

Your kidding, right? Have you been listening to Obama in this ABC debate? He sounds like a Republican Neo-Con. He's just as War mongering as they are. Promoting the war fever, and corporate propaganda.

dvictr
01-05-2008, 08:42 PM
HELL NO...



free market champion of the constituion - ron paul
quasi-socialist inexperienced cfr member - obama

read up on classical libertarianism (hayek, friedman...)


obama is just an affirmative action sucess story

DeepBlu
01-05-2008, 08:45 PM
Given that Obama's at the top of the Democratic polls and just won Iowa, I think it could probably be a successful ticket. Is it realistic and do their politics mix well? No. But I still think it could win.

nc4rp
01-05-2008, 08:49 PM
the question you should ask is would either of them cross party lines. people are loyal to their party.

Todd McGreevy
01-05-2008, 09:18 PM
I agree about party lines.... but my god can we really really take another four years with a Clinton in office or four years with neocons in office who refuse to deal with the Federal Reserve?

So my hypothesis is based on the assumption that worst case scenario for both Paul and Obama that they don't get a blessing to rep their party from the fat and happy elite media and duopoly parties that will never let go of their fiefdoms to a Ron Paul or a Barack Obama.

gerryb
01-05-2008, 09:31 PM
Sort of a nice idea I guess but....then you have to analyze BO's policy stances. Not an option. He is the most left wing candidate and Dr. Paul is by far the most right wing candidate in terms of policy. They could not possibly be further apart other than the war.

stop using these terms.

Left and right wing are the SAME thing, very small differences.

On the left.. Socialist and Communists. On the right, Fascists. What is the difference? They are both collectivist systems.

Ron Paul is an individualist.

bobo37
01-05-2008, 09:33 PM
No, Obama is CFR it wouldn't be a ticket

DealzOnWheelz
01-05-2008, 09:49 PM
Ok my thoughts are as follows

I do not agree with Barrack on alot of issues, ALOT
And I also don't think it would ever happen

But the question was not should they run? or even would they run together?

The question was If they ran together could they win


And I truly think yes

Reason, INDEPENDANTS both Ron Paul and Barrack Obama Decimated the Independat vote in IOWA

They both have the best Grassroots campaigns

And honestly I believe Barrack Obama is moldable

I think being around Dr. Paul for a long period of time will open his eyes to alot of what is going on in washington

Eponym_mi
01-05-2008, 09:52 PM
Dr. Paul would have to perform brain surgery on Obama for such a ticket to work.

MadViking10
01-05-2008, 09:58 PM
I voted yes. HELL YES !! Any ticket that has Ron Paul as the next President of the United States, IM IN !!

Created4
01-05-2008, 10:10 PM
Dr. Paul would have to perform brain surgery on Obama for such a ticket to work.

:) Too true!

So who would run with Paul if he got the nomination?

Johncjackson
01-05-2008, 11:23 PM
No, but Obama is preferable to every Republican candidate except Ron Paul..and I have never voted for a Democrat. That doesnt mean I support him. It may just be a commentary on the sad state of the major parties.

mbn71
01-06-2008, 12:12 AM
Considering he's AIPAC's #2 guy on the democratic side (behind Hillary) no, there's no way I'd support him.

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13849&Itemid=86

Todd McGreevy
01-06-2008, 11:06 AM
http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13849&Itemid=86

Based on Obama's Council on Foreign Relations participation and the evidence that this article above shows for his support of Israel... looks like Obama would have to come over to Ron Paul's policy of eliminating foreign aid to Israel and every other country.

Probably tough to do for Obama since he is beholden to the folks cited in this article.

RonPaulblican
01-06-2008, 11:15 AM
OK, i have had this thought long before tonight's ABC/NH debate... where Ron Paul waxed complimentary about Obama.

What would the chances of a third party effort by a combo ticket of Ron Paul with VP Barrack Obama look like?

Let's face it, the establishment elite in both the Red and Blue parties do not want to see either Paul or Obama get the nod.
(I have not given up yet on Paul via the Republicans).

But what if the voices of the people are eventually drowned out by both the media (did you notice that there was no reporter reporting on Paul's camp's thoughts afterwards? they had 6 reporters before the debate in the spin room, then only 4 after)
and by the elite party leaders??

Seems to me that RP and BO have the interest of their constituents at heart and are the least likely to play the fear card to continue to erode our civil liberties...
I have a lot of friends who support Obama and are Dems but would support Paul if BO was not in the race.

Ron Paul would be the mentor to Barrack Obama and while Ron works on monetary policy Barrack works on foreign relations and reestablishing United States' respect in the world....

Do you think that a third party with Paul/Obama could beat both a Dem and a Republican -- and preempt a Bloomberg spoiler candidacy??

(btw: Ron Paul beat Huckabee and Guiliani and Hunter in my precinct in Bettendorf, IA)

www.ronpaulringtones.org (http://www.ronpaulringtones.org)
Please renew your prescription and start taking your meds again.

Ball
01-06-2008, 12:22 PM
Screw that AIPAC sycophant!

Omaba's an empty suit who's campaign basically boils down to "Vote for me! I'm not Hillary!"

Cali4RonPaul
01-06-2008, 12:33 PM
All we need is Sarah Palin for VP!!

http://idreamalaskaadventures.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/sarahpalinvictorywave.jpg

bolidew
01-06-2008, 12:46 PM
While you are discussing such a meaningless topic, Obama is trying to take away more independent voters in NH from Dr. Paul.
Stop Obama!

DrNoZone
01-06-2008, 01:40 PM
Wow, I'm glad someone started this debate up! I actually watched the entire debate last night, both the R's and D's. I have always been impressed with Obama, even if I don't agree with him on some things (vehemently so in some cases). But, I came away thinking to myself "boy, I would LOVE to see an Obama/Paul ticket, I don't even care which one was P and which was VP, as long as they both agreed to work with one another on things." I think that's the only way we'll see RP in the White House, to be frank, and I would support it 110%.

Ok, you can call me a troll now.

VoteRonPaul2008
01-06-2008, 01:42 PM
No Obama is a phony
he WON'T commit to pulling out troops from Iraq, and he wasn't in Congress when they voted to invade, so it makes it very easy for him to say he wouldn't have voted for it.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/d...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2...

He did, however, vote to renew the Patriot Act:

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php...

( you can also see his horrendous record of missing votes)

he's hinted at invading pakistan, and he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April.

so what's all this 'CHANGE' that he's spouting and american politics amatuers are easting up?

DrNoZone
01-06-2008, 01:45 PM
Reason, INDEPENDANTS both Ron Paul and Barrack Obama Decimated the Independat vote in IOWA

They both have the best Grassroots campaigns

And honestly I believe Barrack Obama is moldable

I think being around Dr. Paul for a long period of time will open his eyes to alot of what is going on in washington

You're right on about all of these things. Especially about Obama being "moldable", though I would call it "intelligent and thoughtful and willing to listen to reason".

Todd McGreevy
01-06-2008, 04:40 PM
No Obama is a phony
he WON'T commit to pulling out troops from Iraq, and he wasn't in Congress when they voted to invade, so it makes it very easy for him to say he wouldn't have voted for it.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/d...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2...

He did, however, vote to renew the Patriot Act:

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php...

( you can also see his horrendous record of missing votes)

he's hinted at invading pakistan, and he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April.

so what's all this 'CHANGE' that he's spouting and american politics amatuers are easting up?

Okay, great points... he did vote AGAINST reauthorization of the PATRIOT ACT, before he voted FOR it according to this link: (the VoteSmart link above is broken)
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490&type=category&category=61&go.x=9&go.y=11

I can't imagine there are many Dems who support the PATRIOT act, so I wonder if they are aware of his new found support of FEAR with March 2006 vote to support Patriot act?

Keep in mind, the origins of this hypothetical exercise (posting) is IF the Dems spurn Obama at the top level, despite the people's wishes and they are forced to support Hillary (a very real possibility)...and that despite the people's wishes the GOP spurns Dr. Paul (do i really need to explain that?)

[i also said in my original post that i have not given up on Dr. Paul within the GOP machine]

And i will admit that upon further research i may have been too hopeful that an Obama VP spot made sense... too hopeful that Dr. Paul CAN mold the younger junior senator...

I can't imagine why my Dem friends would support an invasion of Pakistan that is mentioned above... the more I hear within this post, the more it feels like he's a neocon wolf in democrat sheep's clothing... perhaps a head to head comparison of voting records would help.

DrNoZone
01-06-2008, 04:48 PM
I can't imagine why my Dem friends would support an invasion of Pakistan that is mentioned above... the more I hear within this post, the more it feels like he's a neocon wolf in democrat sheep's clothing... perhaps a head to head comparison of voting records would help.

Last night in the debate he said he would first go the diplomatic route and try to get Pakistan's assistance. If that failed, he would make it clear that we would go into West Pakistan and go after the terrorist elements that had threatened us, but ONLY if there was actionable intelligence that supported this action. It wouldn't be a full scale war, just an operation to go after a specific group. That's an action I might be able to support.

Todd McGreevy
01-06-2008, 05:03 PM
Last night in the debate he said he would first go the diplomatic route and try to get Pakistan's assistance. If that failed, he would make it clear that we would go into West Pakistan and go after the terrorist elements that had threatened us, but ONLY if there was actionable intelligence that supported this action. It wouldn't be a full scale war, just an operation to go after a specific group. That's an action I might be able to support.

Maybe someone can bring this up with Dr. Paul in the town hall meeting... helping define the difference between him and Obama?

I understand that Dr. Paul supported, via powers granted in the constitution, a bill to track down and capture/kill Osama bin Laden... i wish he would bring that up more often, and then call out how neither Clinton or Bush admins have been able to take care of business... but with the power of the Constitution he would deliver.

han_solo
01-06-2008, 05:23 PM
WHY would Ron Paul want to join with a pro-MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SOCIALIST ???!!

Some of you people just don't get it...

Todd McGreevy
01-06-2008, 06:01 PM
WHY would Ron Paul want to join with a pro-MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SOCIALIST ???!!

Some of you people just don't get it...

It was a HYPOTHETICAL question, inspired by Dr. Paul waxing poetically about Obama and his supporters last night on the ABC/Facebook debate. And if we can't exercise the arts of dialog, research, compromise and innovation, you are just going to get more of the same dynasty leadership that erodes our liberty and puts our children in debt.

Let's face it, Obama turned out the vote. Democrats turned out the vote TWO TO ONE, in Iowa.
He has a better machine to engage the college kids than Ron Paul does. He has as good a shot at recruiting indies as Ron Paul does.
(here's a refresher on this that i posted at the very beginning: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/20969)

So wake up and start having a discussion. I have learned alot about Obama just from reading everyone's input here. Ron Paul supporters BETTER know more about Obama in case by some miracle he does get the nod.

I have stated several times that I am not giving up the ghost on the GOP to nominate Ron Paul yet (he IS a long distance runner!)... but (i hope i am wrong), the establishment and elites within the GOP and the Dems are not going to let upstarts like Obama or Paul get the nod, certainly not the way the mainstream press is running things, and with so much war profiteering at stake.

This was simply a suggestion at evaluating a truly alternative ticket.. a hybrid that would really bring folks together... Dr. Paul himself has stated he has many friends on the other side of the aisle... he gets that there are as many issues that join us as divide us... you are just falling into the trap of the duopoly that the power brokers in the two parties want to maintain.. pit one against the other and split the loot every 4 years.

i am not saying i agree with all of Obama's stances and as stated earlier in this thread, he would have to cede to Dr. Paul on many many issues... because guess what? If Bloomberg gets in as a 3rd party spoiler, how do you think that will go down.. .then we can really expect Hillarycare.

I am willing to be proven wrong and that is why I posted this.
thanks, TM

Xonox
01-06-2008, 06:04 PM
Well, if you could get both of them on the ticket, yes. Would it be functional at all? No.

literatim
01-06-2008, 06:14 PM
Wow, I'm glad someone started this debate up! I actually watched the entire debate last night, both the R's and D's. I have always been impressed with Obama, even if I don't agree with him on some things (vehemently so in some cases). But, I came away thinking to myself "boy, I would LOVE to see an Obama/Paul ticket, I don't even care which one was P and which was VP, as long as they both agreed to work with one another on things." I think that's the only way we'll see RP in the White House, to be frank, and I would support it 110%.

Ok, you can call me a troll now.

You want a member of the Council on Foreign Relations on the same ticket as Paul? Are you freaking insane?

Anyone who voted yes is crazy.

werdd
01-06-2008, 06:16 PM
no.

azam
01-06-2008, 06:57 PM
Oil and water does not really blend well togather.

Minlawc
01-08-2008, 10:50 AM
You want a member of the Council on Foreign Relations on the same ticket as Paul? Are you freaking insane?

Anyone who voted yes is crazy.

I have to say something.

If Paul is offered Obama's VP, he should deffinitely take it. Would it be easier to spread your message through Congess or through Vice Presidency? I think it would be very stupid not to accept such a high position.

Todd McGreevy
01-11-2008, 11:31 PM
OK, the more i learn about Obama, i agree with the earlier posters here:
"Step away from the bong"
or
"Get back on your meds."

Thank you for indulging me in the exercise... I was only hypothesizing on strategic electability, fueled by Ron Paul's statements about Obama and his supporters during the ABC/Facebook debate.

Ideologically, especially on foreign aid, Obama looks to be OWG and will sacrifice our sovereignty in the name of more big government control.

Even Bloomberg, a potential indy candidate purportedly supports the Patriot Act, however that is according to a news site, not my own research.

Unfortunately Ron Paul's platforms are not very popular amongst any candidate or potential candidate, thus difficult to seek strategic partnerships...

Alas, i find comfort in the rEOVLution Ron Paul has fueled and his ideas will eventually win the day, otherwise our grandkids are doomed to be debtor slaves with no civil liberties inside a nanny, welfare state always at war with a an enemy we cannot name.

The folks I've met through our Meetup group are already organizing to run for local city council to ensure the restraint of government in our daily lives... and in the end if we can all begin protecting our individual liberties in our back yard, eventually these national elections will be meaningless.

Mini-Me
01-12-2008, 09:57 AM
Guys, whether a Paul/Obama ticket can win the Presidency is IRRELEVANT. What we need to realize is this one inescapable truth: Ron Paul absolutely has to pick someone exactly like him to be his Vice President, *or there will be too much incentive for someone to assassinate him.*

That means no Romney, no Obama, and no one else who is currently running for President (well, Gravel and Kucinich would "work" in that Paul would be safe, but as they do not share his ideas for government, I don't think he'd be too keen on picking them).

Lexx78
01-13-2008, 11:32 AM
Qft ;)