xara Posté 16 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 16 janvier 2008 Je ne sais pas ce que tu appelles une preuve, mais à mes yeux un témoignage de première main en est une de preuve. Je pensais par exemple à un échange de courriers signés, ce genre de choses. Un témoignage "de première main", je me méfie tant que ça demeure du racontard. Le premier que j'ai vu, c'est celui de Dondero, dont il est question dans l'article qu'a posté Lucilio. Mais un problème est que ce type est super néo-con et qu'il n'est pas toujours facile de faire le tri entre les désaccords politiques et les attaques contre la personne. De plus, il peut y avoir les animosités personnelles qui viennent s'en mêler. Pour le reste, d'accord, la plupart des trucs écrits sont borderline, mais il y en a beaucoup et certains vont quand même au-delà de ce qui est acceptable.Et oui, il est clair que les autres utilisent ces newsletters pour casser le Mises. Je me sens plus proche du Mises que d'eux sur nombre de points, mais il faut reconnaître que Lew et compagnie ont tout fait pour être vulnérables à ce type de critique. Rockwell a pas mal fait le ménage sur LRC pour autant que je sache mais je suis d'accord, ils se sont exposés, c'est clair. Cf. la période Rockwell-Rothbard Report.
Roniberal Posté 17 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 17 janvier 2008 Ça on le savait déjà. Certes mais j'aurais aimé qu'il bouscule un peu plus les lignes. Alors, certes, son score n'est pas ridicule, loin s'en faut, mais il est totalement insuffisant pour espérer au mons titiller les favoris. Je crois hélas qu'il peut plier bagage.
José Posté 17 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 17 janvier 2008 Paul's ApologySay it ain't so, Dr. No. Jacob Sullum | January 16, 2008 Ron Paul is not just a rare politician. The Texas Republican's combination of principle and plainspokenness, which has helped his presidential campaign break fund-raising records while attracting a strikingly diverse and enthusiastic crowd of supporters, makes him unique in recent U.S. history. Since 1997, as during his terms in the 1970s and '80s, Paul has been the only member of Congress who has consistently taken seriously his oath to "support and defend the Constitution," earning the sobriquet Dr. No by voting against unconstitutional bills his colleagues were eager to support. More than any politician I can recall, Paul seems to say what he believes and believe what he says. That's why it's so disappointing to see his defensive, evasive responses to questions about racially inflammatory articles in newsletters that were published under his name in the '80s and '90s. Not everything you may have heard about the newsletters is true. Contrary to what James Kirchick claims in The New Republic, the newsletters did not offer "kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke." And although various media outlets have described parts of the newsletters as "anti-Semitic," there's little evidence to back up that description in the passages Kirchick cites. But the truth is bad enough. In addition to anti-gay comments that pine for the days of the closet, the newsletters include gratuitous swipes at Martin Luther King, discussions of crime that emphasize the perpetrators' skin color, and dark warnings of coming "race riots." None of it is explicitly racist, and some of it could be written off as deliberately provocative political commentary. Taken together, however, these passages clearly cater to the prejudices of angry white guys who hate gay people and fear blacks. When Paul's opponent in his 1996 congressional campaign pointed to some of this ugly stuff, Paul accused him of taking the quotes "out of context." It was not until a 2001 interview with the Texas Monthly that Paul said his campaign advisers had discouraged him from telling the complete, "confusing" truth about the newsletters: that the most outrageous material had been written by someone else. That is Paul's defense today, and I'm inclined to believe him. The race-baiting newsletter passages do not sound like anything else Paul has said or written in his public life. People who were familiar with the newsletters' production confirm that they were largely ghostwritten and that Paul often did not review them prior to publication. Yet the fact remains that Paul earned money and built his fund-raising list with newsletters that seemed to be aimed at bigots. Given his association with "paleolibertarians" such as Lew Rockwell who sought to construct an anti-statist coalition partly by appealing to racial resentments, he owes his supporters more than accepting "moral responsibility" for inadequately overseeing the newsletters to which he lent his name. In a CNN interview, Paul alternated between acknowledging the legitimacy of this issue and dismissing it as old news dredged up "for political reasons." I'm sure most of his supporters were not familiar with the content of his newsletters. I've been working at the country's leading libertarian magazine on and off since 1989, and it was news to me. If I thought Ron Paul might be president in 2009, I'd have to admit that his newsletter negligence raises questions about his judgment and about the people he'd choose to advise him. But since the value of the Paul campaign lies in promoting the libertarian ideals of limited government, individual freedom, and tolerance, the real problem is that the newsletters contradict this message. On CNN Paul emphasized that racist libertarian is an oxymoron, since libertarians judge people as individuals. He should follow through on that point by identifying the author(s) of the race-baiting material and repudiating not just the sentiments it represents but the poisonous, self-defeating strategy of building an anti-collectivist movement on group hatred. http://www.reason.com/news/show/124417.html
Apollon Posté 17 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 17 janvier 2008 Je maintiens ce que j'ai écrit. On ne parle pas seulement d'hostilité contre l'Iran, ni même de sanctions (politique qui dure depuis bientôt 30 ans) mais d'une "confrontation", que seuls les néo-cons et les Israéliens appellent de leurs voeux.Tu as décidément des problèmes de lecture. L'auteur écrit : "Kissinger has also embraced the neocon concept of "Islamofascism,"". La citation de Kissinger qui suit se résume par le choc entre la civilisation occidentale et l'islamisme radical, la possibilité d'un effet domino à l'envers (l'arrivée de radicaux dans les pays à majorité musulmane) et le danger crucial (on est très au delà du simple terrorisme) que les extrémistes islamiques présentent pour les autres états. Cet argument est donc loin d'être bidon, même si le langage diplomatique de Kissinger évite le terme "islamofascisme". Si tu penses que la guerre du Yom Kippour, la visite de Kissinger à Moscou, le refus des Etats-Unis de négocier avec l'OLP et le passage de l'aide à Israël de 1,5 à 6 milliards de dollars sont des détails, alors il n'est pas surprenant que tu voies des théories du complot partout. C'est effectivement un argument à peu près du niveau des tiens mais qui est juste en l'espèce. Kissinger présente les choses de la façon qui l'arrange, en accord avec son préjugé d'un Islam radical prêt à déferler sur le monde. Strawman. Ni Giraldi ni moi n'avons jamais écrit que Kissinger est néo-con. Normalement, je devrais arrêter la discussion ici (car tu es manifestement de mauvaise foi), mais j'ai juste une dernière chose à ajouter: McCain a lui-même reconnu qu'il sollicite les conseils de Kristol, Kagan et d'autres néo-cons ici: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/spe…dvisers-ON.html Ajouté à ses positions sur la politique étrangère, qui sont exactement les mêmes que celles de Kristol, cela clôt le dossier. Pour Mc Cain, je t'accorde qu'il est probablement entouré de conseillers neocons sans qu'il soit possible de déterminer son propre engagement. Pour l'article de Gilardi, nous n'aurons pas d'accord. Cet article sous-entend avec des arguments hypercritiques que Kissinger est proche des néocons parce que c'est ce que ses lecteurs conspirationistes ont envie de lire. Pour l'Iran je suis prêt à reparier avec toi le même pari pour 2008 si tu le souhaites. Prévoir la victoire d'Hillary Clinton ne démontre en rien de grandes qualités en matière de pronostics.Moi aussi (et ce, y compris après la victoire d'Obama dans l'Iowa), j'ai toujours pensé qu'elle était favorite. Personne ne l'a jamais enterrée. Encore un beau straw man. Ahlala. Que n'as-tu pas exprimé publiquement ton avis sur une victoire d'Hillary entre l'Iowa et le New Hampshire. Tu croyais à sa victoire mais trop modeste, tu m'as laissé seul défendre contre tous l'idée qu'elle gagnerait la prochaine consultation, merci Roniberal. Si tu contestes qu'elle était bien enterrée après la victoire d'Obama, je t'invite à aller lire plus haut dans ce fil. Tu peux pinailler, en effet que le résultat soit conforme à mes prédictions ne prouve pas que j'ai raison. Mais elle prouve que les autres ont tort.
Sous-Commandant Marco Posté 17 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 17 janvier 2008 Pour Mc Cain, je t'accorde qu'il est probablement entouré de conseillers neocons sans qu'il soit possible de déterminer son propre engagement. Je vois en effet mal McCain faisant son coming-out: "Oui, j'avoue, bien que ça risque de me coûter mon élection, je suis néo-con". De toute façon, l'étiquette "neocon" fut créée par dérision et plus grand-monde ne la revendique aujourd'hui. En revanche, sur le fond, les positions de McCain sur la politique étrangère parlent d'elles-mêmes. Pour l'article de Gilardi, nous n'aurons pas d'accord. Cet article sous-entend avec des arguments hypercritiques que Kissinger est proche des néocons parce que c'est ce que ses lecteurs conspirationistes ont envie de lire. Cet article a très clairement une dimension polémique, que l'on peut critiquer si on n'est pas d'accord. Pour autant, rien ne t'autorise à parler pour la énième fois de complot, la tarte à la crème de quelqu'un qui n'a aucun argument intéressant à présenter. Pour l'Iran je suis prêt à reparier avec toi le même pari pour 2008 si tu le souhaites. Un article de Seymour Hersh du mois d'octobre m'incite à être très prudent avec l'argent que je gagne sur des paris moins risqués.
Roniberal Posté 17 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 17 janvier 2008 Que n'as-tu pas exprimé publiquement ton avis sur une victoire d'Hillary entre l'Iowa et le New Hampshire. Effectivement, je n'ai rien exprimé, tu peux aller fouiller mes posts autant que tu le souhaites, de toute façon, je m'aventure TRES TRES rarement à faire des pronostics. Il y a plus de six mois, j'avais ouvert un fil, expliquant que je pensais que Giuliani remporterait l'investiture républicaine car il me semblait à même (du moins, en apparence car, personnellement, je n'ai aucune confiance en ce con) de rassurer les Américains et que son expérience du 11 Septembre et sa carrure "internationale" (c'est d'ailleurs le seul candidat républicain, outre McCain, que les candidats connaissaient avant la campagne) jouait en sa faveur. Maintenant, si rien n'est perdu pour lui (hélas!), les choses sont plus compromises et je vois bien Romney (ce que je ne souhaites qu'à peine plus!) arriver en finale mais je dis ça sans conviction forte. Pour Clinton/Obama, je te défie de me montrer UN SEUL post où j'ai dit qu'elle était cuite et qu'Obama serait le futur finaliste. UN SEUL! Tu croyais à sa victoire mais trop modeste, tu m'as laissé seul défendre contre tous l'idée qu'elle gagnerait la prochaine consultation, merci Roniberal. Tu sais, les concours de quéquette, "je défends ceux qui pensent qu'Hillary Clinton gagnera", "je défends ceux qui pensent qu'Obama gagnera" ne m'intéressent pas. Si tu contestes qu'elle était bien enterrée après la victoire d'Obama, je t'invite à aller lire plus haut dans ce fil. Et bien, je viens de relire le fil et, mis à part melo, je n'ai vu personne avancer un quelconque pronostic. Et même si j'ai oublié quelqu'un, on serait très loin du "j'avais raison contre tout le monde" dont tu te targues très présomptueusement… Tu peux pinailler, en effet que le résultat soit conforme à mes prédictions ne prouve pas que j'ai raison. En effet. Mais elle prouve que les autres ont tort. Ben voyons, avant de l'affirmer, il faudrait déjà identifier "les autres". Mais effectivement, je te l'accorde, les médias français se sont un peu vite précipités en expliquant que si elle ne gagnait pas le caucus du New Hampshire, elle pouvait arrêter sa campagne et rentrer à la maison. Mais ça, je l'ai toujours pensé et n'ai jamais eu la moindre confiance en le jugement de nos chers journaleux…
Chitah Posté 17 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 17 janvier 2008 de toute façon, je m'aventure TRES TRES rarement à faire des pronostics. Sauf dans une activité humaine consistant à chercher à mettre un ballon au fond d'une cage gardée par un monsieur appuyé par onze copains faisant de même….
Roniberal Posté 17 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 17 janvier 2008 Sauf dans une activité humaine consistant à chercher à mettre un ballon au fond d'une cage gardée par un monsieur appuyé par onze copains faisant de même…. Tu sais bien que, dans le fil que tu cites, je suis volontairement de mauvaise foi.
Chitah Posté 17 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 17 janvier 2008 Tu sais bien que, dans le fil que tu cites, je suis volontairement de mauvaise foi. Juste dans ce fil-là, hein…… Mais effectivement, je te l'accorde, les médias français se sont un peu vite précipités en expliquant que si elle ne gagnait pas le caucus du New Hampshire, elle pouvait arrêter sa campagne et rentrer à la maison. Mais ça, je l'ai toujours pensé et n'ai jamais eu la moindre confiance en le jugement de nos chers journaleux… La campagne 2004 (c'est ça non?) opposant en finale Kerry et Bush, avec une énorme raclée pour le candidat des forces de progrès au grand dam de la classe journalistique française a été un grand moment. Après le verdict des urnes, qu'ont-ils dit pour leur défense? "Ouais, bon, c'est pas de jeu, Bush a fait une campagne sur le thème de la peur, alors vu que les américains sont incultes, ils ont mal voté…." La mine déconfite à l'annonce des premiers résultats de je ne sais plus quelle correspondante à Washington (Memonna Hintermann peut-être, ou une autre) m'a fait mourir de rire.
Apollon Posté 17 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 17 janvier 2008 Je vois en effet mal McCain faisant son coming-out: "Oui, j'avoue, bien que ça risque de me coûter mon élection, je suis néo-con". On nous cache tout on nous dit rien… Encore… Effectivement, je n'ai rien exprimé, tu peux aller fouiller mes posts autant que tu le souhaites, de toute façon, je m'aventure TRES TRES rarement à faire des pronostics.Il y a plus de six mois, j'avais ouvert un fil, expliquant que je pensais que Giuliani remporterait l'investiture républicaine car il me semblait à même (du moins, en apparence car, personnellement, je n'ai aucune confiance en ce con) de rassurer les Américains et que son expérience du 11 Septembre et sa carrure "internationale" (c'est d'ailleurs le seul candidat républicain, outre McCain, que les candidats connaissaient avant la campagne) jouait en sa faveur. Maintenant, si rien n'est perdu pour lui (hélas!), les choses sont plus compromises et je vois bien Romney (ce que je ne souhaites qu'à peine plus!) arriver en finale mais je dis ça sans conviction forte. Pour Clinton/Obama, je te défie de me montrer UN SEUL post où j'ai dit qu'elle était cuite et qu'Obama serait le futur finaliste. UN SEUL! Ouhla 10 lignes pour me dire que tu es d'accord avec ce que j'ai écrit : tu n'as pas soutenu que HC était cuite après l'Iowa, en fait je crois que tu n'étais pas sur le forum ces jours-là. Moi je prends du risque, j'ai dit qu'elle gagnerait… et j'avais raison. Ceci dit, tu écris un peu au-dessus que tu as toujours pensé (rétrospectivement) que HC gagnerait, j'en prends bonne note. Et bien, je viens de relire le fil et, mis à part melo, je n'ai vu personne avancer un quelconque pronostic. Et même si j'ai oublié quelqu'un, on serait très loin du "j'avais raison contre tout le monde" dont tu te targues très présomptueusement… Il y avait aussi au minimum Kobsh et SCM sur le forum. Mais je ne visais pas que le forum : nos médias et l'état d'esprit général, qui se sont bien enflammés. La campagne 2004 (c'est ça non?) opposant en finale Kerry et Bush, avec une énorme raclée pour le candidat des forces de progrès au grand dam de la classe journalistique française a été un grand moment. Après le verdict des urnes, qu'ont-ils dit pour leur défense?"Ouais, bon, c'est pas de jeu, Bush a fait une campagne sur le thème de la peur, alors vu que les américains sont incultes, ils ont mal voté…." La mine déconfite à l'annonce des premiers résultats de je ne sais plus quelle correspondante à Washington (Memonna Hintermann peut-être, ou une autre) m'a fait mourir de rire. Je ne me rappelle plus très bien : ils pleuraient leur champion ou leurs pronostics (et leur champion)? (tiens tu te sensibilises au caractère néfaste des progressistes?)
Roniberal Posté 17 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 17 janvier 2008 Ouhla 10 lignes pour me dire que tu es d'accord avec ce que j'ai écrit : tu n'as pas soutenu que HC était cuite après l'Iowa, en fait je crois que tu n'étais pas sur le forum ces jours-là. Je n'y étais pas entre le 7 et le 16 mais entre le 4 et le 7 (c'est-à-dire après la victoire d'Obama), oui. Il y avait aussi au minimum Kobsh et SCM sur le forum. Je ne trouve pas. kobsh a juste dit que si Obama gagnait dans le New Hampshire et le Michigan, ça jouerait psychologiquement en sa faveur. Il a raison! Quant à SCM, il s'est contenté de dire que la défaite de Clinton dans l'Iowa était une bonne nouvelle. Il a également raison!
Apollon Posté 17 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 17 janvier 2008 Je ne trouve pas. kobsh a juste dit que si Obama gagnait dans le New Hampshire et le Michigan, ça jouerait psychologiquement en sa faveur. Il a raison!Quant à SCM, il s'est contenté de dire que la défaite de Clinton dans l'Iowa était une bonne nouvelle. Il a également raison! Kobsh a parié avec moi sur la victoire d'HC et a écrit que j'allais "raquer", SCM a défendu la crédibilité de l'hypothèse d'une fraude des partisans de HC pour expliquer sa victoire qui contredit les sondages qu'il a produit.
Bastiat Posté 18 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 18 janvier 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/11/mcc…e.ap/index.html WASHINGTON (AP) -- John McCain is proposing an overhaul of the nation's health care system, aiming to give people more control and choice while encouraging greater competition, lower costs and improved services.# Allowing people to buy health insurance nationwide instead of limiting them to in-state companies, and permitting people to buy insurance through any organization or association they choose as well as through their employers or directly from an insurance company. # Providing tax credits of $2,500 to individuals and $5,000 to families as an incentive to help them buy insurance. All people would get the tax credit even if they get insurance through work or buy it on their own. # Supporting different methods of delivering care, including walk-in clinics in retail outlets across the country, and developing routes for cheaper generic versions of drugs to enter the U.S. market, including allowing for safe importation of drugs. Il à l'air plutôt bien ce McCain comme second best. Si seulement on pouvait avoir ce type de propositions en france.
xara Posté 18 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 18 janvier 2008 Pour que ce soit dit et clair, je n'aime toujours pas Ron Paul mais je trouve les accusations de racisme à son égard completement infondées. Le fait que ce soit repris par une partie des libertariens pour attaquer certaines idées défendues par le Mises institute (rôle du Nord dans la guerre de secession par exemple) est encore pire. Ca devient OK Coral entre le Cato et le Mises par Ron Paul interposé, ce genre de dispute ne présage rien de bon. Suite aux relais dans le monde libertarien des attaques contre Paul et surtout Rockwell et le Mises Institute, Justin Raimondo a pondu un article acidulé dont il a le secret. Ca fait très mal. Ce qui est intéressant je trouve, c'est sa remise dans le contexte de certaines citations limites de la newsletter. Le gars du New Republic est grillé là. Saisissant! (cf. la version sur le site pour les liens intégrés dans le texte) Why the Beltway Libertarians Are Trying to Smear Ron PaulPosted by Justin Raimondo on January 18, 2008 The hysteria that is energizing the campaign to smear Ron Paul and his supporters as “racist” is reaching a crescendo of viciousness, as the Beltway “libertarian” crowd revs up its motors for a righteous purge. Writing in the online edition of Reason magazine, David Weigel and Julian Sanchez (the latter of the Cato Institute) aver that the whole brouhaha is rooted in a “strategy” enunciated by the late Murray N. Rothbard, the economist and author, and Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, designed to appeal to “right-wing populists”: “During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist “paleoconservatives,” producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed byThe New Republic. “….The most detailed description of the strategy came in an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992 Rothbard-Rockwell Report, titled “Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement.” Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an “Outreach to the Rednecks,” which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes. (Duke, a former Klansman, was discussed in strikingly similar terms in a 1990 Ron Paul Political Report.) These groups could be mobilized to oppose an expansive state, Rothbard posited, by exposing an “unholy alliance of ‘corporate liberal’ Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America.” Reason, of course, in it’s new incarnation as the official organ of the libertarian movement’s aging hipsters and would-be “cool kids,” vehemently opposes reaching out to middle and working class Americans: that is far too “square” for the black-leather-jacket-wearing Nick Gillespie, formerly associated with something called Suck magazine, and Matt Welch, who was an unknown quantity before getting the job at Reason. Right-wing populism? As far as the Suck-y crowd is concerned, one might as well tout the appeal of “right-wing botulism.” Libertarianism, as understood by the editors of Reason, is all about legalizing methamphetamine, having endless “hook-ups,” and giving mega-corporations tax breaks (so Reason can keep scarfing up those big corporate contributors). The decidedly “square” Dr. Paul—a ten-term Republican congressman from Texas, no less, and a pro-life country doctor of decidedly conservative social views—was and is anathema to Team Suck. What would the “Smearbund” do without David Duke? No smear campaign is complete without dragging him into it. No matter what the subject—the Iraq war, the Mearsheimer and Walt book, affirmative action—if you take the politically incorrect position, according to the neocons, then you’re marching shoulder-to shoulder with the former Klansman and professional nut-job. And sure enough, the Kirchick piece takes the Paul newsletter to task for supposedly having “kind words” for Duke. Yet, if you go and read what the newsletter says about Duke, it is clear the author was merely saying Duke’s success is due to his opposition to affirmative action and the welfare state: indeed, Kirchick cites a passage (without citing it in full) in which Duke is taken to task for his lack of a “consistent package of freedom.” Yet the willfully ignorant Radley Balko, another Cato type, avers: “I simply can’t imagine seeing any piece of paper go out under my name that included sympathetic words for David Duke. That a newsletter with Paul’s name did just that demands an explanation from Paul.” The explanation, which would be apparent if Balko had actually cited what is written, is that these weren’t sympathetic words for Duke, per se, or his political ambitions, but for the issues—legitimate issues—that he raised (and exploited) in his Louisiana campaign. After all, libertarians such as Paul reject affirmative action, racial set-asides, and all other forms of state-enforced special treatment for “minorities” precisely because they oppose racism, or any form of collectivism. By the way, libertarians also oppose so-called civil rights legislation that outlaws discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or disability, because it violates the rights of property-owners. William F. Buckley Jr. famously derided libertarian (and “right-wing populist”) opposition to such legislation as valorizing Lester Maddox’s refusal to “serve a Negro a plate of pork chops.” Buckley’s quip surely underscored the venality and small-mindedness of Maddox and his ilk—and yet, lost in all this, is the reality of the libertarian position, which is that people have the right to be venal, small-minded, and, yes, viciously, stupidly, horribly wrong, provided they don’t initiate the use of force. The utter dishonesty of the Reason crowd, when it comes to this issue, is breathtaking. Balko laments that “Unfortunately, the quotes pulled from these newsletters will for many only confirm those worst stereotypes of what he represents. The good ideas Paul represents then get sullied by association. The Ann Althouses of the world, for example, are now only more certain that opponents of federal anti-discrimination laws should have to prove that they aren’t racist before being taken seriously.” It’s all about impressing Ms. Althouse, the notoriously dyspeptic and cranky lawyer-blogger-know-it-all. Gee, that’s the first time in a long time I’ve heard a single one of the Reasonites declare their opposition to anti-discrimination laws: perhaps it is the first mention of it in the online supplement to the magazine. Because, of course, such a position is starkly counterposed to today’s au courant political correctness, an atmosphere in which all criticism of, say, Barack Obama is typified as racist agitation. The fear of being branded a “racist” is so all-pervasive that it has had an appreciable effect on the polls: exit polls in New Hampshire foreshadowed an Obama-sweep that never materialized. Democratic primary voters were ashamed to say they hadn’t voted for Obama: talk about white liberal guilt! The charges leveled at Paul by his accusers both the neocons, and the “libertarian” and leftist enablers, are therefore especially toxic this election season. Yet when one examines Paul’s alleged “hate crimes,” I can come up with only four sentences, lifted out of context, that are out of bounds: “[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin.” “I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” “We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.” “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.” These statements are offensive, and I’d bet my bottom dollar that Ron Paul not only didn’t write them, but never read. (One might quibble about the “fleet-footed” quip: it seems more like a compliment, albeit a left-handed one, rather than an insult—but never mind.) It isn’t Paul’s style or voice. In any case, when we examine the rest of the statements Kirchick cites, in context, it becomes immediately apparent that the “libertarian” witch-hunters out for Paul’s scalp didn’t even bother to read the newsletters in their entirety before they broke into a chorus of denunciations. A former beltway wonk has published an excellent chronology of the various postings by the Reason/Cato/neocon crowd after the Kirchick piece was published and the pdf files of the newsletters were posted by Pajamas Media, on January 8. He makes it clear that what he calls the “Orange Line Mafia” didn’t have time to go through and read the material in the newsletters before firing their fusillades: “The Ron Paul Newsletters are voluminous and even a small fraction of them could not possibly be read in the very few hours that passed between the posting of the actual newsletters (the afternoon of the 8th) and the smear campaigners’ posts (also the afternoon of the 8th). All of these ‘hit and run’ blog posts, except Kirchick’s original, must then be based on Kirchik’s piece rather than on actual reading and analysis of the newsletters. Clearly the purpose of these posts was not to initiate a thoughtful discussion of the newsletters, it was to spin libertarian voters on the most crucial election day short of the November general elections.” It was a rush job, and a sloppy one at that, because, on closer examination, the material that is being called “racist” turns out to be no such thing. When we go to the source of the above, and other examples cited by Kirchick, we come to a rather conventionally conservative analysis of the Rodney King riots of 1992: the rioters are condemned, the Koreans are valorized, and the culture of black entitlement and its relation to the welfare state are delineated in no uncertain terms. Nothing, in short, that would be out of place in any conservative magazine. The above-cited phrase about the enemy being defined “by the color of their skin” is here placed in its original context: “Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficulty avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.” In context, the author was clearly saying that people will draw unfair conclusions – that racism will increase—as a direct consequence of the Los Angeles riots. How, exactly, is that “racist”? If anything, it’s a warning that the sociological consequences of statist policies – and the failure of the elites to address them—will lead to the rise of the David Dukes of this world, if more responsible politicians don’t face them head on. In linking to the source, one wonders if Pajamas Media isn’t really trying to help the Paul campaign win over conservative Republicans – because I don’t think many would disagree with much of it. Another phrase that has been lifted out of context—“only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions—placed in context reads quite differently: “Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit—not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people.” The idea that people are not to be treated as representatives of racial groups is the antithesis of bigotry. While the author of the above is most emphatically anti-racist, he is also anti-looter, anti-violence, and justifiably angry at the sight of white motorists being pulled out of their cars by thugs of whatever color. The author of TNR’s hit piece was a mere babe when the Los Angeles riots scorched the national consciousness, and his reaction to the description of the rioters—and the circumstances surrounding it—is untouched by either experience or understanding. The crudeness of Kirchick’s cut-and-paste method shows how little he cares for the concept of truth. In the context of a discussion about Paul alleged antipathy to blacks, he writes that a “June 1991 entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, ‘Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.’ ‘This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,’ the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author—presumably Paul—wrote, ‘I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.’” As James Fulford points out, however: “People seem to think that he was calling blacks ‘animals.’ This was actually the Mount Pleasant riots, the largest in DC since the 1968 Martin Luther King riots, and it was immigrant Hispanics rioting against the African-American city government, so that’s not what what’s going on here, it’s just a normal headline like ‘Inmates Take Over Asylum.’” But what matters the color of the rioters’ skin? Are we not allowed to say what is, or must fear reduce our language to strings of euphemism? Is every word to be examined and measured in terms of its political correctness quotient? Thus do self-righteous little prigs of Kirchick’s ilk seek to define what’s legitimate and what’s not. It’s all downhill from there. Kirchick goes after Paul on the basis of his association with the scholars at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and a brilliant writer by the name of Thomas E. Woods, whose Politically Incorrect Guide to American History is a runaway bestseller among conservatives and is issued by Regnery, the Fox News of the publishing world. Again, nothing out of the conservative mainstream – a point that will no doubt horrify the readers of The New Republic. But that’s not many people, these days. The idea that opposition to Lincoln idolatry is evidence of “racism” is absurd, as any serious person would immediately recognize. Is anyone really surprised that Paul doesn’t idolize an American President who locked up his political opponents, repealed the writ of habeas corpus, and closed down opposition newspapers? Give me a break. It’s not for nothing that the academic branch of the Lincoln cult is headquartered over at Claremont College, where the more extreme neocons hold sway: they openly admire his authoritarian methods That may be news to what’s left of The New Republic’s readers, but I doubt much of anyone else finds this beyond the pale, never mind proof of “racism.”. Kirchick is shocked—shocked!—by the idea that secession can be a legitimate means to achieve one’s political objectives. He equates this with “support for the Confederacy” – but then one has to ask how the Soviet empire imploded so quickly and relatively bloodlessly. Wasn’t it because individuals, as well as the captive nations, seceded from the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”? Kirchick pays tribute to his “libertarian” collaborators, averring “The people surrounding the von Mises Institute—including Paul—may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine.” They, of course, would never endorse the idea of secession. Or would they? In any case, there are some pretty odd formulations in Kirchcik’s essay: “To be fair,” he concedes, “The newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were ‘the only people to act like real Americans,\’ it explained, ‘mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.’” One wonders on what other basis the author of this newsletter piece could have praised the Asian merchants of Los Angeles—just because they’re Asian? Yet why should someone merit accolades for what they are, rather than on account of the content of their character? To do so would be—dare I say it?—racist. Another odd touch to this slapped-together smear job is that Kirchick and his pals point to the Paul newsletter’s claim that the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party was involved in helping to trigger the Los Angeles riots as yet more proof of “conspiracism,” but as the RCP’s Wikipedia entry puts it: “The RCP upheld the 1992 uprising in Los Angeles and nationally as a “rebellion” in the aftermath of the Rodney King verdicts. Then-LAPD chief Daryl Gates alleged that the RCP was involved in the riots. Los Angeles has long been one of the RCP’s larger and more active branches.” I suppose little Jamie Kirchick, who was something like four years old when the riot occurred, knows more about what happened than the chief of police. Or is Daryl Gates, too, a “conspiracist”? More malarkey from Monsieur Kirchick. (For what it’s worth, David Horowitz concurs.) The rhetoric aimed at Martin Luther King is really odd, considering that the Ron Paul campaign is launching its latest “money bomb” on the civil rights leader’s birthday. In addition, Paul himself has praised MLK as an exemplar of nonviolent civil disobedience. It is true, however, as the newsletter avers, that King had some connections to Communist Party members, and had the full support of the CP. Without the Communists, there would have been hardly any civil rights movement, especially in the early years. In addition, the Rev. King was indeed a philanderer of epic proportions, as are many strong-willed individuals of the male persuasion. Why be prudish about it? Suddenly the “libertines” of swingin’ Reason magazine are blushing virgins, but, somehow, it’s not a very convincing act. According to Daniel Koffler, a former Reason staffer now at Pajamas Media, whose compendium of Paul’s un-PC “pullquotes” was posted shortly after the Kirchick piece went up, the charge of “conspiracism” is supposedly buttressed by a statement in the newsletter to the effect that “Hillary Clnton is the most dangerous politician in America” – in which case, all the GOP presidential candidates are guilty. Are we supposed to take this stuff seriously? As evidence of Paul’s alleged “homophobia,” Kirchick whines that the newsletter writers termed AIDS a “politically protected disease” – and yet that is the same view held by the late Randy Shilts, an openly gay reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, in his book on the epidemic and the political response to it, And The Band Played On. Shilts, who who died of AIDS in the 1980s, describes, at length, how political correctness and fear of “homophobia” delayed the closing of the San Francisco bathhouses that were incubating the epidemic and spread the virus far and wide before the gay community began to wake up. As addle-brained as this tack is, Kirchcikt gets even sillier: “Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said that ‘gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense,’ adding: ‘[T]hese men don’t really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners.” Also, “they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.’” As much as I, a gay guy, hate to admit it, the statement that “gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense” rings true to anyone who lives in what Herb Caean used to call “Baghdad-by-the-Bay” and knows anything about the sexual practices prevalent in the gay community. Priapism as a lifestyle and even a social philosophy is the norm, not the exception, and while that may offend the delicate sensibilities of those rather more priggish homosexuals who want to take the sex out of homosexuality – well, that’s just tough, now isn’t it? And not very realistic. Furthermore, it has been widely reported that some AIDS victims had actually sought out the disease and refer to it as “bug-chasing” and “giving the gift”—albeit some years after the newsletter described such behavior. Kirchick, a sometime gay activist, has got to know about this. Not that he’ll ever admit it. Speaking of “hate crimes,” yet more alleged “evidence” that Paul is a gay-basher is the newsletter’s attacks on hate crimes legislation – which, again, is a pretty standard conservative Republican (and libertarian position). Are the editors of Reason magazine agreeing with Kirchick that opposition to such legislation is de facto “homophobia”? Just asking …. As for the piece on “I Miss the Closet,” now that’s a sentiment I admit to feeling with increasing intensity over the years, as homosexuality devolved into “gayness” and a lifestyle morphed into a political movement—a movement, moreover, that demanded complete ideological conformity on questions ranging from the origins of homosexuality (politically correct answer: it’s genetic) to the desirability of a national “civil rights” bill forbidding “discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation. To disagree with the leaders of this “movement” is to court the charge of “homophobia.” Kirchick is perturbed by Paul’s talk of an “industrial-banking-political elite” – any criticism of bankers, and their federally-insured con-game, is “conspiracism” and probably “anti-Semitic,” too. When the banks get bailed out, us plebeians had better not complain, on pain of facing Kirchick’s wrath. Worse, by Kirchickian standards, Paul is “promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills” – a charge that seems slightly comical, coming as it does during the most precipitous decline of the currency since the phrase “not worth a continental” was coined. I really can’t bear to examine much more of Kirchick’s farrago of falsehoods: it’s like wading through waist-high muck without your pants on. I have to say, however, that this supposedly “devastating” attack on the Paul campaign is devastating, all right – to the author’s reputation as a credible reporter. His writing is crude, his manner slapdash, and his abilities seem to consist primarily of the artful use of ellipses. Intellectually dishonest, inauthentic in its outrage, and unintentionally humorous at times – don’t you realize that it’s a hate-crime to criticize Kirchick’s boss?—TNR’s attempt to portray the avuncular country doctor who preaches liberty, the Norman Thomas of libertarianism, as some sort of neo-Nazi is ludicrous – yet the neocons and their “libertarian” allies persist. Why? “If a person cared about liberty,” asks the blogger who calls himself “a former beltway wonk,” “why would they be eager to mindlessly repeat smears about the most popular libertarian candidate in decades on the very day of the most crucial ‘king-making’ primary in the United States?” It’s no mystery, really: Ron Paul is, in many ways, the exact opposite of the Beltway fake-“libertarians.” He’s a populist: they suck up to power, he challenges the powers-that-be; they go along to get along – he has never gone along with the conventional wisdom as defined by the arbiters of political correctness, Left and Right. And most of all, he’s an avowed enemy of the neoconservatives, whom he constantly names as the main danger to peace and liberty – while the Beltway’s tame “libertarians” are in bed with them, often literally as well as figuratively. In short, the Beltway fake-libs are in bed with the State, and all its works, while contenting themselves with the role of court jester and would-be “reformer” of the system. As long as they don’t challenge anything too fundamental to the continuation of the Welfare-Warfare State, the pet libertines of the neocon-led GOP “coalition” are deemed “urbane” and “cosmopolitan,” the highest compliment the Georgetown party circuit can bestow. Once they begin rocking the boat, as Paul insists on doing, they become fair game for the Smearbund. Another major reason for the antipathy to Paul coming from these quarters is his uncompromising opposition to U.S. foreign policy. A good half of the Reason crowd were pro-war, some ambivalent, and a powerful minority within the Cato Institute rallied to the cause of “liberating” Iraq, or was at least sympathetic to the idea of “exporting” free market liberalism at gunpoint, once the war was a fait accompli. Reason itself took no position on the most important question of the day, I’m told because of the influence of big contributors. And now I learn, from inside sources, that Reason senior editor Brian Doherty, author of the monumental Radicals for Capitalism, a “freewheeling” history of the American libertarian movement, is in danger of being fired because he’s too pro-Paul. The most shameful aspect of this episode is the active role played by the Orange Line Mafia in the smearing of Paul. The Reason/Cato lynch mob is really threatened by the existence of a mass libertarian movement—because it’s a movement over which they have no control. They no longer get to define libertarianism to the general public, and most importantly, the media: who needs them, when we have a much more appealing and successful salesman for liberty? Besides, it’s embarrassing for them: while they’re begging our rulers to allow us just a little freedom, and timidly seek to trim the empire around its rougher edges, Paul and the movement he’s spawned seek a much more radical application of libertarian principles: a consistent anti-statism on the home front, and a call to dismantle the empire before it dismantles the last vestiges of our old republic. Look, I’ve been critical of the Paul campaign—see here—and I have to say I have my issues with the way the operation is being run, and I know I’m not alone in that. I would say that the antiwar message has not been pounded home, and that their strategy—particularly their California strategy – shows a complete lack of understanding of how to get delegates under the new, congressional district-based allocation system. Another major mistake: failing to make opposition to the war and the new imperialism the centerpiece of Paul’s television ads. When the candidate gets up there on stage at the debates and speaks in his own voice, from the heart, he nearly always puts the issue of war and peace front and center. The campaign does Paul a great disservice, however, when they water down his message for some imaginary political gain that has yet to materialize and probably won’t. Yet these criticisms are minor: the overwhelming reality is that the Paul campaign has put libertarianism on the political map as never before—and the Orange Line Mafia just can’t stand it.. Real libertarians can have but one answer to the fifth columnists in their midst, the neocon-enablers and Vichy “libertarians” who hang on every word harpy-like shriek that comes out of Anne Althouse’s gullet: Screw them, and all their works.
Roniberal Posté 19 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 19 janvier 2008 Il à l'air plutôt bien ce McCain comme second best.Si seulement on pouvait avoir ce type de propositions en france. Oui, c'est un bon second best mais c'est tout. Il ne faut pas oublier que c'est un néocon centriste.
kobsh_gigaone Posté 19 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 19 janvier 2008 Oui, c'est un bon second best mais c'est tout.Il ne faut pas oublier que c'est un néocon centriste. pléonasme !
kobsh_gigaone Posté 19 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 19 janvier 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/11/mcc…e.ap/index.htmlIl à l'air plutôt bien ce McCain comme second best. ou pas…. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/03/arizo…n_mccains_t.php Over the course of his twenty-four years in Congress, Senator McCain has cast several positive tax votes. These include a 2006 vote to extend the Bush tax cuts [1]; a 1997 vote to cut capital gains taxes[2]; and 1990 and 1993 votes against President Bush's and President Clinton's tax hikes[3]. To his credit, he has also introduced measures that would require a sixty-vote majority to pass a tax increase[4]. John McCain's overall record on taxes, however, is profoundly disturbing and anti-growth.The reduction of tax rates on income and investment is a cornerstone of limited-government philosophy and economic growth. When the most important pro-growth tax cuts in a generation were proposed by President Bush in 2001 and 2003, Senator McCain vigorously opposed them. The depth of this opposition goes a long way towards tarnishing the Senator's fiscal credentials. First, it is notable that Senator McCain stood so astride the Republican anti-tax position that he was one of only two Republican senators to oppose the 2001 tax cuts[5] and one of only three GOP senators to oppose the 2003 reductions.[6] Second, Senator McCain's stated reason for opposing the Bush tax cuts rhetorically allied him with the most radical anti-growth elements of national politics. Senator McCain argued, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."[7] Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) sounded a similar theme, saying, "Now, they are proposing more of the same, more tax breaks benefiting only the wealthiest among us,"[8] as did Democratic Representative Maxine Waters (CA-35): "I voted against the Republican tax cut plan, which is an irresponsible tax cut that will further undermine the nation's struggling economy at the expense of middle-class American families."[9] Senator McCain's eager embrace of grossly inaccurate class-warfare demagoguery demonstrated, at best, a painful ignorance of pro-growth economic principles. Third, Senator McCain not only voted against the Bush tax cuts, he joined leading liberal senators in offering and voting for amendments designed to undermine them. All in all, Senator McCain voted on the pro-tax side of 14 such amendments in 2001 and 2003. These included such odious measures as: * An amendment sponsored by Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) to prohibit a reduction in the top tax rate until Congress enacted legislation to provide a prescription drug benefit[10] * An amendment sponsored by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) against full repeal of the Death Tax.[11] This vote is in keeping with Senator McCain's 2002 vote against repealing the Death Tax[12] * An amendment sponsored by Tom Daschle (D-SD) and co-sponsored by Senator McCain to limit tax reduction in the top tax bracket to one percentage point[13] Finally, John McCain recently claimed that he has never voted for a tax increase,[14] but the congressional record tells a different story. As Chairman of the Commerce Committee in 1998, he sponsored and voted for an enormous 282% tax increase on cigarettes.[15] Senator McCain defended the proposal as a "fee"[16] rather than a tax increase, but his semantic tap dance doesn't change the numerical facts. Thompson fait un bon second best, même si ses chances de remporter la nomination républicaine s'étiolent.
Sous-Commandant Marco Posté 19 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 19 janvier 2008 Kobsh a parié avec moi sur la victoire d'HC et a écrit que j'allais "raquer", SCM a défendu la crédibilité de l'hypothèse d'une fraude des partisans de HC pour expliquer sa victoire qui contredit les sondages qu'il a produit. Juste une correction: si fraude électorale il y eut, elle n'est pas forcément le fait des "partisans de HC". Elle a pu être réalisée par des néo-cons, car HC est plus proche de leurs idées qu'Obama.
Rincevent Posté 19 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 19 janvier 2008 Juste une correction: si fraude électorale il y eut, elle n'est pas forcément le fait des "partisans de HC". Elle a pu être réalisée par des néo-cons, car HC est plus proche de leurs idées qu'Obama. A.k.a. le retour du démiurge maléfique.
Sous-Commandant Marco Posté 19 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 19 janvier 2008 A.k.a. le retour du démiurge maléfique. Tes oreilles ont sifflé et tu t'es senti visé?
Roniberal Posté 19 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 19 janvier 2008 Ron Paul aurait fait 15% dans le Nevada et serait deuxième au coude-à-coude avec McCain. YAHOO!!!!!!!!!!! EDIT: et le PSG a perdu, donc bonne journée pour l'instant.
Nick de Cusa Posté 19 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 19 janvier 2008 Oui, j'ai vu ça sur la même source.
Philiberal Posté 19 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 19 janvier 2008 Ron Paul aurait fait 15% dans le Nevada et serait deuxième au coude-à-coude avec McCain. YAHOO!!!!!!!!!!! EDIT: et le PSG a perdu, donc bonne journée pour l'instant. les résultats (seulement 4% de dépouillé) msnbc la cerise sur le gâteau serait de finir deuxième, juste devant McCain et Rudy va encore se prendre une claque, il serait temps que les médias l'abandonnent… et s'occupent de Ron Paul.
Hakill Posté 19 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 19 janvier 2008 Oui, j'ai vu ça sur la même source. Cela dit, le Nevada représente malheureusement très peu de délégués et les résultats de la Caroline du Sud vont pas tarder à sortir. Ce qui est positif, comme l'a dit Philibéral, c'est de voir Giuliani complètement se crasher sans faire le moindre rebond (et sans aucun délégué!). Si il ne finit pas premier en Floride, il est définitivement foutu et ce serait franchement savoureux.
rixxe Posté 19 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 19 janvier 2008 les résultats en direct: http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/prima…sults/state/#NV
Philiberal Posté 19 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 19 janvier 2008 Cela dit, le Nevada représente malheureusement très peu de délégués et les résultats de la Caroline du Sud vont pas tarder à sortir. Ce qui est positif, comme l'a dit Philibéral, c'est de voir Giuliani complètement se crasher sans faire le moindre rebond (et sans aucun délégué!). Si il ne finit pas premier en Floride, il est définitivement foutu et ce serait franchement savoureux. 3331 quand même pour les républicains (contre 46 seulement 24 en SC)
rixxe Posté 19 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 19 janvier 2008 33 quand même pour les républicains (contre 46 en SC) Il y a 24 délégués en Caroline du sud.
Philiberal Posté 19 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 19 janvier 2008 Il y a 24 délégués en Caroline du sud. c'est juste , avec les pénalités pour primaires avancées, il n'en reste que 24 en SC. (par contre le Nevada a pu conserver tous ses délégués car c'est un caucus) (détails) Mitt Romney 9,559 56% John McCain 2,084 12% Ron Paul 2,014 12% 38% of precincts reporting Romney écrase tout le monde, et ça va être chaud pour la deuxième place
Sous-Commandant Marco Posté 19 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 19 janvier 2008 Ron Paul vient de passer devant McCain! Et yo yo yo, une bouteille de rhum! Il a quasiment doublé le score prévu dans les sondages. Pourvu qu'il fasse de même dans la Caroline du Sud.
Ronnie Hayek Posté 19 janvier 2008 Signaler Posté 19 janvier 2008 Ron Paul vient de passer devant McCain! Et yo yo yo, une bouteille de rhum! Bon, je vais me vider une demi-bouteille de vin ce soir, c'est la fête.
Messages recommandés
Archivé
Ce sujet est désormais archivé et ne peut plus recevoir de nouvelles réponses.