A Republican will definitely win the election in 2008. It just won't be who you might expect.

Ron Paul appears insane to you because he is the only honest man of the bunch. He's not trying to bullshit you into supporting him, nor does he have some agenda hidden inside euphemisms and cheap talking points like all the others.

When you've been fed lies and bullshit your whole life an honest man sounds insane.

8. YAWN. Gay marriage. Jesus H. Christ, why why why must we all be forced to contemplate this issue so goddamn much? I used to support gay marriage, just because, you know, big whoop. Now I'm so freakin' sick of having it shoved in my face all the time and I'm opposed to it out of simple spite.

Ron Paul is a moron.

Fred's in.

Like all strict libertarians, Ron Paul believes, truly believes, that he has found the Grand Unified Theory of human political relations, that all good political rules stem from a single principle that can be encapsulated in two or thre sentences. He is rigidly ideological, which makes him, by definition, a zealot. Like all zealots, he thus appears to the rest of us like he is batshit crazy... because he is. The rest of us live in a far more complicated, nuanced world, where human interactions and human government cannot neatly be reduced down to a 3-sentence rule.

Mister Cantankerous: I'm afraid the Zombie Reagan campaign is doomed to failure. Most people don't know this, but zombies are not eligible for the Presidency. After the constitutional crisis of 1945 (in which Zombie Roosevelt challenged the succession of Harry Truman), the Constitution was amended to specifically prohibit undead Presidents.

This amendment has been controversial among constitutional scholars, who point out that a zombie would have been preferable to several of the postwar Presidents. But no proposal to modify the prohibition has gained sufficient support in Congress. (This is is probably because undead politicians prefer not to call attention to the lack of any ban on zombies serving in the Senate. Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, and Ted Stevens have all reportedly used their influence to ensure that any zombie-related bills would die in committee.)

Students of Futurama have suggested that the repeal of the no-zombie-Presidents rule is inevitable, citing the victory of Richard Nixon's head in the 3000 election. Critics have countered that Nixon's head was elected president of Earth, not the United States. And it remains unclear whether a severed head kept alive in a jar meets the legal definition of "undead". The question will probably have to be settled by the Supreme Court, and we won't know whether this has happened until new episodes of Futurama are produced.

I watched Fred on Leno, and I was really impressed. So far, I am supporting Fred.

As for Gay marriage, I now oppose it out of spite, too. Quit shoving it down my throat and I will calm down enough to support it again. The gay activists went around this the wrong way. People don't like judges making these decisions for everyone, especially a Mass-hole judge. If they had gone about it incrementally, by convincing their local legislatures, then it would have worked. But now, I want to punch gay activists in the face, and I used to be for gay marriage, since I believe marriage is conservative position.

If they had started with Civil Unions, and tried to convince people with respectful dialogue, instead of calling them bigots and homophobes, they would have gotten a lot further. Plus, the whole outing gay people who disagree with you, makes me hate their (militant gay activists) guts.

I am full of spite, which leads to hate, which leads to the dark side. Just call me Darth Stormy.

I watched the first five minutes with hubby. After which we turned to each other and both said "I'm bored." So we turned it to that 70s Show.

But from the interviews I've heard on radio I like Mike Huckeby. How'd he do last night?

I've long supported the idea of giving gays the same legal rights as heteros. Adoption, estate bequeathing, hospital visitation rights, that sort of thing. I've just opposed calling it marriage because, well, to me it seems like calling a dog a cat. You can do it, but it doesn't make the dog a cat. I still believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but if the people voted en masse to redefine marriage as between two gays, I'd be fine with it. What I'm not fine with is the judiciary dictating to the legislature how and what laws to pass or follow.

I'm gonna have to agree on points
1(Duncan Hunter is a stand up guy and it would be a miracle if he got somewhere)
2(Rudy...uh...blah...and who cares about NYC...oh and his wife has him by the...umm...she'll be another Hillary)
3(thats just fuckin funny haha..ahem)
4(Mormons ARE fuckin crazy..they have "special" underwear O_o and a "special" handshake...yea)
7(yea Ron Paul....everytime I hear his name I think of Ru Paul..is that just me?...and guns are good)
8(*mumbles* 4% of the damn population...spite is a good word)

I can't wait till after you watch the rest of the debate,I deliberately didnt watch it because 1(I hate politics and most politicians even if it was my own party) and 2(because I was hoping you would blog about it therefore making it unnecessary for me to go through it anyway tyvm)

Oh and thank God Fred is finally on track! I really want to go into the service but if Fred or Duncan doesnt win then I'm sunk,I wont serve in a Military under Hillary or Obama (assuming they keep the military *mumbles*evil bastards..and Rudy is a pussy)..................................wussy:)

I am physically incapable of respecting the intelligence of a Mormon. At least "regular" Christians base their beliefs on myths that have been around for a few thousand years; I can understand that at least a little. But Mormons, well, they're fucking crazy.

It's one thing if their beliefs are dangerous or likely to interfere with their performance in other areas (like politically--by all means object to Romney if you believe he'd be some kind of a puppet or that he'd attempt to implement Mormon doctrine as law). I just don't see that being arguably the case with Romney since he has a reasonable track record of conservative compromise in the face of liberal dominance (and I should probably make an explicit admission that I wouldn't put Romney in the top three of the Republican candidates, so I'm not speaking out of some Mormon solidarity sentiment here [shudder]).

Romney aside, I kind of resent you singling out Mormons for a general condemnation with such a lame reason (though hardly enough to stop reading your blog--it's too much fun to let an expression of contempt spoil it for me). Personally, I don't think longevity is much of an excuse for a belief system so I tend not to respect "traditional" or "cultural" Christians who aren't interested enough to back their beliefs with personal emotional investment anyway. Seriously, if you're going to have contempt for people's intelligence based on their faith, you might as well make that a blanket contempt. If someone believes something crazy just because a bunch of old folks believe it then they're just giving into generational peer pressure. I have less respect for that than for someone with an honest personal conviction even if I disagree with their eventual belief.

"All I could think about was the cave as a giant cold uterus."

I see you've met my wife.

Ba Da Boom.

Thank you, try the veal

Seriously though,

Duncan Hunter is an unindicted co-conspirator waiting to be, well, indicted. Some of the dealings he has had with shady defense contractors are soon to become a major distraction to his ambitions.

Mitt Romney, as long as he doesn't try to mandate frog licking in the public school system then I really don't have a problem with him.

Guiliani, his appeal is mostly confined to the Northeast. His penchant for marrying certifiable nut cases puts his decision making abilities in question.

Ron Paul, as everyone agree is ineed crazy as a shit-house rat.

Fred Thompson, I support electing Fred if only to remove him from the street. Keeping him busy in the White House will mean more poontang for me.

Maybe I need to start watching the Dem debates, for reference. I was pretty disappointed.

I did get what Rudy was saying, though. He had 700,000 illegals, and INS was only going to get rid of 800 of them per year. (He can't carry them to the border himself.)

So he decided to make those 800 that they deported the worst criminals of the bunch, instead of just the first 800 they caught.

That makes sense to me. It's just like triage. Or, well, reverse triage.

Oh, and Ron Paul. His pedantic, whiny voice makes me want to headbutt my tv.

Jacob...thanks! You summed it up for me. I've been having a great time reading this blog and I expected some religious ribbing to fly our way. Lame reason though.

Tolbert, you are badly misinformed about Hunter (and I have a hunch you know that already), but for some reason have chosen to share your ignorance with the rest of us.

Rachel, don't write off Hunter yet. Grassroots conservatives like him no matter that the pundits are giving him short shrift. He swept the Texas Straw Poll with 41% of the delegate vote compared to Fred in a distant second at 20%. Texans want a proven conservative and Hunter is the only one in the bunch with 27 years of conservative legislation under his belt. Besides, he's the only one who has actually DONE something (successful and effective) about illegal immigration. And he's the ONLY one -on either side of the aisle -who is qualified to be our Commander-in-Chief.

I find Romney's religious affiliation to be irrelevant, unless you believe that it will dictate how he behaves as President. John Kennedy faced similar strains of religious bigotry and ignorance when he ran in 1960 as Romney faces from many quarters today. Kennedy responded frankly,

I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

Amen (so to speak).

The straw poll meant nothing for Hunter, because the top candidates didn't bother. What the poll does mean is 1) Fred Thompson, who was an unannounced candidate and didn't participate, had a stunning amount of support compared to Rudy McRomney, and 2) Ron Paul, who is FROM Texas and who DID participate, couldn't do better than third behind a the unannounced Fred and a CALIFORNIAN who pulls about 2% in credible polls.

Paul is going nowhere fast. Don't let his fanatical netroots supporters, who have the power to dominate a blog but in reality are less than 1% of the population, fool you!

Meh... don't make me laugh...

fred is a good guy, I watched his video last night...he just go in way late in the game.

He does beat Billary and Barack the magic nergo though. I think... If I had to choose a right winger, It'd be Fred, better him that Mr. Mormon Super Flopper, Romney...

-Me

Fred Thompson, I support electing Fred if only to remove him from the street. Keeping him busy in the White House will mean more poontang for me.

Quote of the day! It's had me giggling for ten minutes now.

It's funny, while Fred gets all the hot chicks, Bill Clinton was busy banging the chubby gals. At the time I didn't realize it, but Clinton was like the country's Wingman-in-Chief.

Fred needs to eat a samminch, though. He's lost too much weight.

But he's got my enthusiastic vote, if only for the fact that we'd have a smokin' hot first lady for the first time in forever.

By the way, being raised under the jackboot of Mormonism, I can attest that they are nice people and make fine neighbors, but their beliefs are bat-shiat crazy.

And how come nobody makes a big deal out of the fact that the biggest asshat in the Senate (and that's some tough competition, to be sure), Harry Reid, is also a Mormon?

Redheaded Infidel,

I am pretty sure that the vistors to this blog are astute enough to recongnize hyperbole when they encounter it, maybe not.

As for Duncan Hunter, He owned a house that was listed on the tax rolls as being around 3,000 square feet and paid his taxes at that rate when in actuality the house was around 6,000 square feet with a 2,000 square foot guest house on the property as well.

When asked about the descrepancy Duncan was quoted as saying "Duh!"

Now if you're not smart enough to notice a difference of 5,000 square feet are you smart enough to be President of the United States? and no using the current occupant of that office for comparison.

So lets talk about the hypocrisy that Duncan Hunter exhibits. Hunter is well known for chastising the DLA (Defense Logistic Agency) for some of the money it has spent, such as around $20,000 for a mini-fridge, while at the same time "earmarking" $70,000,000 for the DP-2

Yes, that is right ladies and gents, 70 million dollars paid to DuPont Aerospace to develop a VTOL (verticle take-off and landing) aircraft, in his district, natch. All of the 4 produced units have crashed and burned.

Did I mention that Dupont Aerospace contributed $40,000 to Duncan's campaign?

Everybody, google the DP-2 and look at the design of the thing. Even a blind syphalitic crack-whore would come to the conclusion that the thing ain't ever going to fly.

Duncan Hunter is a whore, not that there's any thing wrong with that. You just have to ask yourself in the morning when you wake up next to him is "gosh, can I stop him from being a whore so that I can respect myself?".

The answer to that is no.

Rick Lucas:

Ron Paul appears insane to you because he is the only honest man of the bunch. He's not trying to bullshit you into supporting him, nor does he have some agenda hidden inside euphemisms and cheap talking points like all the others.

When you've been fed lies and bullshit your whole life an honest man sounds insane.

Word.

The thing that I find very disturbing about all the outright hatred of Ron Paul I see on the internet and hear on talk radio is that he is the only candidate who is faithfully espousing the beliefs of our Founding Fathers. Evidently a lot of modern Americans think they were a bunch of nuts. I think that bodes ill for the future of the republic (or what's left of it).

Having said that, though, I don't agree with his isolationism. I understand it, but I don't agree with it. I believe that Western Civilization is in a war of survival against Islam, and this planet isn't big enough for both of us.

(Note that I said "Islam", not "radical Islam". I meant it that way.)

As an atheist/agnostic, I have a lot of respect for mormons in general. I have worked all over the country and the most decent, most optimistic, kindest people I ever worked with were the mormons I met in Idaho. So what if they have some crazy beliefs and customs? If one of the goals of a religion is to improve the character of the people who follow it, mormonism works.

But that being said, I don't much care for Romney. I get the feeling he's just saying what he thinks we want to hear. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't really care yet.

Rachel - good blog. I, for one, am amused by the flying-food-at-dog-faces pictures juxtaposed with the polical and current events commentary. I am also reading your blog in order to learn to cuss with more creativity.

Ron Paul was not saying that the passengers on the airline would have guns--he was making a private property argument about the airlines. He was saying that the owners of the airlines should be allowed to make arrangements for the security of the airplanes. Now, government regulation prohibits allowing anyone other than Air Marshals to carry weapons on board. If the 2nd Amendment AND property rights were acknowledged, the airlines could hire their own security and allow pilots to have weapons to protect the cockpit. The owners of the airlines, in other words, could exercise their rights to protect their passengers via the Second Amendment.

The airlines would, under their rights of property, be allowed to bar the carrying of weapons by passengers.

Zombie Presidential Candidates never lie, thats all I'm saying.

From out here in the wilds of New Zealand, here's my take.
Ron Paul is batshit crazy and a zealot. Plus if PrisonPlanet supports anyone, they're suspect.
Romney, looks like a game show host. His teeth are too straight and there's that golden tablets thing.
I liked Hunter but don't know his history well enough.
I liked Huckabee, but nobody's going to want a President Huckabee after that movie plus he's too nice.
Giuliani has a plan and seems decisive but he's not a good enough orator.
Brownback......nope.
McCain has a wonderfully quirky sense of humour but I don't think most americans share his wit.
Fred Thompson talks a good game when it's a prepared script. Seems a little stilted when he has to ad-lib so the debates will tell on him. No hard policy yet to make an assessment.
Civil unions are the best compromise for gays. They want the benefits, they should take them. The rest is just typical in your face gay activism.

Kellyrae, welcome to my blog and thank you.

Sue Bob - thank you for clarifying that for me. I actually wasn't sure at all what he was talking about and now I know. I guess my brother and the other Rick are right, too, Paul is the most honest of the group, and I do concede that honesty is death in politics. Sad.

As for the Mormon thing, Jacob - I actually do hold the same disdain for all organized religion. I just don't feel free to talk about it much because it would alienate and infuriate so many of my readers. Mormons are just easy to pick on because they stick out, what with the temple garments and such, not to mention the polygamy thing even though the vast majority of Mormons eschew it. I really didn't mean any offense. To be honest, every Mormon I've ever met was a nice person. I just really don't like Romney.

Tolbert,

While you're googling the DP-2, check out the history of Bell-Boeing's V-22 Osprey, the RAH-66 Comanche, and Lockheed's F117 Nighthawk.

Let's put things in perspective...

In one year alone (!), the Osprey cost $1.7 BILLION in R&D. The Osprey is supposed to be our new vertical take-off plane, although it also had serious initial problems. And after four fatal crashes, they say they've finally fixed it. Let's hope so, right? Fortunately, the Osprey is the end of several decades of inglorious trial-and-error development work on tilt-rotor aircraft.

After initial and critical under-funding and resultant molasses-slow development and testing, the Comanche was shelved for years. First the Army wanted it, then it didn't, then it did again. Now that it's off the shelf, $3.15 BILLION has been appropriated for its development. Nice chunk of change. It's butt-ugly, too, compared to the blood-curdling glory of the Apache.

The F117 gained widespread acclaim in the Gulf War, but it too had several decades worth of crash and burn, myths, rumors and public ridicule. The F-117 was - out of necessity - a "black", ultra-secret program for most of its life in R&D. Clunky and weird by traditional aircraft standards, it was originally dubbed by Lockheed as the "Hopeless Diamond" and no one was impressed with it. Lockheed's prestigious engineer Kelly Johnson (a veteran of the U-2 and SR-71 spy plane program) seriously disliked it, saying that "no aircraft that looked that ugly could possibly be any good." That sounds familiar, eh?

Due to multiple failures and crashes (numerous aerodynamically unstable prototypes), and the media's fuzzy, inaccurate reporting, the stealth program went totally black and invisible under Ronald Reagan. Now, pause for a sec... how do you think it was paid for? The first few production aircraft crashed and multiple pilots were injured and never flew again - some died. I hate to say it, but military aircraft R&D is a tough gig marked in more blood than glory - because the aircraft must be designed to make hazardous maneuvers no civilian aircraft is asked to perform. It costs a ridiculous amount of money and time...and the job is never done. Today, the Nighthawk is world-renowned but about to be retired in favor of something newer and better.

As for the DP-2, the failures you've referred to have been scaled-down versions of the proposed aircraft. It was supposed to be developed as an aircraft for special ops. According to DuPont, the DP–2 has the ability to "take off and land like a helicopter, while carrying 48 fully equipped troops, even a Humvee." That carrying capacity is what separates the DP–2 from the Harrier and the turboprop powered V–22. But in May 2001 the Office of Naval Research testified that "As the plan and tests have progressed, it has become clear that the risks of manned flight of the half-scale DP–2 are great and the cost of testing to mitigate the risks are going to be greater than the available budget. This led us to use smaller free flight models to reduce risk, minimize cost, and gain understanding of the system performance." That leads me to wonder why the DP-2 was so under-funded to begin with - $63 mil over 21 years is nothing by industry standards.

I'm not saying the DP-2 is all that and a bag of chips, but I tend to be pretty pragmatic about military R&D. It's a bumpy road littered with ignominious failures, vast bjillions of taxpayer dollars, and public disdain. But I would much rather see R&D dollars going toward keeping us at the forefront of military technology than being spent on cow flatulence!

Fascinating subject, and one I could visit about all day, but now I have to get back to work. Going on vacation next week, and have to tie everything up today...

As for the Mormon thing, Jacob - I actually do hold the same disdain for all organized religion. I just don't feel free to talk about it much because it would alienate and infuriate so many of my readers.

I just really don't like Romney.

At the heart of the LDS church is a belief that Jews came to America circa 600 B.C. Without that, you don't get Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith to reveal the golden tablets.

As someone once said "if you'll believe that, you'll believe anything".

As for Mitt Romney, if he gets the nomination I'll vote for him, but he's not my first or second or third choice. He looks (and sounds) a little bit too much like the presidential candidate from central casting for my taste.

Bell-Boeing's V-22 Osprey, the RAH-66 Comanche, and Lockheed's F117 Nighthawk

The development of these systems utilize the resources of multi-billion dollar companies with decades of development experience and tens of thousands of engineers at their disposal.

DuPont Aerospace (no connection to Dupont Corporation) is a boutique company that has never produced a single viable product, has an extremely limited staff and whose contract to develop the DP-2 is nearly 100% of the companies revenue stream.

A recent technical revue determined that no progress has been made on the DP-2 in over 6 years, yet Duncan Hunter "earmarked" $8,000,000 for the company for 2007.

Directed thrust as a means of achieving VTOL for aircraft has been abandoned by every aerospace firm. Currently the only VTOL (non-rotary wing) aircraft in development or production consist of the V-22 Osprey, which uses a turboprop and tilting rotors nearly the size of helicopter rotors and the JSF which utilizes a ducted fan, in essence large slow moving rotors within a fixed housing.

The cost of the DP-2 to date would have purchased 73 MRAP's.

I support the development of cutting edge technology, but this one doesn't even pass the smell test and remains in existence due only to the patronage of Duncan Hunter.

HT: As I said, all beliefs look crazy to those who don't hold them. Your average Christian believes that a large group of people migrated from Egypt by walking across the Red Sea, that their pursuers were drowned by that same sea, that the sun stood still for a couple extra hours to enable consumation of a conquest, that a man can lose his strength with a hair cut, that people can walk on water if they just belief hard enough, and that a handful of bread and fish can feed thousands and the left-overs fill several baskets. All of which I also believe, as it happens.

So when you say, "If you'll believe that, you'll believe anything" you're not far off. Of course, again, Mormons are hardly alone in that categorization. If you accept God and miracles, you accept that certain things are possible that you wouldn't if you don't accept God and miracles. What's interesting is that you choose to act as if this is somehow surprising or unique to Mormons.

Directed thrust as a means of achieving VTOL for aircraft has been abandoned by every aerospace firm.

Actually, the entire Harrier Jump Jet family uses directed jet thrust.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the R & D for the DP-2. If it pans out, it would go 724 mph, more than twice as fast as the V-22 and four times as fast as the CH-46. Imagine the mission capabilities - that's enough to get a girl hot right there. Well, at least this girl. I take my war pr0n seriously. ;)

Look, the Osprey took almost $12 billion and 25 years to develop - and that was by a huge firm, as you pointed out above. It's unreasonable to expect that a smaller firm with far less money could work any faster. In general, I don't have as much scorn for small companies as you may have. They bring a lot to the table. I can't speak to DuPont's corporate culture, but Hunter believes in the viability of the project - and he's been right before.

As a side note, the Pentagon bureaucracy is notorious for resisting progress - so that's nothing new. My entire stint in the Army was spent battling the stagnation of the "this is the way it's always been done" mentality. Don't forget the early resistance to the full-auto M-60 machine gun. "Aaagh - the waste, the waste."

As I said before, all of the previous big breakthroughs in technology were publicly derided. One more example, specific to Hunter, is the Navy's X-craft "Sea Fighter". The Navy didn't want it, but it is now the fastest craft and most mission-mobile craft in the Navy. I saw it on a Future Weapons episode and it was even sexier on TV.

Peace-time makes risks seem so wasteful and unnecessary. But, by the time we need a technology, it's too late. We're fat and happy and virtually comatose - and completely given over to instant gratification. During the Cold War, every measure of progress, from development to production, was resisted. But, we had Reagan, who forged ahead anyway. You call it "whoring", I call it progress.

So, when it comes to "whoring", let's instead talk about a bridge to nowhere or bovine flatulence studies or god-awful entitlement programs, because I've got a few strong opinions about such silliness. Perhaps you'll think I'm too "radical" - too prone to war toy exploitation. (After all, I'd love to bring back the strategic missile defense system - and of course, you remember how that was scoffed right into the ground.) But when it comes to our nation's defense and military dominance, I don't play around. It's money well spent to stay on top.

The Harrier is not in current production. Indeed the existing inventory is the result of a remanufacture program. No new Harriers have been produced since the 80's. The replacement for the Harrier will be the F-35 JSF variant.

Speaking of the Harrier, in teams of accidents, it has the distinction of having the worst record in Marine aviation. Further, when the Harrier takes off and lands vertically it has a limited range of 140 nautical miles. It is a severly limited aircraft.

It's not unreasonable to expect Dupont Aerospace to have made some progress in the last 6 years but they have not made any, zip, nada, none.

Pointing out other examples of wasteful projects for comparison does not support the contention that the DP-2 should continue to receive funding.

There's just no way to polish that turd.

It is a pet project of Duncan's that will cease to end when Duncan retires next year.

In the meantime the money that is being spent so that Anthony duPont can continue his lifestyle would be better spent on MRAPs that
would definitely be saving lives in Iraq at this very moment.

Again, as I've said, I support the development of advanced weapon systems. But as an engineer I know that you just can't create a blackbox in the development cycle that is labled "a miracle occurs here" and expect yourself or your progam to be taken seriously.

OK, well now you're just trying to seduce me by bringing up the F35. ;)

Your last paragraph made for a cute little straw man. I'll acknowledge he's there, but it's not worth doing much more than saying hi, if you know what I mean.

I'm pretty sure we exhausted everyone's interest long ago, and likely our hostess' patience with all our geek talk. I'll just end with this: I think it's overly simplistic to assume that Hunter would put his reputation and career on the line so that Tony duPont can live a lavish high life while Hunter scrapes in a measly $36K over 20 years. C'mon, that's barely $150/mo - hardly worth the vilification. He's not an idiot - or I wouldn't like him so much. There is nothing he believes in more than our national security and military strength. I know that for a fact. And in an age where such sentiments are reduced to insincere cliches by poseur wanna-be's, I know the real thing when I meet it.

So I'll stick with my US Army Ranger (hooah), m'kay? He's not perfect, and I wouldn't trust him if he was. But for the first time in YEARS, I don't feel like I have to hold my nose and vote for a fraud just because he's a smidge better than the treasonous bastard on the other side. That is a miracle.

jacob: the difference is that all of the examples you cite can be written off as parables, fables, or allegories without fundamentally affecting the underlying religion(s). But without those Jews in boats crossing the North Atlantic 2100 years before Columbus, there is no one to make the tablets and then no Moroni to reveal them to Joseph Smith. And without the tablets, there's no basis for the LDS church at all.

It's the difference between having a cultural and ethical framework embellished by a few interesting stories, and a religion that is, at its heart, based on an historically impossible event. Dismiss the story of the golden tablets and you are left with...nothing except the imagination of Joseph Smith.

Redhead, au contraire! Your hostess is not tired of this at all. I love all the smart talk. Do it!