Monday, February 16, 2009

Angie LaPlante Announces for OKGOP Vice Chair

Today, Angie LaPlante, former Oklahoma County chairman and current Legislative Assistant for State Rep. Ken Miller, announced her candidacy for Oklahoma Republican Party Vice Chair. The announcement was made in the following email obtained by the Muskogee Politico:
Greetings all,

I am running for the State GOP Vice-Chair position! It is imperative that we keep our Republican party in tact and strong. I can bring many great things to the table. I am a strong grassroots activist, proven solid leader, work extremely well as a team player and believe that those who work from the bottom up get more accomplish and succeed. It's about the party and our values. I am going to be quite honest and frank with you all... if you don't want to see our party taken over by the Libertarian agenda, we need to make sure we elect those who do not have a personal agenda to destroy our party.

If you missed your precinct meeting (due to weather - which many did) it is not too late to participate in the upcoming conventions. Just contact your county chairman and you can be included in the upcoming process.

The OK County Convention is Saturday, Feb 28 at 8:30am at the Christian Heritage Academy in Del City. Our county chairman is Pam Pollard. She can be reached at 820-8154 or pampollardgop@aol.com. The state convention will be held Saturday, April 18 at 8:30am at the Clarion Meridian in OKC. In order to voice you vote you must be able to attend these conventions. If you are in another county, just check with the state HQ at 528-3501 and Jay Mandraccia can assist you.

I hope I can count on your voice and vote in the upcoming conventions. It's about our party and keeping our conservative values. Please spread the word!

Thank you
Angie LaPlante
Thus far, LaPlante is the only publicly announced candidate for Vice Chair. Candidates for the Chairmanship are current Chairman Gary Jones and current Vice Chair Cheryl Williams.

24 comments:

Josh B said...

There is another term for libertarianism... Paleo-conservatism. Long live the Republic, Ron Paul was right... Fight for truth, peace, justice, the bill of rights, the Constitution, limited government and liberty for all. Name one problem you have with libertarian agenda. I would be happy to discuss how true conservatism and libertarianism have much in common.

Butchey Weinstein said...

This skank is exactly what's wrong with our party and what's cost us the last two elections. We need to all let our voices be heard. Not just by voting for Cheryl, but by doing so in such overwhelming numbers that LaPlante runs and cries while the rest of us laugh. It's time for some idealogical cleansing within the party, folks, and this is as good a place to begin as any.

Anonymous said...

I get the uneasy feeling that many in the Party today have forgotten the Reagan years and what he actually stood for:

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." --Ronald Reagan

I believe Ms. LePlante's words betray where she really stands. Those fearful of the "libertarian" wing of the Party are not only out of touch with the principles that Reagan advocated so well, but would sooner "reach across the aisle" to the Left than embrace the Goldwater/Reagan Right in their own Party.

Rightwinger said...

"The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianiam" -Ronald Reagan. Ms. Laplante is out of touch with TRUE republicans if she thinks she can separate conservatives and libertarians. Those republicans who are afraid of the party being taken over by libertarians are what we call NEO-CONS! I am ashamed of Ms. Laplante trying to separate the party in order to keep power. Quit trying to divide us! We have a LIBERAL president in office that needs to be removed and she is worried about new people in the republican party who have many of the same beliefs? It really sounds like she is afraid of losing power. I personally will not be voting Angie for vice-chair. We Republicans should be voting for someone who will help bring us together, not someone to divide us and conquer.

James Ashley said...

We obviously need to find a "true" Republican who actually believes in the things the party is *supposed* to stand for. Someone to stand up and run against this neo-con coward.

Electing people who call themselves Republicans does absolutely no good if they turn around and betray the country (and the Constitution) the way Bush did.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me that the Ron Paul/Libertarian wing of the Republican Party would not consider Ronald Reagan a true libertarian or conservative. After all, wasn't he just another imperialistic, big-spending, war-mongering NEO-CON?

Anonymous said...

Okay Paulies, wake up and repeat after me:

"The Ron Paul campaign is over...
Cheryl Williams is a nut."

"The Ron Paul campaign is over...
Cheryl Williams is a nut."

"The Ron Paul campaign is over...
Cheryl Williams is a nut."

Now, go join the Democrats and bug them for a while!

James Ashley said...

To the first Anonymous coward:
You're right. Reagan was all those things and worse. He also won a real fight against real enemies, as opposed to our current imaginary "war on terror."

He actually spoke about things like freedom and the Constitution, and he took away the bogeyman that big-statists like Ms. LePlante use to terrify the rest of us into submission.

James Ashley said...

To the second anonymous poster:

I'll go away and quit bothering you when you quit trying to enslave me.

Fair enough?

OK Cowboy said...

"...I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is
libertarianism."

- Ronald Reagan, 1975, Reason Magazine

I guess Ronald Reagan wasn't very well liked at the beginning either.

It's too bad that for the last 15-20 years the Democrats have been infiltrating our party and are trying to turn it over to Liberalism and socialism.

OK Cowboy

Anonymous said...

Oh, the drama of it all. You libs. need to just get a life. Quit trying to ruin all our hard work. We have made great progress here in Oklahoma and look forward to progressing even further next year. Trying to take over the party or divide it is not going to help us reach our goals for the next election. Why can't we work out our differences?

"Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell in unity."

James Ashley said...

OK Cowboy:

President Reagan said the right things, but his actions speak louder than his words (as always).

Thomas Jefferson was probably the most libertarian President we ever had. Even he couldn't restrain himself from usurping power when given the temptation (the Louisiana Purchase).

All things considered, I think President Reagan deserves some slack for not being able to stand up to his ideals.

You seem to be taking *way* too short a perspective on this thing.

The big, powerful police-state types have been trying to destroy freedom in America since the end of the Revolution.

The fake Democrat/Republican differences are just a scam. President Washington warned us about a 2-party system. They argue about cosmetic differences while steadily advancing their control-everything agenda.

But it's the only viable political game in town. So we're stuck playing their game by their rules, if we want to have any chance at restoring freedom.

James Ashley said...

Anonymous:

I'd pretend that I'm sorry I'm interfering in "all your hard work." Except that all that hard work is aimed at destroying my freedom.

We can't work out our differences because they're a basic part of life. Some people want to control everyone else, others just want to be left alone.

That's been a basic truth about humanity since the dawn of history.

Anonymous said...

I am most definately NOT trying to destroy your freedom...am I for a ban on owning guns? No, because I believe in the 2nd Amendment Right. I'm totally unhappy with the result on the "stimulus" (really pork) bill. I believe in the Constitution...i'm totally against NAFTA, and the UN, etc. (and much more) And I will say that there are "Republicans" in America who are very liberal and have no reason to be included in our party, but as for Oklahoma I would have to say it is one of the most if not THE MOST conservative states in America. But just because (for example) one Representative in our state believes something that goes against the constitution does not make him/her a "non-conservative", and it does not mean that he's using his/her power to destroy your freedom. If your only option was (what you would call) a somewhat conservative vs. a liberal democrat which would you choose?

"We can't work out our differences because they're a basic part of life. Some people want to control everyone else, others just want to be left alone."

I agree: you want to control, we want to be left alone.

"That's been a basic truth about humanity since the dawn of history."

Or rather...since the fall of man.

James Ashley said...

Oklahoma does lead the country in terms of Conservatism, in most ways.

The main problem is that the social conservatives are desperate to force their interpretation of their religion down my throat. Well, that and most are willing to support anyone who claims to be a Republican, no matter their real stand on issues.

The choice between a liberal Democrat and a Republican who wants to infringe my rights "just a little" is the choice between the lesser of two evils. Infringing the Constitution "just a little" is a lot like being "just a little bit" pregnant.

As long as you don't hurt anyone else or infringe on their property rights (which, I believe, is redundant), I believe you have the right to live your life as you see fit.

The only control I want is over myself, my property, and the fruits of my labor. Well, that and over the politicians who are supposed to represent me.

If I have to have politicians to whom I delegate some power, I want politicians who believe in the Constitution. Not people like the current Republican leadership who openly laugh at anyone who mentions it.

Anonymous said...

Ok, so when we are discussing conservatives and Republicans are you referring to the ones in Oklahoma or more or less on a national level?

"The main problem is that the social conservatives are desperate to force their interpretation of their religion down my throat."

So, are you saying (about social conservatives) someone's lack of support for the unborn and such...or their push for it to be banned at a federal level verses the state?

I agree about the lesser of two evils, I guess my point is this: Example: McCain was definately NOT my first choice for President, but when he became the nominee he more or less became the lesser of the two evils...now my options were to vote for someone else more conservative who wouldn't win (so I was more or less giving my vote away to Obama) or rather support the one of the two main candidates whom I agreed with the most..or not vote at all.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I believe that if the person whom I believe is more conservative doesn't make it, then support the one next in line to what you believe rather than abadoning all together. Everyone has their own personal agenda/belief that affects how they live their life and cast their votes whether they admit it or not. One's idea of conservative my be totally different from another's.

I believe in a Higher Law (the law's of nature and nature's God) and their are some things that no man has a right to take away or regulate....the most important of these is life. Therefore, yes you can live your life the way you want unless it infringes on the rights of others which is why we have punishment for murders, assault, stealing, etc.

I believe in a right to property.
If your representative doesn't line up with everything you believe...why not try in a neigbourly way to compromise with him/her? Kindly let him/her know how you feel on issues and what you would like to see done about them...it may not change their mind but at least you tried and did your part. I believe this should be tried first before trying to overthrow.

James Ashley said...

I'm referring to conservatives at all levels of government. We Oklahomans definitely have things better at lower levels than people in most other states.

But the federal government has usurped so much power and authority that lower levels are almost meaningless. Which is exactly what the Anti-Federalists warned us would happen when they argued against ratifying the Constitution.

The debate over abortion is one example. I don't see how anyone (except a lawyer) can interpret the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence in a way that allows the Federal government any say whatsoever over the matter.

Marriage is probably a better example, though. It is either a religious institution or it's a legal concept. If it's religious in nature, then the government has absolutely no say in the matter: it's protected by the First Amendment. If it's a legal concept, then restricting it to one man and one woman is just cruel discrimination.

The problem with the "Higher Law of God" idea is: who gets to proclaim what it is?

Remember, one of the biggest purposes of our government is [supposedly] to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Your point about McCain vs. Obama vs. some third party candidate might have some weight in other states. In Oklahoma, no third party candidates were allowed on the ballot, and my ballot was rejected when I tried to write in my choice.

So I was left with the choice (as I saw it) between voting for fascism, voting for communism, or not voting for President at all. I tried to get statistics about how many people took my "None of the Above" approach but didn't have any luck.

Besides, McCain was such a shoe-in in Oklahoma that there was never any chance Pres. Obama would get our electoral votes.

I agree with you about the higher rights which no one can take away (and that the right to life is pretty much at the top of the list). The problem is, there are tons of laws on the book which do exactly that.

Let's eliminate all the victimless crimes, all the laws designed to protect me from my own stupidity, and all the laws that exist only to favor one special interest group over another. Then let's get rid of all the laws that try to control the free market (which do nothing but stifle innovation and competition). Let's actually reduce the size and cost of government, instead of just paying it lip service.

Then we can talk about living in a free country.

I have talked to my representatives, and they continue to ignore me. So I want new representatives. The only way to remove incumbents is to convince my fellow citizens that we need a change. Maybe I can convince enough people to shake off their apathy that the incumbents will actually start listening to us, and we won't have to throw them out.

Since the main-stream media has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo...here I am. And I don't plan to just quietly crawl back into my hole so people like Ms. LaPlante can continue to control the details of my life by proxy.

Bob said...

Question to you, Mr. Ashley. Have you ever met Mrs. LaPlante? Ever asked her opinion on political topics? Or are you accusing her of stances on issues, when you really have no idea how she stands on them?

James Ashley said...

I'm basing my opinion upon her statements in the article. She chose to introduce herself to me by telling me that she is anti-Libertarian and that "It's about the party and our values."

Everyone I've ever heard use that particular phrase actually meant "It's about forcing my conservative social values on others" and "It's about continuing Pres. Bush's assault on liberty."

The kind of politician I'll support (Republican, Democrat, or 3rd party) is one who introduces him/herself by talking about rights, justice (not the perverted kind this country has today), and the Constitution.

They could still betray me, but at least our relationship didn't start with "I don't mind your support, as long as you don't actually have any voice."

Anonymous said...

I'm a different anonymous. This is my first time commenting on here.

You're calling voting for John McCain, a man who suffered years of torture for this nation's principles, "fascism"? Come on. Get real. If you want to know what real fascism is, go to Iraq and look at the mass graves of hundreds of thousands of bodies of victims (men, women, and children), many of whom were exterminated after being subjected to rape rooms and torture rooms.

You said, "He also won a real fight against real enemies, as opposed to our current imaginary "war on terror."" Try telling my Tulsan friend who was recently set on fire, had teeth knocked out, and was stabbed with a metal bar in the chest, while serving YOU in Iraq, that these Islamic Fascist are not real enemies and that our war on terror is is just a figment of our imagination.

You said, "Let's eliminate all the victimless crimes, all the laws designed to protect me from my own stupidity". Yeah, we understand your code-talk for you want pot legalized and probably several other drugs, too; because you THINK that it only affects you and no one else. Try telling that to some hard-working, major hours-working recruiters at 71st and Memorial in Tulsa, who are, right now, scrambling to make quota due to having 4 otherwise qualified applicants pop positive for drug use, just this week.

The way I see it, you Ron Paul types are bypassing common sense in many important areas. While I appreciate that you're trying to follow principles that you think are proper, I believe that you're sincerely wrong about several of them; regardless of how sincere you may be, we cannot afford to allow for you to cause the only good party that truly does stand between the U.S. Constitution and the pushers of Communism to become ineffective. Here in Oklahoma, we have to try to be the salt of the earth and I hope that you will not see this as a slam, but rather an invitation to look deeper and try to use the common sense that our nation's founders intended for you to use.

Ok4Ron said...

To those claiming that the "libertarian" wing of the Party is trying to divide the Party, this is not so.

I have been a Republican my whole life. I grew up believing in Ronald Reagan's principles, which were very libertarian-leaning. I believed this is what ALL Republicans were for. Then I grew up and realized that for most people, it's all just a bunch of talk and nothing more.

Not for me. Are we trying to move the Party to the right? Yes! Are we trying to divide in the process? No! Who is being divisive? Mrs. LaPlante is, as evidenced by her statement here. She is demonizing us and accusing us of things that are simply not true. Let the blame for division rest where it belongs: on the likes of Mrs. LaPlante.

Instead of attacking us, you should be helping and working with us! That is, if you truly believe what you say. Instead, I find people like Mrs. LaPlante (and her RINO House Member, Rep. Miller) are far more interested in "reaching across the aisle" to Democrats than working with those to the right of themselves.

Take our current State House. Have you reviewed the bills submitted by our Republicans this session? Almost all of them are INCREASING the size of government in some degree (some small, some large). Most of the handful that actually SHRINK government were authored by, you guessed it, the "libertarian"-leaning Republican Reps who, incidentally, also supported Ron Paul: Charles Key, Mike Ritze, and Jason Murphey.

If you truly believed in the principles you say you do, you would be working with us, not against us.

Ok4Ron said...

To the most recent Anonymous poster, I think you keyed in on a vital issue: effectiveness.

Is our Party currently effective? Well, we showed that (thanks in large part to Obama's candidacy) we were able to win a majority in both houses. But effectiveness isn't measured in how many seats you can win - it is measured in what kind of policy comes out the other end. And it is precisely on this point that I believe we still have a long ways to go.

If you'll read my previous post, you'll find my reference to the fact that it is precisely the libertarian-conservatives (mostly those who supported Ron Paul, who you criticize so much) who have authored the most EFFECTIVE legislation. Granted, some of it is being held up by INEFFECTIVE Republicans, such as Rep. Sue Tibbs who is holding up Rep. Ritze's HB1414 which would allow Oklahomans to have open-carry.

I urge you to review the bills submitted in the House this session. I've looked over a little over half of them so far (there are over 1,400) and so far I can safely say that the VAST majority (probably about 90%+) of our Republican representatives are doing pretty much NOTHING to reverse the growth of government that took place under the Democrats these past years. And in the case of some of the leadership, they are blocking the more conservative bills coming through!

That is the kind of status-quo, business-as-usual that all too many Republicans are satisfied with - as long as we keep winning elections. I, for one, demand more. I expect that those who run on a conservative platform (such as Rep. Sue Tibbs when she ran as a gun-rights conservative) to actually do their part to IMPLEMENT that platform. Talk is cheap. And except for the more libertarian-conservatives, that is all we're getting from our Republican delegation: talk.

Effectiveness is precisely what we are concerned about. We can pat eachother on the back all day long, but if at the end of the day, Big Government still stands, we've wasted our time.

MuskogeePolitico said...

NOTICE: Profanity will not be tolerated on my blog.

Remember that.

Comment re-posted, without the offending language, here:

James Ashley said...

Latest Anonymous (really, it isn't that big a deal to log in, even if you aren't brave enough to use your real name):

I'll try to cover your points in order, with a little heading, since this turned out ridiculously longer than I planned.

Fascism and Senator McCain:

Fascism is a partnership of business and government (against individuals), combined with a virulent kind of "patriotism" where anyone questioning the government is considered a traitor. It's usually supported by a war against some external (or maybe internal) entity, so that freedom can be stolen in the name of solidarity against that enemy. And it has the power to take people prisoner, hold them with no trial, and torture them.

[*That's* what is so bad about Guantanamo, BTW...Habeus Corpus was so important to the Founding Fathers that it was the only right that was specifically included in the original, unamended Constitution. But, of course, all good Republicans know that, right?].

It seizes property on a whim, spies on its own citizens, and has a militarized police force to make sure the people stay firmly squashed under the government's thumb.

That's precisely what we had under President Bush, and what Senator McCain promised to continue. So, yes, I say that a vote for McCain was a vote for fascism.


The "Wars" in Iraq and against terrorism:

I'm truly sorry about your friend. But he's not in Iraq for me. He may (have?) think (thought?) he is (was?). When I volunteered for the first Gulf War, I thought I was doing so to protect my country.

That war wasn't about protecting America or her citizens, and neither is this one. The war (wait...Congress never declared war. Is this a "police action," like Vietnam?) in Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the "War On Terror." President Bush made up one excuse after another about why we had to invade Iraq, and we'll probably never know the real reason he invaded another sovereign country (a move straight out of Nazi Germany's playbook).

[Saddam was a complete [deleted], but dethroning him was not worth the loss of a single American life.]

Iraq has turned into a battle ground against terrorists [mainly because al Qaeda can actually get to us there], but there was absolutely no connection at the start of the war. President Bush admitted this on several occasions.

Al Qaeda has told us repeatedly what they want: our troops out of the Middle East. We don't have any power or authority to be over there in the first place. (Congress giving the President permission to send troops is dodging its Constitutional responsibility to declare war...besides, our troops were there long before this particular round in the conflict started).

I didn't say the terrorists aren't our enemies (though we'd have a lot less of them if we quit pretending we have the right/responsibility to police the rest of the world). I said the war on terror is against an imaginary opponent.

How can we wage war against an emotion? How can we possibly win, when we have no way to tell if/when we have? What about Christian terrorists (yes, there are a few)? What about home-grown terrorists?

Would it have been right to carpet bomb OKC to [hopefully] get Timothy McVeigh?

Every terrorist we kill just leaves friends and family who want revenge. Every innocent victim of "collateral damage" leaves that many more people who hate us.

The so-called "war on terror" is an idea straight out of _1984_. It is a potentially eternal excuse for police-statists to force us to surrender more of our rights.

We're in much more danger from our own police than we are from terrorists. I see at least 1 or 2 examples a day where they've murdered a new innocent victim (and they pretty much always get off scot-free).

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety--Ben Franklin


The "War on Drugs":

There are plenty laws against victimless crimes besides the ones about drugs, but those are the most obvious. Your example is a perfect point against the war on drugs.

If we didn't have the laws dictating what people put in our own bodies (effectively making us slaves to the government, instead of the opposite, as it was intended), those companies would probably not have been doing drug testing in the first place. At the very least, the applicants wouldn't have wasted their time: they'd just have applied to companies that don't have such stupid policies.

(There are jobs where an employer has a legitimate interest in what an employee does in his/her spare time, but not many).

The question of the "war on drugs" (another one of those Orwellian "wars" against an imaginary enemy, BTW) seems like an extremely common-sense one to me. Prohibition against alcohol gave us violence, gangsters, grossly overpowered police, and brutal violations of personal property rights, and it didn't really slow down the drinkers (actually, it shifted Americans toward hard liquor instead of mostly beer). Prohibition against drugs has had exactly the same results.

And this time they didn't even bother with the formality of a Constitutional amendment to give us what amounts to a war against our own citizens.

The war on drugs is evil, because some people are trying to control how others live their lives. It's a total failure on so many levels that it's obviously the wrong approach. And you'd have to be a complete idiot (or a lawyer) to believe that it's Constitutional.

End the war on drugs, and about 90% of our problems as a society go away. Not to mention the chaos it's caused over the rest of the world. I suspect most of us agree that recreational drugs are bad. But the cure has gotten worse than the disease.


Communism, Republicans, and the Constitution:

In case you've never seen this, here's a [fairly] short, simple explanation of why the Communists have pretty much already won in America:
http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html

The Republican party hasn't been standing up for the Constitution against the Democrats. They've been holding hands and marching us straight into totalitarianism, skillfully pretending that they're actually at odds with each other.

The "common sense" the Founding Fathers intended me to use [as I understand it] is this: they believed it was necessary to give the federal government a very tiny snippet of power, carefully constrained and enumerated. They did so with the Constitution, carefully wording it so that an average kid in elementary school could understand exactly what they meant.

A couple of bad Supreme Court decisions later, we have exactly the situation the Anti-Federalists warned us about: a Federal government that can do pretty much anything it wants because, well, it decided it can. That (predictably and inevitably) has led us to a situation where that weak government has grown into the largest employer in the country.

Republicans say we want smaller government, but it grew more under President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress than under any President before him.

Actually, that pretty much happens with each new President, Republican or Democrat. The only difference is which parts each party grows. There are never any meaningful cuts.



Common Sense:

Like I said, when I got out of the military, I really thought the first Gulf War (and Vietnam, Korea, etc) had been about protecting this country I love so much.

It took a lot of time, patience, and care from liberty-loving friends to convince me that I was wrong. To show me how each (in its own way) was nothing but a commercial war to benefit some special interest group(s). I absolutely hated the idea that those heroes who'd risked life and limb [Disclaimer: I'm not in that group...it was effectively over by the time I got out of boot camp. But I did try] had done it for all the wrong reasons.

They showed me that many of the concepts I took for granted as common sense were nothing more than lies that I'd spent my entire life being brain-washed (starting in the government-controlled public schools) to believe. They showed me that our current Federal government has grown even more powerful and controlling (and the taxes more ruinous) than the one we fought the Revolution against. They opened my eyes to what it would be like to live in a free country.

We may be closer to that than anywhere else on Earth, but we're still very far away. Largely because of people in the Republican party who put winning elections in front of actually electing people who care about freedom.

(Even at the state level...a "truth in music" bill seems to be having more success than a bill that would allow open gun carry. Give me a break!)

I could certainly be mistaken in my understanding of certain principles. But I'm not so sure about your implication that sometimes "common sense" must trump principles.

Freedom is a very brittle thing, and I believe it's on the very brink of extinction (if it isn't already dead). Every time you bend a principle, it gets easier and bends further.

What I see is a government that uses smoke and mirrors, the public's ADD, fear (whether it's terrorists or a collapsing economy), hysteria, and 30 second sound bites to pull the wool over our eyes as it steadily steals our freedom. Most people either don't see it happening, aren't willing to admit that what's right in front of their eyes could possibly be true, or they tuck their heads in the sand and hope they'll be able to stay under the Gestapo's radar a little longer.

Republicans are every bit as responsible for this current state of affairs as Democrats. If those two parties (working together) hadn't set up the laws to make any third parties impotent, maybe we'd have a party that actually cares about freedom and the Constitution, instead of just pretending they do.

By the way, I don't consider myself a Ron Paul-type. I agree with him about a lot of issues, and I would have voted for him in the Presidential race, if I'd had that option. But we don't agree about everything, and I've had these opinions since long before I'd ever heard of him.

Maybe you're a lot wiser than I, or have put a lot more thought into these sorts of matters. If you can show me where I'm wrong, I'll happily concede. I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again.

Or maybe you're just one of the people who've been mismanaging my political party for so long.

James Ashley said...

I sincerely apologize for my use of language that you consider profane.

I thought that a word that I heard on the playground in the 3rd grade would be acceptable when pointed to a mass-murderer (personally, I think that term is much more offensive than the one I used originally...are you going to censor it also?)

Whatever. It's your blog, and I thank you for the chance to express my opinion here.

I'll just close by noting that, sometimes, profanity is the only way to get your point across. I was tempted to express what I really think [thought] about Saddam Hussein, but you've already told me such language is not welcome.