I want a President who has sense enough...
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-24
In Reply to: Presidents do not yield - nah
while "multitasking" to put the most important issue on the front burner. The failing economy to me is the front burner...not the run for the Presidency. Obama proved to me again why I am not voting for him.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
If customary deference to a sitting president by president elect
for the rest of us who understand such concepts as respect and traditional protocol, it would qualify as a darned good reason.
O&B have more sense than that,
nm
But in the same sense
you are saying we should remove the law to not murder someone because every can make choices right or wrong?
I don't believe we should give free reign to abortion. The law he wants to sign can even make it where doctors cannot say no to doing an abortion because of the conscience clause. Therefore physicians who are against abortion because of their beliefs will be forced to perform abortions or lose their job. The FOCA is to broadly written.
I'm not fooling myself. They may not be moral, but they aren't voting for legislation that my faith says is against what God wants. Yes, God gave us free will, but he also gave us laws. I believe murder is murder. The Bible tells me that we are given life from the moment of conception, and therefore an abortion takes away that life, meaning it is murder.
I hope you didn't think I was questioning your beliefs btw, I wasn't. I was just stating how I look at the situation. My father-in-law is a Baptist preacher also. I used to be scared of the Baptist doctrine, but now I really appreciate it, because they preach straight from the Bible. My father-in-law won't even paraphrase! LOL
I see no sense in this.
Obama wants to take away our guns. If there are no guns, we won't shoot each other right? WRONG. Just because you take guns away from good people doesn't mean the bad people won't still get them. The honest folks who would abide by the rules would be at the mercy of the crooks who would obtain weapons illegally.
Ignorant people who do stupid things with guns gives the rest of us gun totting hillbillies a bad name and it isn't fair. No reason to take our guns away. We just want to protect ourselves and our family. If someone breaks into my house with the intent of harming myself or my family....I feel I should have a right to protect them. Why are criminals being protected instead? They are the ones doing wrong. Sometimes this country has things so backwards it isn't funny.
You are not by yourself in your sense of
renewal and having cause to rejoice. I had that sense immediately after the results came in and expecially the next morning. I live in a major US city where the change has actually been visible and palpable. The people here have been holding their heads up and making eye contact, greeting each another on the street, talking to one another and smiling a lot more. It's been great to see and to be a part of it.
Do not let the naysayers take that from you. Welcome to the politics board where you can take advantage of another great opportunity...to exercise, strengthen and hold your faith tight, and to develop a thick hide such that the gloom and doom expressed here will go in one ear and out the other and roll off you like water off a duck's back.
That's probably because this is what makes sense to you.
Perhaps you could be a translator for us?
REPORTER: Is the tide turning in Iraq?
DUBYA: I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?
-- White House, Jun. 14, 2006
If one were to measure progress on the number of suiciders, if that's your definition of success, I think it gives -- I think it will -- I think it obscures the steady, incremental march toward democracy we're seeing. In other words, it's very difficult -- you can have the most powerful army of the world -- ask the Israelis what it's like to try to stop suiciders. ...That's the -- but that's one of the main -- that's the main weapon of the enemy, the capacity to destroy innocent life with a suicider. ...Trying to stop suiciders -- which we're doing a pretty good job of on occasion -- is difficult to do. And what the Iraqis are going to have to eventually do is convince those who are conducting suiciders who are not inspired by al Qaeda, for example, to realize there's a peaceful tomorrow.
-- White House, May 23, 2006
I've reminded the Prime Minister -- the American people, Mr. Prime Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship.
-- With Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan, White House, Jun. 29, 2006
Ok, that makes sense then
I was thinking when I read the headline that that sounds like something sports players would do to each other (like patting each other on the "behind"). The headline made it sound like he did it in a room full of reporters in the senate. HA HA HA
Well that does not make sense because
Her daughter is an adult and able to make her own decisions on what she wants for her life. Unless your going to lock her inside the house and accompany her every single place she goes to outside the home its impossible.
Here's some examples. I joined the military without asking my parents. Would you hold my parents responsible for that. My cousin grew up in strict Christian home (church 3 times a week, sang in chorus, taught in their sunday school. And she was 17 years old. She also got pregnant (and this was in a town of less than 10,000 people so her parents knew where she was at all the time. My aunt and uncle should not be held accountable for what their daughter does. A lot of kids are getting pregnant at earlier and earlier ages. There is a point where they have minds of their own and decide what it is they want to do with their lives and a lot of them want to have families. Gov. Palin's daughter evidently did too. She's an adult and do not need to tell or get permission from her parents on that.
As for Gov. Pailin dealing with her issues at home? There are no issues to deal with and she is doing just fine.
Sorry...this makes no sense....
I think you mean Taliban, and bin Laden is not their boss. He is AL Qaeda's boss.
That being said...they were only doing what they were told to do? We are talking Congress here. They had the evidence that this could happen, and blocked legislation that would have prevented it. Who do you think "told" them to block it?
we will need our sense of humor
and some solar panels for this next chapter.
makes sense to me
x
makes no sense to me either
x
No, that just has to do with some common sense
@
YA! Someby with some sense!
I'm sorry if I'm starting to be nasty here, but I'm getting sick of all the asisine (sp) excuses for some people voting for either candidate.
RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH, and not the tabloids or any newspaper who backed one or the other candidate. Newspapers are getting notorious for their one-sided views in the past few years. Go to the government site to sift through the legislation. Most won't because it's too hard to do, but if you have a brain, you can figure out who is the best candidate by the voting records, background, etc.
I rest my case.
Makes a lot of sense
Why don't we all do that??????
Get a sense of humor. n/m
x
U don't make sense.
.
That does make sense...... thank you. sm
but I really want to know WHY the post was moved when it related to a topic that had been discussed here.
Sure it made sense Mrs. M..........
it just brings to light how ignorant a lot of his voters were and still are and the others just voted out of sheer fear of the economy and their jobs. Want to hear some of it for yourself?
http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3
I think they sense his weakness....sm
Even though Obama has talked the talk about hunting down bin Laden and stamping out al-Queda, time will tell, and we will see what he will do.
He also want to cut funding to the military. He also wants to shut down Guantanomo Bay.
It sounds to me like Obama has two messages going out...mixed signals look like weakness to me, and obviously to al-Queda.
These people hate Americans, and it probably makes no difference on who is in the white house....we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.
GET A SENSE OF HUMOR!!!!! nm
No, but I do have common sense.
nm
You still are not making sense
I read all of the posts from the beginning. The Franklin Mint makes all these presidential coins. Yes I know it's not Obama's fault they colored his picutre in. Like another poster said (that is Franklin Mint's fault) They didn't with the other presidents but they did with Obama and it looks Tachy and cheap! They should have left his face in gold.
I know exactly why you said what you did. You are trying to turn what someone wrote about the colored coins into a racial thing and its not. If I was you I would drop the subject entirely. She was talking about the colored coins the Franklin Mint put out. Washington and the other presidents faces are not colored in on the coins.
Exactly! Thanks for being common sense
nm
You make little sense
for someone claiming to have a triple digit IQ, or at least I think that's what you mean.
You miss my point altogether.
And then have to resort to outhouse jokes to boot. *sigh*
I was trying to figure out what you meant by calling me a potty mouth, and I just couldn't get it....must be my low IQ showing...or maybe it's yours.
Anyway, if you're referring to my comment about your initials, that's a term of endearment in my family, as well as a favorite movie candy from our youth. You probably don't remember them. Nothing else was meant or implied. Apologies, if you took it any other way.
Thank God someone has some sense on this board
##
Thank goodness someone has some sense on here
Heaven forbid I bring up welfare.....crazy posters pounce on ya like you're a horrible person. Welfare is NOT for the moochers of this country and believe me, there are plenty of those. And I'll give you one more .....the welfare system wasn't just for single mothers with children; it was for single mothers who lost their jobs in the first place. Most of them around here have no jobs, have NEVER had a job, and have absolutely no desire to work. They just keep having babies, usually by several different guys who have already populated our town with many other career welfare mothers..... I'm with you. Hire MORE caseworkers who actually do their job and cut the free ride off when they find several different family members living together off the government, several NICE vehicles sitting in front of their HUD homes, everything paid for by me and then there might actually be some money for those truly in need.
All those daddies standing on the corner holding their britches up all day instead of working makes me want to puke! GET A JOB!
Tell your friends above to get a sense
of humor like yours!
Hey, icytoes, you have a lot of sense
The only problem is, you're fighting a losing battle with the O lovers. All they can see is Bush, Bush, Bush. None of the presidents before Bush count, so you might as well give up and hope that it all comes out later. After all, choosing cabinet members who have a Clinton tie and/or a bit of a tax problem doesn't count either, but those that had the problem in the Bush cabinet means a lot.
It's one-sided politics most of the time. You do raise good questions and give good answers and I applaud you for that, but what the hey, I'm only one person who tries to give balanced reports, too.
Thank you Thank you! You make so much sense.
nm
Well, for those with common sense
it's no secret that MORE money will have to be printed to pay for all those ridiculous programs and trillions of dollars in junk stuff. The dollar is worth nadda right now, so it will be worth nil afterwards. How much lower can you go?
Anyone with half a brain knows even if we weren't paying for a wars, that wouldn't even touch the money needed to cover the trillion dollar screwover job he's doing to the American people. He can cut this and cut that and call it duplicate programs, blah, blah, blah, but what good is that when he turns around and ADDS and ADDS more and more trillions of dollars in spending programs?
Government has never and WILL NEVER be the ones who know how to spend your money. All you Obama lovers need to stop pointing fingers at the republicans. Republicans AND Democrats spend too much; that's why it continues to this day. Doesn't matter who is in office. BUT, this is one president who has absolutely gone crazy with spending..........and we thought Jimmy Carter was a nut!!
Made sense?!?
Which part? The part where he supposedly quoted from the Preamble to the Constitution (when what he was actually quoting [and misquoting, I might add] the Declaration of Independence)?
Common sense would say
that prices may go down a tad bit, but don't be looking to get a car for free. Dealerships still have to at least break even on vehicles to survive. They can't just give a car away for nothing. Dealerships are hurting big time right now and people have the common misconception that they will sell something really cheap because they are hurting. Well selling something and taking a huge loss isn't going to help that dealership so why would they do it? These salesmen work on commission and they are starving here. What is the point of working if they can't make anything off of a car to feed their family?
If I were you....I'd just kind of shop around but I highly doubt that prices are going to drop dramatically. Even if Chrysler files bankruptcy.....that doesn't mean dealerships selling them will file too. It certainly won't help sales but it doesn't automatically mean they are going under too. They still have a product to sell and to make money off of to survive.
Well, now it all makes sense!! nm
x
That makes sense.
I guess I'm just cheap though. I'd rather spend my money on a local ceremony for my friends and family and swap rings. The commitment in either circumstance still has the same meaning but I could see why they would make the trip. Like I said....I'm just cheap and wouldn't want to pay for the trip. LOL. Of course, I didn't go all out for my wedding either. It was small with friends and family and m yhsuband and I spent a day at an amusement park for our honeymoon. It still meant as much to me as if I'd gone to Hawaii, got married on the beach at sunset, and stayed for 2 weeks for my honeymoon.
Did your common sense tell you...(sm)
that I wasn't talking to you? 
Common sense...
some have it...some don't...
I sense a little ignorance on your part, you say they are no more pro-war
than God, but then you defend them posting up pictures with guns draped around their necks. I'm trying to follow you here.
Can't make sense of your respone.
No, I haven't got the picture. The picture is incomplete. So you suggest that anyone can look at the ISPs to see if a poster has more than one alias but then you say only the administrator can do it. You don't make sense. Is the administrator giving out ISP information to certain people, or just you, or no one? Please explain
Your post makes no sense. nm
.
Oh, that makes perfect sense.
They're simply not the *right* EC (evangelically correct) Christians.
Did you by chance see the Barbara Walters special last night on heaven? I watched part of it, but I also taped it.
The two religions that stuck out like a sore thumb were the *born again* Christians and the *jihad Muslims*. They were the two groups who felt that everyone who didn't believe exactly as they do are doomed to go to hell.
So the fact that Catholics are targeted makes perfect sense to me and is in line with the Bush & Co. MO.
"Have You No Sense of Decency Sir?"
Go Olbermann 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hscg7dP6IiY
You're not making much sense.
You don't seem to realize there's a written record of all your posts for folks to review. Many of your posts with other folks are quite strange and don't seem to make much sense.
Well, at least you're having a big laugh.
Your post makes no sense..
But then, that has never bothered you guys in the past.....not making sense, that is.
Lack of common sense
An 83-year-old woman is too old, most likely, to be of much assistance in Iraq. Not ruling it out totally, but most likely this is the case. I have gleaned from the posts I have read that the rah-rah-war conservatives doing most of the posting are fairly able-bodied, some in their 30s, some in their 50s and some older. I am 52 and if I truly truly believed in this war I feel I would be over there doing what I could to support that effort (especially since many over there do NOT want to be there and have serious qualms about our involvement). But go ahead, call me names and make even more ENDLESS excuses why you won't go. Maybe even mention a 95-year-old or a 5-year-old that supports the war as examples of folks who aren't over there.
In the meantime I read more and more that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda continue to grow and operate at ease and at will in a large area of Afghanistan near Pakistan.
Can't make sense of your post.
Are you saying that the conservatives believe only videos portray the truth? Then wouldn't the videotape of soldiers being interviewed for 60 MInutes also be the truth then?
Military Times is not a military newspaper and does not speak for servicemen? Who does it cater to primarily if not the military? Hairdressers?????? Medical transcriptionists???? Yes, it is privately owned and is a Gannett publication. While their survey may not be the most scientific thing ever done it still has merit. See below:
A poll for the Military Times newspapers, which questioned 6,000 randomly selected active-duty members, gives us a much better sense. In case the myth that military personnel still widely support the president's policy hadn't been debunked enough, these results should do the trick.
Barely one in three service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the new poll for the four papers (Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times). In another startling finding, only 41% now feel it was the right idea to go to war in Iraq in the first place.
And the number who feel success there is likely has shrunk from 83% in 2004 to about 50% today. A surprising 13% say there should be no U.S. troops in Iraq at all. [...]
Nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today's military is stretched too thin to be effective.
As for the escalation, only 38% of those surveyed believe more troops should be sent to Iraq, while 39% think there should be the same number or less than there are now. (The rest said they didn't know.)
Other plans out there make more sense
I've been researching other candidates and their plans.
On the Dem side - Kucinich has a plan for only one insurance provider to everyone. Sends all the bloodsucking insurance companies and their "preexisting conditions" and "not medically necessary" straight out of business. I kinda like that plan, as I used to do billing and it would sure cut through a ton of red tape for doctors, hospitals, their staff and the patients.
On the Rep side - Huckabee has a plan that does away with employers providing insurance. That's kind of scary, as "pooling" to get better insurance rates has always been the cheaper way to go.
But any plan I've seen doesn't worry me as much as Hillary's!
Anybody else who has heard of a candidate with a good plan, please chime in!
It common sense - if we can afford one
Simple as that. You can twist it around as much as you want, but the truth is the money is there, and it is just about priorities. I am not trying to personally attack you. I have not resorted to childish name calling or anything like that, I just think your view is warped, and you obviously think my view is wrong, and we will obviously never agree on this issue.
Another conserv without a sense of humor?
Is it a common trait?
Oh, Sam, quit making so much sense.
nm
Let's see if we can make a little sense out of this mess....
You said:
The subject is not the name of the proceedings, the intent of the inquiry, whether or not you think he should or should not be impeached or any of the other distractions you have thrown up in this thread.
Answer: I know what Dennis Kucinich says. It is not new. I have heard it. I have heard it from any number of Democrats. All I am saying is if they think they have the evidence to impeach him, why the heck don't they do it?? That is not a distraction, it is a valid question. I don't care what they call it...all I said was, what they are doing now, even the chairman said was not an impeachment hearing. HE said it, I didn't, so why don't you accuse HIM of throwing up distractions and circling around, yada yada. Perhaps because when Democrat throws up distractions and circles around that is fine in your books??
You said: You circled around the subject when you thought you could gain some traction/advantage when trying to refute the accusations against Bush regarding lying about WMDs/yellowcake uranium intelligence, trying to make it appear that total exoneration would be a piece of cake..as if that were the only thing the democrats have on the table.
Answer: Geez, stop putting words in my mouth and assigning agendas to me I don't have. In going and doing some of the research you shouted at me to do, I found excerpts from the impeachment-trolling-factfinding-whatEVER the heck makes you happy to call it committee, I found where one of the lone Republicans on the committee made mention of a document recently declassified by the CIA that supposedly corroroborates (and I said supposedly because I don't know, because I haven't seen it, because it is part of the blacked out stuff) Bush's story about Niger and yellowcake and exposes Joe Wilson's story about the same. I did not say it myself, and I did not make it up. One of the committee members said it. Yes, I would be interested in it. I would be interested in any evidence Kucinich has other than speechifying about it. That is why I would be interested in a real impeachment trial, if that is what they want, so we can hear from ALL witnesses, see ALL the documents, and make our OWN decisions. I want more that Kucinich's word and Vincent Bugliosi's book. I want the CIA declassified document and the whole ball of wax. I want people under oath when they testify. Although, after Bill Clinton, even that is not always helpful since he chose to lie anyway, but still...not everyone is willing to perjure himself/herself. If that means I have my head in the sand, so be it. LOL.
YOU SAID: The subject is the CONTENT of the hearings, otherwise known as the ISSUES. It makes no difference where you get them from. DK is the best when it comes to explaining the positions concisely. The prosecuting parties are all amazingly consistent in their identification of what their contentions are and how they back them up.
ANSWER: Well excuse me, but didn't I read the hearings were closed and blacked out? So how do you know what the content is??? As I said, I have heard what Kucinich says. It is not new with him. I just need more than his word for it.
YOU SAID: What you are refusing to do is examine the other side of the story (that is to say, the specifics as laid out by the democrats)...that side of the story that takes you out of that safe place where you always stay...
ANSWER: Look that that finger in the mirror, points right back at you. You are completely unwilling to entertain any thought that you, and these Democrats, might just be wrong. If I was terrified, as you state, or did not want to hear anything about Bush maybe being guilty, I would not be hawking for his impeachment. What you are doing is make me the enemy, classic attack mode. Turn that mode off and try to hear me this time: I DON'T KNOW if Bush lied. NOBODY does. I don't know if he did or he didn't, but I DO KNOW that I need more than Dennis Kucinich's word or interpretation of whatever evidence he has to believe that Bush lied. You are so consumed with hatred for the man and the so-called right wing that you are ready to move right to "you're guilty." You believe he is guilty and you have not heard any of the defense. You do not WANT to hear any of the defense. How, pray tell, is your attitude any different from the one you accuse me of? If this was a Democrat president instead of a republican president, would you be on here righteously indignant presupposing his guilt based on a Republican-dominated committee and a lawyer's book who was not even close to the events that took place? Of course you wouldn't! You would be here saying it was a railroad hatchet job. Don't bother denying it. It would ring pretty hollow.
YOU SAID: that support your arguments, making nice with those who agree with your ideas, the condescending "let me enlighten you" instructions (i.e., "read up on Marxism, but let me interpret it for you if you don't see it my way" passages) and the inevitable name-calling, innuendoes, half-truths, misprepresentations, statements taken out of context, jumping to far-fetched conclusions when making degrading statements about democrats, and the vitriol that issues forth in your endless Obama bashing.
ANSWER: Talk about throwing up a distraction. As to condescending, when that tone is used with me I respond in kind. If you don't like it, don't condescend to me.
As far as that other litany, it would apply to Dennis Kucinich and Vincent Bugliosi as well. If they have documentation and not opinion to back up what they are saying, then why (and please stop dodging this fundamentally important question as you have so artfully what, three times now?): If they have the evidence, all these "prosecutors," why don't they go to trial?? That is a simple question. Answer it, please. As I said, I would WELCOME a trial, where BOTH sides are heard, under oath, all the documents in evidence, and no opinion, just fact. I mean that. And if it was proven that Bush lied, that he cooked intelligence, abused executive privilege or whatever and they convict him he should be thrown out of office (which would be largely symbolic, doncha think, since he has what, about 3-4 months left? Sheesh). I have no problem with that. My question is why don't they do it?? And if they are unwilling to, why are you so incensed at me? It is not MY fault they won't impeach him.
You can sure see the splinter in my eye, but the timber in your own seems to escape you.
As to Obama bashing, I gave opinion on what are known facts. His association with Reverend Wright...his church's association with Louis Farrakhan...his church's black liberation theology...his radical way left pro abortion stance...all facts. There is plenty of McCain bashing going on too. I don't hear any righteous indignation on your part concerning McCain bashing. So it is okay to bash Republicans? I see.
YOU SAID: Obstruction is something the right-wingers have down to an art. You have mastered well.
Answer: Ahem. Seems like the Democrats are the obstructive ones. Last time I looked, Pelosi was a Democrat, and she is obstructing an impeachment. Take your rant to her where it might do some good. I would tell them if you think you have the goods, bring it on. Ms. Pelosi is obstructing that.
You said: At the same time, it is an extremely transparent and ineffective way to address issues that are vital to our country.
Answer: Issues vital to our country? Impeaching a president who only has 3 more months in office is vital to our country? For everyone to just assume dennis Kucinich and these prosecutors are telling the truth and the accused has no opportunity for defense? That sounds more like Russia than America.
You said: Clearly, you are unwilling to attempt to look at, let alone participate in any kind of real debate that excludes the tactics you use in these posts.
Answer: Debate involves both sides being willing to hear both sides. You are not willing to entertain the thought of Bush not being guilty. In fact, absolutely will not entertain it. I, on the other hand, said let's have the impeachment trial and get it all out in the open once and for all, both sides. That sounds like I am very willing to hear both sides. Unlike you.
YOU SAID: That would involve actually knowing what you are talking about...and the only way to get that is to peek inside the hearings and focus on the ISSUES under discussion. Somehow this seems to terrify you. No problem. There are plenty of places beyond this forum where really informed discourse is available.
Answer: Peeking inside hearings where only one side is presented is NOT debate, and it is NOT the way to find the truth. Anyone with a reasoning OPEN mind sees that. Impeachment would be televised. We would hear testimony first hand. We could see documents first hand. None of this behind the door whispering stuff. Get it ALL out in the open. THAT seems to terrify you, not me. Seems to terrify Democrats, otherwise Nancy Pelosi would not be blocking it. That is common sense.
As to knowing what I am talking about...you only know what Dennis Kucinich is talking about and what little leaks out of those closed hearings. One-sided without anything from the other side. That is decided UNdemocratic for someone who calls himself/herself a Democrat. I am just amazed that you cannot see that everything you accuse me of, you are in spades. LOL. Amazing.
You said: Go head. Stick your head in the sand, and keep it there, if that's what makes you happy. That's what a comfort zone is...a world where you can be right 100% of the time and live under the pretense that you know all there is to know.
Answer: Sheesh. Dial it back a notch will ya. You just described yourself to a tee. "Your comfort zone where you can be right 100% of the time and live under the pretense that you know all there is to know." You have basically been lecturing to me paragraph after paragraph that you know all there is to know, YOU know the truth, and I just refuse to see it. You say honest debate, yet you have no intention of entertaining any such thing. If you did, you would want to hear both sides in an open forum. You don't. You want a select committee comprised of majority partisan Democrats calling witnesses they know are going to support their aim without asking anyone who might refute any of it...come ON. Talk about transparent. Lynch mob mentality, hang him and ask questions later. All this drama over a man who is leaving office in 3 months. All this anger....
I will try to say this again, and maybe you can dial back your disdain and condescencion just long enough to hear it...I have stated emphatically and will state it again: I DON'T know all there is to know. I have heard stuff from both sides, both sides equally convinced of innocent and guilt, but neither able to prove it definitively. Which is why I said...impeach the man. If you feel like they have the goods, then you should be lobbying the Democratic leadership not to block impeachment, little obstructionists that they are. Let's get it ALL out in the open. Both sides. ALL of it. And if they are not willing to do it...then in my opinion, they should fold their tent and HUSH. And that is the difference between you and me...if this was a Democratic President I would be saying the same thing to a Republican committee...if you aren't going to do anything other than a political exercise, fold up your tents and HUSH.
|
