11 Mar

Republican ‘Old Guard’ Rips Into Rand Paul

                                       

John McCain

The old guard….that old guard that gave us McCain and Romney to sacrifice at the altar of Obama, knowing full well they would lose….is at it again pulling out the knives and placing them into the backs of the new guard. The guard that has actual idea’s, that actually has courage, that is willing to take on the old crony’s.

Here’s Bill Kristol, that champion of the old guard:

Was it, as Seth Lipsky suggested in a column in the New York Post, “wonderful,” signifying both that “our country is in a constitutional moment” and “the rise of a new generation of Republican constitutional conservatives”? Or was it, as William Shakespeare wrote ahead of the fact, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”?

…Paul’s political genius strikes us as very much of the short-term variety. Will it ultimately serve him well to be the spokesman for the Code Pink faction of the Republican party? How much staying power is there in a political stance that requires waxing semihysterical about the imminent threat of Obama-ordered drone strikes against Americans sitting in cafés? And as for the other Republican senators who rushed to the floor to cheer Paul on, won’t they soon be entertaining second thoughts? Is patting Rand Paul on the back for his fearmongering a plausible path to the presidency for Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz? Is embracing kookiness a winning strategy for the Republican party? We doubt it.

How odd that Kristol takes the McCain “kooky” attack stance when it’s abundantly clear that Paul meant, as he stated time and time again during his 12 hour monologue, that he didn’t believe Obama was going to drone someone at a coffee shop but rather the inherent risk is giving this power of “judge, jury, and executioner” to future presidents decades and/or centuries into the future.

It would of course be unfair to compare Rand Paul to Macbeth—unfair both to Paul’s lawfulness and to Macbeth’s greatness (of a kind). It would be unfair to compare conservative talk radio to Lady Macbeth, just because both recklessly egg on their heroes. But it’s true that a Republican party that follows the path of Rand Paul will end up as thoroughly defeated at the ballot box as Macbeth was routed on the battlefield of Dunsinane. And as deservedly so.

Yes, because we so thoroughly defeated the Democrats in 2008 and 2012. We won the White House and gained seats in the Senate following the old guard of the Republican party…..oh wait.

But there is another course for Republicans. It’s increasingly clear, just two months into his second term, that President Obama has overreached on behalf of a rhetorically tired and substantively discredited agenda. “We still have judgment here.” Liberalism will be ripe for the judgment of the American people in 2014 and in 2016.

But you can’t beat something with nothing. The filibusterer from Kentucky has had “his hour upon the stage.” When will other, more serious, Republican dramatis personae step forward?

In other words when will APPROVED Republicans step forward?

The old guard continues to disapprove of grass roots tea party Republicans, or anyone that doesn’t toe the line that the “brilliant” politicians like Boehner, McCain and Graham approve. We have come so far because of them you see.

Sigh…..

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, CINO (Conservative in Name Only), Congress, Constitution, John Boehner, John McCain, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, Politics, POWER GRAB!, Rand Paul. Bookmark the permalink. Monday, March 11th, 2013 at 10:37 am
| 462 views

35 Responses to Republican ‘Old Guard’ Rips Into Rand Paul

  1. SkippingDog says: 1

    Republicans can’t win with only a coalition of Tea Partiers and wingnut radio fans. The business faction of the party, where all of the money comes from to win elections, will simply shift their support to people they consider more rational and sane. Unless the Republicans are able to provide a viable option, that support will go to mainstream Democrats.

    ReplyReply
  2. Pearl says: 2

    Listened to a not-insignificant portion of Paul’s (excellent) filibuster while working, and when I woke up the next morning, wasn’t surprised by the reaction from McCain/Graham/ilk. In the words of Eminem: “You don’t know me, you’re too old, let go, its over.”

    There are a hell of a lot more people who passionately support Rand Paul than Lindsey Graham; why? Paul is perceived as standing up for principles he believes in while Graham is perceived as standing up for the status quo. You know, the status quo that delivered unto us 2008 and 2012. Yes, let’s have a little more of that please.

    ReplyReply
  3. Nan G says: 3

    Sen. Lindsey Graham has earned this:
    A challenger for his seat might be coming from the founder of GOProud!
    Here’s Bruce Carroll’s Open Letter to South Carolina Voters, GayPatriot Readers and GOProud Members:
    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/03/11/open-letter-to-south-carolina-voters-gaypatriot-readers-and-goproud-members/
    Notice the positive feedback from readers at the Gay patriot.
    The old order is passing away….
    It might take a while but this is the new Republican Party.

    ReplyReply
  4. Richard Wheeler says: 4

    @SkippingDog: Exactly

    ReplyReply
  5. avbsoftworks says: 5

    Leave it to the Old Guard to come out and say to the new kids “Get off my lawn”.

    ReplyReply
  6. Wordsmith says: 6

    @Richard Wheeler: Are you still tuning in and listening to Michael Medved’s radio program?

    He has Rand Paul on, today.

    ReplyReply
  7. I never like THAT KRISTOL AT FOX, THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT HIM,
    I could not put my finger but his talk where not right,
    RAND PAUL DID WHAT WAS THE MOST DOUBLE MESSAGE TO BE DONE,
    THE FACT THAT HE WANTED AN ANSWER FOR THE AMERICANS TO UNDERSTAND,
    HE GOT IT WITHOUT A SNICKER OR A SHOUT OR A BLAME OTHER,
    NOT LIKE MC CAIN WHO CHOOSE TO IMPOSE ON HIM A NEGATIVE REMARK LIKE GRAHAM, THIS AFTER THEY CAME BACK FROM THE DINNER WITH OBAMA, THEY ACTED LIKE THAT LIB KRISTOL,
    BUT IT DID NOT CHANGE RAND PAUL HUMOR, HE ALSO WAS GIVING A MESSAGE TO AMERICANS THAT BEFORE YOU WANT TO REVOLT AND HURT YOURSELVES, WAIT TILL I AND THE OTHER, RUBIO, AND CRUZ AND THE OTHER FINISH THEIR WORDS AND ACTIVE PRESSURE TO OBAMA,
    YES RAND PAUL PACIFIED THE PEOPLE BY GIVING THEM FAITH THAT A TRUE YOUNG GROUP OF AMERICAN IN GOVERNMENT WAS NOT IN NO WAY GOING TO LET THEM DOWN,
    THAT IS TWO VERY IMPORTANT ACTIONS RAND PAUL DID,
    BECAUSE HIM AND RUBIO AND CRUZ LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE AND CAPTURE THE ANGER ALL OVER AND FOR MANY REASON,
    AND WANT TO ASSURE THE PEOPLE OF THEIR PATRIOTISM AND DEDICATION
    ON FIGHTING TO PRESERVE THE LAW OF THIS LAND AS THE FRAMERS WANTED IT TO SURVIVE
    THESE MANY CENTURY,
    THIS HAD SOLIDIFIED THE REPUBLICANS AND AVANCE THEIR POWER TO WIN NEXT TIME AND CRUSH THE DEMOCRATES,
    SO NEVER AGAIN THE PEOPLE WILL BE PUNISH FOR THE FAILURE OF A LEADER UNABLE TO DO HIS JOB,
    EXCEPT SEEKING REVENGE AND PUNISHEMENT ONTO THE PEOPLE WHO PAY HIS EXPANSIVE SPENDING SPREES FOR HIMSELF AND FOREIGN FRIENDS.

    ReplyReply
  8. Richard Wheeler says: 8

    @Wordsmith: I’ll check it out. Your thoughts on Rand vs Ron when it comes to Foreign Policy,Defense—anything else of note? Thanks

    BTW Aye mentioned he thought with your’s and Mata’s help he might bring me over from “The Dark Side”. Not impossible.

    Semper Fi

    ReplyReply
  9. THE JUDGE PUT DOWN THE BLOOMBERG LAW
    ABOUT BIG GLASS OF DRINK.
    NEXT BLOOMBERG WILL RESTRICK THE PEOPLE
    TO ONLY ONE PISS A DAY, AND ONE CRAP EVERY TWO DAYS TO
    SAVE HIS SEWER,

    ReplyReply
  10. retire05 says: 10

    I find it laughable that those who would not be caught dead at a TEA Party, or never agree with any conservative talk show host, offers up advise that the TEA Party and conservative talk is not the way to go. Not withstanding the fact that these people seem to be clueless as to the goals of the TEA Party, and if they are informed of the goals of the TEA Party (fiscal responsibility on the part of our government) that we don’t realize that they, themselves, must then agree with out of control government spending.

    You see, we conservatives are to simply assume that those who disparage the TEA Party/conservative talk show hosts, do so because they want to offer good advise out of the goodness of their hearts. Bull. Those are the very people who stand to gain the most by doing so, attempting to keep progressive Democrats in office to further the goal of the socialist state.

    The truth of the matter is that John McCain and Lindsay Graham have adopted the left wing practice of never seeing a camera they didn’t want to be in front of. But if the nation wanted a Republican like McCain for POTUS, it has had more than one occassion to make that possible. But why vote for a Democrat Lite when you can vote for the real deal?

    The tenor of the nation is changing, from those who want even more government control over our daily lives, to those who want less. The nation is becoming more divided, not less divided, on the direction our goverment will take in the future. As Obamacare really kicks into high gear, and people learn that it was a terribly bad deal, and as our national debt, and the part of it that average Americans are now on the hook for, increases, it will be a tipping point. Do we go the way of the statists, or do we elect those who will actually try to gain control over an out of control federal government?

    And who are the young guns now in the Senate? Those elected by TEA Partiers and those who support the TEA Party goals of fiscal responsibility on the part of our federal government. To say that others, like Cruz, Lee, Paul, Rubio and Toomey, cannot be elected with out the big money backers is to deny the truth; Ted Cruz was outspent by not only his Republican establishment opponents in the primaries, but by his Democrat challenger. Yet, he won. Same with Rubio. And when it all boils down to reality, those who opposed the more conservative candidates may be able to dump massive amounts of mony into a less conservative candidate’s campaign, but at the end of the day, they too, were allowed only one vote.

    ReplyReply
  11. Scott in Oklahoma says: 11

    I am all for term limits since the “old guard” on either side seem to stick around forever, gathering wealth in their journey towards record setting term lengths. Honest conversations don’t seem to come from any Congress-critters that has been around for more than a couple of terms. And great wealth seems to appear out of nowhere for serior members of Congress on both sides. That has all got to stop if this nation is to survive.

    ReplyReply
  12. Greg says: 12

    I’ve always had mixed feelings about term limits. One of the main reasons has to do with accountability. Any member of Congress hoping to be reelected is answerable to the voters for past actions at the polls.

    Care must be taken not to replace them with people who would have no such concerns, and who might look only to further the causes of special interests that would reward them immediately after they’ve left public office.

    The classic example would be an industry CEO who gets elected, who sees to the passage of laws favoring that industry, and who then moves back into a cushy industry slot once their mission has been accomplished. They would only have to fool the public one time, and then the next unknown would be waiting to perform.

    ReplyReply
  13. Scott in Oklahoma says: 13

    @Greg: And we’re seeing that with White House appointees now. A complete flush and overhaul is needed, but that will never happen. And as long as the old guard are around we’ll never see the changes we really need.
    I’ll use Rangell for an example… how does a guy working for $180K a year legitimately gather over $5M in assets? The only job he’s ever had has been in Congress…

    ReplyReply
  14. PAUL RYAN IS COMING TOMORROW WITH HIS BUDGET,
    THAT IS TO BE WATCH AT FOX,
    I hope HERMAN CAIN COME TOO,

    ReplyReply
  15. Richard Wheeler says: 15

    @Nan G: The Repub.Party in South Carolina nominating a gay? Now that’s a scoop Nan!!

    Wonder what S.C. Repub. Bob Jones111 will have to say about that?

    ReplyReply
  16. Choey says: 16

    It’s a shame the “old guard” can’t talk that way about democrats.

    ReplyReply
  17. SkippingDog says: 17

    @retire05:

    I don’t offer any advice at all to you Tea Party wingnuts. The Tea Party is nothing more than a gussied up and regurgitated contemporary version of the old John Birch Society. It has the same “principles,” the same goals, many of the same members, and probably the same funding sources as the old JBS. It’s probably got the same antisemitic streak as well.

    Even William F. Buckley recognized the cancer of the John Birch Society, effectively removing them from any active participation in the conservative movement. It is only since Buckley passed away that you old bigots have come back out into the open and tried to convince people of your extremist goals and conspiracy theories, helped along by ex-addict Glen Beck. Your policies led to Goldwater’s stunning loss in 1964, and prevented Reagan from getting to the office he coveted for another 16 years. Even then, he wouldn’t adopt the more extreme fringe ideas of the old JBS, such as shutting down the Federal Reserve, returning to the Gold Standard, withdrawing from the United Nations, and seeing a communist or Illuminati threat under every bed in their house.

    The Tea Party is really nothing more than the “Battle of the Bulge” of the fringe right-wing: the spasmodic last-gasp of a dying reactionary social and political agenda. The end for your movement can’t come a moment too soon.

    ReplyReply
  18. SkippingDog says: 18

    @Choey:

    It wouldn’t be accurate if they were to do so.

    ReplyReply
  19. SkippingDog says: 19

    @Nan G:

    When I heard the NC Republicans were going to nominate a gay candidate for Senate, I automatically assumed they were going to run Lindsey again.

    ReplyReply
  20. Richard Wheeler says: 20

    @SkippingDog: That’s S.C—–LGBT gives him 0% rating.

    ReplyReply
  21. thank’s to the TEAPARTY, THEY ARE MADE OF FAMILY WHO SEE THE ABUSE AND ARE BRAVE ENOUGH TO EXPOSE IT TO THE PEOPLE, SARAH PALIN THE GREAT PATRIOT,
    THEY HAVE HELP OTHER BRAVES TO GET IN THE GOVERNMENT TO BE THE KEEPERS OF THE CONSTITUTION,
    WE WOULD BE NOTHING WITHOUT THE TEAPARTY EFFORT TO EDUCATE THE PEOPLE ON WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE WHITE HOUSE BY ELECTED WHO THINK ONLY OF INSTORING A SOCIALIST AGENDA COMMUNIST AFFILIATION,
    THANK’S TO THE TEAPARTY TO SEE AND EXPOSE THOSE NEFARIOUS AGENDA,
    THOSE WHO HATE THEM ARE ENEMIES OF AMERICA
    AND NOT CARRIER OF THE TRUTH, NOT WORTHY
    TO BE TRUSTED,

    ReplyReply
  22. SkippingDog
    you mention EX-ADDICT,
    YOU MEAN LIKE OBAMA EX-ADDICT ON DRUGS.

    ReplyReply
  23. the more I think about it,
    the more I’m sure that SARAH PALIN SHOULD HAVE RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY INSTEAD OF VICE PRESIDENCY,
    SHE WOULD HAVE WON AND DO A VERY GOOD JOB FOR THE PEOPLE SHE WAS DEDICATED TO HELP,
    PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN WOULD HAVE BEEN A VERY GOOD PRESIDENT FOR GETTING JOBS FOR THE PEOPLE,
    WHAT A LOST OF YEARS

    ReplyReply
  24. Smorgasbord says: 24

    The republican and democratic parties are like trees. A long time ago they were two completely different types of trees: The democratic party WAS the maple tree that would bend in whatever direction the wind was blowing the strongest. The republican party WAS the oak that stood its ground no matter what.

    The problem was that they took root too close together. As the two trees grew, their branches and their roots became entangled with each other. As more time went on, the two trees grew together. For some time, it was easy to see which part of the tree was the oak, and which part was the maple. Enough time has passed that the two trees have become one, and a new kind of tree was created.

    This new tree was like a predator plant that keeps growing and taking over more and more territory, because all of the plants around it have been eliminated. They didn’t have any defense against the new kind of tree. This happens in nature when someone, or some thing, moves some plants into different areas where the native plants don’t have any defense against the new plant. The new plant takes over and kills all of the plants around it.

    Today’s congress is that new plant. It keeps growing and growing, and sucking out more nourishment from the ground (the tax payer). If left alone, the only thing that will stop it is when it runs out of nourishment and dies. Just like a real plant, congress doesn’t know that the nourishment is almost gone, and keeps sucking away.

    Maybe it’s time to trim the tree. Where do you trim it? Trimmed trees grow back. Do you want this tree to grow back, and be even stronger, and suck up more nourishment than it did before?

    It’s time to pull this tree up by its roots. Meaning, we need to get rid of ALL the members of congress and bring in new. Meaning we need a STRONG third party. I would like to see our former military, especially those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, run for office as independents, with the backing of the Tea Party.

    They would be required to sign a contract guaranteeing what they will and won’t do, or they would leave office. They would have to change the way of campaigning so that no money is needed, enact term limits, end the politicians setting their own wages, end their perks, etc.

    ReplyReply
  25. Scott in Oklahoma says: 25

    @SkippingDog: Painting with a very wide brush again… your post is practically a definition of bigotry, and your narrow minded thought process is a huge factor in why politics in his country are such a mess. You clearly don’t understand the Taxed Enough Already party, and your accusations only serve to prove your ignorance.

    ReplyReply
  26. retire05 says: 26

    @SkippingDog:

    I don’t offer any advice at all to you Tea Party wingnuts.

    Wingnuts? WoW! You really have drank the left wing media Koolaide, haven’t you? So I assume it is safe to say that you don’t agree with the TEA Party’s goal of fiscal responsiblity on the part of our government?

    The Tea Party is nothing more than a gussied up and regurgitated contemporary version of the old John Birch Society. It has the same “principles,” the same goals, many of the same members, and probably the same funding sources as the old JBS. It’s probably got the same antisemitic streak as well.

    You really don’t have a clue about the TEA Party, do you? So you just regurgitate old left wing talking points, i.e. talking out of your ass. Since you seem to think that you are so well informed about something you obviously have never been involved in, why don’t you inform all us low information people what the goals of the TEA Party actually are? Dig out your little Democrat talking points and show us how well informed you are because I know that people who walk around with pocket sized Constitutions are scary to people like you.

    Now, just to be clear; I don’t know anyone who belongs to the JBS, and I have never supported JBS. I didn’t like Ron Paul, who was their key note speaker at their annual confabs for many years (Ron Paul has decended into senilty) and I loath Lew Rockwell. That pretty much leaves me out of their little group when I have no use the for the JBS’ main guys. So once again, you are talking out of your lower oriface.

    But I do understand why you left wingers are afraid of the TEA Party and its goals of trying to bring about fiscal sanity in our federal government. You understand that the Saul Alinsky method has worked quite well for Democrats, and it scares the hell out of you that those very same tactics can be used against Democrats. You can’t afford to have the silent majority actually using their voices. Status quo, i.e. more spending, more government dependency, more abolition of our Constitutional rights, that’s what you statists subscribe to.

    Then you go off on some tirade about Buckley. Nice try at redirection, but no cigar.

    I am sure you would be more confortable with like minded people, say, the OWS crowd. But I hate to tell you this, since I am sure it will depress you, but Americans are waking up to the goals, and actions, of Democrats who are nothing more than socialist Progressives. One by one, your bunch has tried to erode our Constitutionally guaranteed (not granted) liberties, and you are starting to get push back and you don’t like it. Not one damn bit. So you put out false statements about groups, and their goals, to try to persuade others that they are dangerous. It ain’t working, Bubba. With the advent of internet news and blogs, the old guard is failing to get out the progressive message, and when they do, it is immediately challenged. People no longer trust the old media, and now get their news from the internet and blogs, just like this one.

    For those like you, your days are numbered.

    ReplyReply
  27. retire05
    i could not have done better,
    that’s why you are one important person at FLOPPING ACES,
    AND I KNOW YOU’RE NOT THE TYPE TO LET IT GO TO YOUR HEAD,
    THAT’S WHY I MENTION IT
    YES YOU DISTURB THE LIBS AND THOSE IN BED WITH THEM,
    THAT IS DAM GOOD,
    BECAUSE CONSERVATIVES ARE TOGETHER IN THEIR VALUES,
    OR OUT OF IT

    ReplyReply
  28. jainphx says: 28

    @Greg: Answerable maybe, but look how many times incombents win elections. They have the money and the backing of the Washington elites. No term limits is the only way. Why do we suffer with people like John Conyers for over a quarter century, no 6 years and out in the house, 12 years or less in the senate, or better yet two 4 year terms and out.

    ReplyReply
  29. Richard Wheeler says: 29

    @retire05: Question What years did you support and work for Ron Paul? What brought you to disown and become a detractor of Ron P?
    Seems Rand has worked in support of his dad’s presidential bids.Briefly ,the major differences in policy between them.Thanks RW

    ReplyReply
  30. BY THE WAY,
    THE CARDINAL FROM THIS USA IS IN LINE TO GET THE PAPACIE, WELL, THERE IS TWO FROM USA,
    AND THE FIRST IN LINE WAS TOLD, IS A HUMBLE CARDINAL FROM A NORTH QUEBEC SMALL TOWN, LAMOTTE,
    WHICH MANY DON’T EVEN KNOW WHERE IT IS,
    THAT WOULD BE NICE TO ELEVATE AN HUMBLE VERY SMART CARDINAL FROM THAT SMALL TOWN
    IN CANADA QUEBEC PROVINCE WHO LOVE MOOSE STEAK, AND FISHING, AND BATHING IN THE LAKE,
    WITH HIS BROTHERS WHO ARE AFRAID NOW TO LOOSE HIM AS A BROTHER,

    ReplyReply
  31. retire05 says: 31

    @Richard Wheeler:

    @retire05: Question What years did you support and work for Ron Paul? What brought you to disown and become a detractor of Ron P?

    The special election of 1976 and the general election of 1978. But I was on the receiving end of his “news” letters that were filled with crap that I didn’t approve of, or support. Some of his comments were clearly racist, and I ain’t into that crap. Paul was, by 1978, going in a direction that I did not like. That and his association with Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. Both are anti-Jewish, anti-Isreal. I am not.

    Seems Rand has worked in support of his dad’s presidential bids.Briefly ,the major differences in policy between them

    Of course Rand supported his father. Ron Paul IS his father, for Heaven’s sake. But Rand is quite clear, and has been quite vocal, that he and his father have different views, especially on foreign affairs. And I don’t believe in blood liable.

    I am not going to tell you that Rand will never become as looney as his father, but so far, I see no signs of that. But progressives want to label Rand by attaching him to Ron, yet were incensed when someone tried to do that with John/Bobby/Teddy Kennedy and their corrupt, morally bankrupct father.

    ReplyReply
  32. Smorgasbord says: 32

    @SkippingDog: #17

    I don’t offer any advice at all to you Tea Party wingnuts.

    Without a wingnut, or some other kind of nut, the bolt can’t hold anything together. Us wingnuts are just trying to hold the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights together, but you leftists keep turning the nut to the left on a right handed bolt.

    The Tea Party is nothing more than a gussied up….

    The only time we get gussied up is when we are in costume or character. The person who wrote the book, “Grandma’s Not Shovel-Ready”, thought I was gussied up enough for him to put my picture on page 56, otherwise I’m a jeans and western shirt guy. I don’t even own a suit.

    If you are against the things WE, THE TEA PARTY are for, then that means you are agains:

    (1) Lower taxes.
    (2) Reducing the size of government.
    (3) Merging all of the welfare agencies together so freeloaders can’t get money from each one.
    (4) Making people work for their welfare money.
    (5) Eliminating most of the perks for the politicians.
    (6) Stopping them from setting their own wage amount.
    (7) Defending yourself with a gun if you are attacked.
    (8) Someone coming to your aid with a gun if you or your family are attacked. Oh, I forgot. A whistle is all you need for protection from (7) and (8).
    (9) Etc., etc., etc.

    ReplyReply
  33. Smorgasbord
    another hit on the head of the nail,
    this was a big nail
    bye

    ReplyReply
  34. Aqua says: 34

    @SkippingDog:

    The Tea Party is nothing more than a gussied up and regurgitated contemporary version of the old John Birch Society.

    What?
    Here, read the platform:
    http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

    If you still believe it’s like the JBS, they you no nothing about either organization.

    ReplyReply
  35. Pearl
    yes, you are right on,
    I like RAND PAUL,
    he’s going places, and he is using the same channel to counteract the lies of the opponent,
    he is very smart and respectful of the PEOPLE, he love this Country the right way,
    that is to help the people succeed and get jobs to earn their chance to get their dream come true.
    bye

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>