• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      New upgrade with simpler interface   05/13/2016

      Once again, the fine folks at IPB made a new upgrade and things might not be where you started to learn they were. However, this is one time where I think they actually improved things for navigation. There are only a few big buttons: When you click on one of those buttons, some other stuff opens up, depending on which button you click. (Later Note: These only appear when zoomed in or in the mode for smartphones/tablets.) I'm learning this as you are, so I suggest you do what I am doing: click on these big buttons, see what they open and fiddle with the software some. Ironically, you will find there is a lot that is intuitive. That's what I'm discovering. (Later note: I just discovered that I was viewing the site zoomed in too far to see the normal view. The menus are still there with the old buttons, but when I zoom in too much, they disappear and the new buttons appear. I believe this zoomed in way is what the site looks like on mobile devices. I'm going to mess with it some more, then maybe make some explanations.) Sorry for the inconvenience. Still, over time, I hope you end up liking these changes. Michael
Ed Hudgins

Rick Santorum: The Most Anti-Reagan Republican

32 posts in this topic

Rick Santorum: The Most Anti-Reagan Republican

By Edward Hudgins

January 6, 2012 - With his virtual tie in the Iowa Caucuses, Rick Santorum is the final flavor-of-the-week conservative alternative to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

While it might be tough for voters to decide which Republican candidate best represents the principles of Ronald Reagan, it is easy to determine who is antithetical to the Gipper’s values: that opponent of liberty is Rick Santorum.

When Republicans leaned toward liberty

Conservative Republicans favor traditional values, seeing families and religion as essential to social order. In contrast to libertarians, they would sometimes allow government to interfere with lifestyle choices, especially sexual morality. But most conservatives, like libertarians, favor individual liberty and free markets, with government strictly limited in scope and power; they rightly fear that the state is the greatest threat to the traditions they value.

Thus Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential candidate wrote, “The first thing… [a conservative] has learned about man is that each member of the species is a unique creature. Man’s most sacred possession is his individual soul.” The 1964 party platform stated that “Every person has the right to govern himself, to fix his own goals, and to make his own way with a minimum of governmental interference.”

When Reagan ran for president in 1980, the platform began with a section entitled “Free Individuals in a Free Society.” It read “It has long been a fundamental conviction of the Republican Party that government should foster in our society a climate of maximum individual liberty and freedom of choice. Properly informed, our people as individuals or acting through instruments of popular consultation can make the right decisions affecting personal or general welfare.”

Santorum the collectivist

Santorum fundamentally disagrees.

According to Santorum, “This whole idea of personal autonomy—I don’t think that most conservatives hold that point of view.” Specifically, “One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right.”

Concerning libertarians—though he tends to confuse them with liberals—he says “They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want.”

Santorum will have none of it. His book It Takes a Family was meant to be an answer to Hillary Clinton’s It Takes a Village. We see that his goal is not to move us away from government interference with families. Rather, it is to move the government away from protecting individual liberty.

Santorum argues that American liberals “say ‘it takes a village’ but really what their ideology is based around is the individual.” No Rick! A village is a collective, not an individual. Liberals favor majority votes in villages trumping the liberty of individuals. Libertarians favor individual choice.

Santorum continues “We understand that the basic unit of society is the family, that the individual needs to be nurtured and supported and molded and shaped through this family structure, through the real village, which is the church, the community organizations….”

Freedom as slavery

Santorum’s campaign banners read “Faith, Family, and Freedom.” The inclusion of the last term is disingenuous. He would replace the “freedom to be left alone” with the Orwellian notion of “the freedom to attend to one’s duties—duties to God, to family, and to neighbors.” And if you don’t want to travel the path of self-sacrifice that he, our would-be ayatollah, prescribes, you will be, in the words of Rousseau, “forced to be free” by the government.

In his breathtaking distortion of history—he can’t be this ignorant—Santorum rejects the notion that the Founders endorsed the pursuit of individual happiness as a right the protection of which is the purpose of government. Does he have any clue who Thomas Jefferson was? Does he have any apprehension that “happiness,” along with “life” and “liberty” as listed in the Declaration, are attributes of individuals, not groups?

More Obama than Reagan

Santorum has more in common with Barack Obama than Ronald Reagan. He is a collectivist, only his collective is the family, not the village nor, as with Marx, society as a whole.

Traditional conservatives and most libertarians acknowledge the importance of families in a free, stable society. But they understand that the moral unit, the living, breathing entity that thinks and chooses and acts, and that has goals and aspirations, is the individual. They thus agree that in society with others individuals must seek values such as career and family based on mutual consent, respecting the rights of others.

Santorum might mouth support for free markets and limited government. But as a committed anti-individualist he is probably the Republican who would most endanger liberty. Those Republicans who favor what was the core value for Reagan and Goldwater had better understand what Santorum is all about before they enter the voting booth.

EXPLORE:

"The Need for a New Individualism" Edward Hudgins, January-February 2005.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just keep in mind that it was your buddy RWR who was delivering $1.75 worth of government for every $1.00 collected in taxes. He was telling us not to worry about the loss on each transaction, we will make it up on volume.

The Republic wild deficits started with your buddy RWR.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said, Ed. I printed a list of Santorum’s voting record on the Mitt Romney for President thread.

Peter Taylor

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With his virtual tie in the Iowa Caucuses, Rick Santorum is the final flavor-of-the-week conservative alternative to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Flavor of the week indeed. I think Santorum is this cycle’s Huckabee. He’ll be in the toilet before long. His Iowa placement is just froth, he’ll soon slip and fall on his ass like a stripper working a pole coated in lube.

http://blog.spreadingsantorum.com/

I'm trying to fit in the other key words, and can't seem to do it gracefully, so here goes: Santorum, anal sex, fecal.

The Republic wild deficits started with your buddy RWR.

Sure you don’t mean the Democratic Congress, especially the House, that he was stuck with? Interesting how the supposed surpluses of the later Clinton presidency coincided with a Republican controlled House.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure you don’t mean the Democratic Congress, especially the House, that he was stuck with? Interesting how the supposed surpluses of the later Clinton presidency coincided with a Republican controlled House.

The economy started going into the tank even before 2000. Remember the dot com fiasco?

ruveyn

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The economy started going into the tank even before 2000. Remember the dot com fiasco?

Of course. You brought up the correlation between deficits and the occupant of the White House, all I did was dispute that point; it’s just not that simple. Now are you saying Clinton was responsible for the dot com bubble?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The economy started going into the tank even before 2000. Remember the dot com fiasco?

Of course. You brought up the correlation between deficits and the occupant of the White House, all I did was dispute that point; it’s just not that simple. Now are you saying Clinton was responsible for the dot com bubble?

No, but the conditions for the "bubble" existed during his watch. His policies did nothing to discourage it.

This country has been going into the crapper since the time of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and probably even before that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Bushes fault!

WWI was his fault also!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but the conditions for the "bubble" existed during his watch. His policies did nothing to discourage it.

I don't think the Government should either encourage or discourage asset bubbles. Under a fiat money system, however...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree that Santorum is pure, unrestricted evil.

Regarding Reagan, he said a lot of nice things but his actions were scarcely libertarian beyond the tax cuts. He increased the size and intrusiveness of the government, ramped up the war on drugs, and gave the social conservatives a 'seat at the table.' Ironically, I think a (plausible if not necessarily true) case can be made that Jimmy Carter did more to make America's economy in fact more-free than Reagan did.

Reagan however was a good rhetoritician.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree that Santorum is pure, unrestricted evil.

Hurrah for Santorum then. Why settle for the lesser of evils? Go first class. Since C'thuluh is not a citizen we will have to choose the next worst thing.

Besides, he promised to bomb Iran. That appeals to me.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republic wild deficits started with your buddy RWR.

Sure you don’t mean the Democratic Congress, especially the House, that he was stuck with? Interesting how the supposed surpluses of the later Clinton presidency coincided with a Republican controlled House.

A significant component of the deficit during the Reagan years was interest rates. Interest rates reached the high teens. See the bottom graph here.

A significant component of the low deficits during the Clinton years was the stock market. With high stock prices came higher tax receipts from capital gains and exercise of stock options that employers granted employees (especially dot.com companies). See the graph here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A significant component of the [snip]

Indeed. I say leave the assigning of credit and blame to the partisan hacks. I know a very silly one who insists that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened if Gore had gotten into office; it was 100% Bush’s fault. Things are rarely so clear-cut, unless you’re working in the ax-grinding trade.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick Perry......other than Paul, has said and proposed the most radical steps to re-establishing liberty in the United States. Here's my quick mash of the other candidates; Santorum is ok, but a bit of a theocrat------Romney is Bush III (enough said)-----Gingrich has flip flopped like a fish out of water on a plethora of issues-----Paul is a quasi anarcho-isolationist with too much love for the 10th amend.-------Huntsman who?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick Perry......other than Paul, has said and proposed the most radical steps to re-establishing liberty in the United States. Here's my quick mash of the other candidates; Santorum is ok, but a bit of a theocrat------

Rick Perry is almost as theocratic as Santorum. And Santorum as "OK but a 'bit' of a theocrat" is a bizarre understatement. Santorum has made FREQUENT philosophical statements attacking individual liberty and individualism. The man is sheer evil, pure and simple.

Romney is Bush III (enough said)-----Gingrich has flip flopped like a fish out of water on a plethora of issues-----Paul is a quasi anarcho-isolationist with too much love for the 10th amend.

Paul is associated with some free-market anarchists but clearly isn't an anarchist himself. He's also not an 'isolationist', he's a non-interventionist. Big difference. And yes, his love of State's Rights is potentially dangerous but the US has enough jurisdictional competition to lessen the danger of this. Plus, Federalism has the advantage of taking social issues out of Federal politics.

Santorum is a warmongering Jesus-fascist psychopath.

Paul, whilst clearly imperfect, is easily better than everyone else in that race. Unless, of course, you think that one can Genuinely Champion Reason by bombing Iran.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect, I wouldn't count this as one of Ed's most well-written or well-reasoned essays.

I'm pretty sure Santorum has a "clue" who Thomas Jefferson was, by the way, and a clue about that clue would be the philosophical differences Madison and Hamilton (and others) had with Jefferson. Santorum follows in the tradition of the Founding Fathers with the view that religion can shape the nation and Constitution without strangling it. This is hardly a new line of thought.

And no, I will not be voting for Santorum, or any other Republican, unless I can get past the notion of Romney's choice of undergarments.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PDS wrote:

And no, I will not be voting for Santorum, or any other Republican, unless I can get past the notion of Romney's choice of undergarments.

end quote

That might matter if you were an emergency room technician who frequently sees objectionable underwear. For the record, I have never asked a girl out, but only if she first showed me her underwear. I don’t vote that way either, because a politician’s underwear can only be legally examined and contemplated in a Tell All with Pictures book called, “I did the President’s and First Lady’s scandalous Laundry, a White House Diary.”

Rethink your jesting statement about not voting for Mitt Romney. Ayn Rand thought that religion was a primitive philosophy. It was an attempt to explain reality. Faith in a God does not necessitate bazaar thinking. There are many positive thoughts in many religions but to the extent that religion undermines a rational life is the extent to which it is evil. There are problems with Mormonism as there is with any other religion.

One difference is that Mormonism was created not two thousand years ago, but in a more modern society in 1820. It evolved for twenty years or so into its current form until 1840, with infrequent revelations and changes since then. Yet, they also claim miracles like our Christian Old and New Testaments. Because it was created just after The Enlightenment which lasted from 1630 until around 1800, its dictums for life may be more rational than other religion’s original precepts.

Give Mitt a chance.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I have never asked a girl out, but only if she first showed me her underwear.

My "girl" "dates" are not permitted to wear underwear.

Simplifies the issue.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PDS wrote:

And no, I will not be voting for Santorum, or any other Republican, unless I can get past the notion of Romney's choice of undergarments.

end quote

That might matter if you were an emergency room technician who frequently sees objectionable underwear. For the record, I have never asked a girl out, but only if she first showed me her underwear. I don’t vote that way either, because a politician’s underwear can only be legally examined and contemplated in a Tell All with Pictures book called, “I did the President’s and First Lady’s scandalous Laundry, a White House Diary.”

Rethink your jesting statement about not voting for Mitt Romney. Ayn Rand thought that religion was a primitive philosophy. It was an attempt to explain reality. Faith in a God does not necessitate bazaar thinking. There are many positive thoughts in many religions but to the extent that religion undermines a rational life is the extent to which it is evil. There are problems with Mormonism as there is with any other religion.

One difference is that Mormonism was created not two thousand years ago, but in a more modern society in 1820. It evolved for twenty years or so into its current form until 1840, with infrequent revelations and changes since then. Yet, they also claim miracles like our Christian Old and New Testaments. Because it was created just after The Enlightenment which lasted from 1630 until around 1800, its dictums for life may be more rational than other religion’s original precepts.

Give Mitt a chance.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Peter, I was, as you probably surmised, simply being a poor man's Hitchens (may he rest in peace, ironically...), who put it best:

"If candidates can be asked to declare their preference as between briefs and boxers, then we already have a precedent, and Romney can be asked whether, as a true believer should, he wears Mormon underwear. What's un-American about that? The bottom line is that Romney should expect to be asked these very important questions, and we should expect him not to obfuscate and whine anymore but to give clear and unambiguous answers to them."

Interesting thoughts by you on the possibility of Mormonism being more rational, because of its late entrance onto the scene. Unfortunately, that late entrance also makes their beliefs more easily verifiable, and therefore quite less verifiable. :cool:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't forget, Santorum has also ruined sweater vests for the rest of us.

Perhaps I will give Mitt a chance, notwithstanding his penchant for onesies.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PDS wrote:

Perhaps I will give Mitt a chance, notwithstanding his penchant for onesies.

end quote

Colonel Batt Guano in “Doctor Stranglove:” “That sounds preverted.” Do you mean a penchant for self gratification?

That is very un Mormon like. The Bible says, “Thou shalt not spill thy seed upon the ground.” That is why they are blessed with so many children. Or is Onesies a type of underwear? Either way, I hope you mean it.

Now we need a slogan like “I like Ike.” Hmmm? Mitt is not a myth? No. We need Sheriff Mitt Dillon to clean up (DC) Dodge City. Nah.

It will come to me. You got anything?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PDS wrote:

Perhaps I will give Mitt a chance, notwithstanding his penchant for onesies.

end quote

Colonel Batt Guano in “Doctor Stranglove:” “That sounds preverted.” Do you mean a penchant for self gratification?

That is very un Mormon like. The Bible says, “Thou shalt not spill thy seed upon the ground.” That is why they are blessed with so many children. Or is Onesies a type of underwear? Either way, I hope you mean it.

Now we need a slogan like “I like Ike.” Hmmm? Mitt is not a myth? No. We need Sheriff Mitt Dillon to clean up (DC) Dodge City. Nah.

It will come to me. You got anything?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Keep your Mitt's off my wallet!

Half a Mitt is better than a bare hand!

See even his name does not work.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abbot: Who’s on first?

Costello: Hmmm? We need a home run. In fact we need some humorous or catchy slogans for political buttons as in “I like Ike.”

Abott: Mitt is not a myth?

Costello: Not bad. How about we need Sheriff Mitt Dillon to clean up (DC) and I don’t mean Dodge City.

Abott: Nah, too wordy.

Costello: Mitt will catch America before it falls?

Abbot: No. Too much like Catcher’s Mitt.

Costello: You got anything . . . ?

Abbot: Keep your Mitt's off my wallet!

Costello: Not derogatory Lou, like that Isolationist slogan from WWII England Will Fight to the Last American. More like In Your Heart You Know He's Right"' BaAuH2O for Barry M. Goldwater

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Better red than dead

The anarchist’s Bigger cages! Longer chains!

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

Fifty-Four Forty or Fight

Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer

Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids you kill today?

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité

Lips That Touch Liquor Must Never Touch Mine

Make love not war

Power to the people.

Remember the Alamo!

Remember the Maine!

Stay the course

We are the 99 percent

The buck stops here.

Workers of the world, unite!

Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too — 1840 U.S. presidential slogan of William Henry Harrison and his Vice President, John Tyler.

54° 40' or Fight — James Polk, 1844. Referring to capturing the "Oregon Territory" from Canada

We Polked you in '44, We shall Pierce you in '52 — 1852 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of democrat Franklin Pierce; the '44 referred to the 1844 election of fellow democrat James K. Polk as president.

Don't swap horses in midstream — 1864 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Abraham Lincoln. Also used by George W. Bush, with detractors parodying it as "Don't change horsemen in mid-apocalypse." The slogan was also used for comic effect in the film Wag the Dog.

This is a White Man's Government! — Horatio Seymour 1868 Democratic Presidential Candidate

Vote as You Shot — 1868 presidential campaign slogan of Ulysses S. Grant[1]

Grant beat Davis - Greeley bailed him — 1872 anti-Horace Greeley and pro-Ulysses S. Grant slogan, which references Jefferson Davis

Grant us another term — 1872 Ulysses S. Grant presidential re-election campaign slogan

Tilden or Blood! — 1877 slogan of Samuel Tilden supporters after the election conflict that led to the Compromise of 1877

Ma, Ma where's my Pa? — 1884 U.S. presidential slogan used by the James Blaine supporters against his opponent Grover Cleveland, the slogan referred to fact Cleveland had fathered an illegitimate child in 1874. When Cleveland was elected President, his supporters added the line, "Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha!"

Rum, Romanism and Rebellion — U.S. presidential election, 1884, Republicans attack opposition for views against prohibition, membership by Catholic immigrants and southerners.

Grandfather's hat fits Ben — 1888 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Benjamin Harrison, whose grandfather William Henry Harrison was elected U.S. president in 1840.

Four more years of the full dinner pail — 1900 U.S. presidential slogan of William McKinley

Full Dinner Pail — William McKinley in 1900

Let Well Enough Alone — 1900 presidential campaign slogan of William McKinley.

He kept us out of war — Woodrow Wilson 1916 U.S. Presidential campaign slogan, also "He proved the pen mightier than the sword"

Keep Cool and Keep Coolidge — The 1924 presidential campaign slogan of Calvin Coolidge.

Hoo but Hoover? — 1928 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Herbert Hoover.[1]

Hoover we trusted, now we're busted. — 1932 campaign slogan against incumbent Herbert Hoover.

I propose (to the American people) a New Deal — 1932 slogan by democratic presidential candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt.

We are turning the corner — 1932 campaign slogan in the depths of the Great Depression by republican president Herbert Hoover.

Defeat the New Deal and Its Reckless Spending — 1936 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Alfred M. Landon[1]

Let's Get Another Deck — 1936 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Alfred M. Landon[1]

Let's Make It a Landon-Slide — 1936 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Alfred M. Landon[1]

Life, Liberty, and Landon — 1936 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Alfred M. Landon[1]

Remember Hoover! — 1936 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Franklin D. Roosevelt

Sunflowers die in November — 1936 U.S. presidential slogan of Franklin D. Roosevelt, reference to his opponent Alf Landon, whose home state of Kansas uses the sunflower as its official state flower, and November to the month when presidential elections in the USA take place.

No Fourth Term Either — 1940 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Wendell L. Willkie[1]

Roosevelt for Ex-President — 1940 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Wendell Willkie

There's No Indispensable Man — 1940 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Wendell L. Willkie[1]

Washington Wouldn't, Grant Couldn't, Roosevelt Shouldn't — 1940 anti-Franklin D. Roosevelt slogan, referring to Roosevelt running for a third term.

We Want Willkie — 1940 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Wendell L. Willkie[1]

Give 'Em Hell, Harry! — 1948 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Harry Truman

I'm just wild about Harry — 1948 U.S. presidential slogan of Harry S. Truman, taken from a 1921 popular song title written by Noble Sissle and Eubie Blake.

Pour it on 'em, Harry! — 1948 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Harry S. Truman

I like Ike — 1952 U.S presidential campaign slogan of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

I still like Ike — 1956 U.S presidential campaign slogan of Dwight D. Eisenhower

Peace and Prosperity — 1956 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Dwight D. Eisenhower

In Your Heart, You Know He's Right — 1964 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Barry Goldwater

In Your Guts, You Know He's Nuts — An unofficial anti-Barry Goldwater slogan, parodying "In Your Heart, You know He's Right", 1964.

Go clean for Gene — 1968 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Eugene McCarthy

Don't Switch Dicks in the Middle of a Screw, Vote Nixon in '72 — Parody of the old saying used by backers of George McGovern in 1972.

Bozo and the Pineapple —Uncomplimentary name given to the 1976 U.S. presidential campaign ticket of Gerald Ford and Bob Dole.

Let's make America great again - 1980 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Ronald Reagan

Morning Again in AmericaRonald Reagan Slogan for 1984 Presidential election

Read my lips - soundbite from the acceptance speech given by George H. W. Bush at the 1988 Republican National Convention.

It's Time to Change America — a theme of the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign of Bill Clinton

It's The Economy, Stupid. - 1992 presidential campaign of Bill Clinton

Ross for Boss — a 1992 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of independent presidential candidate H. Ross Perot.

Yes, America Can! - 2004 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of George W. Bush

Yes We Can — 2008 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Barack Obama.

Change We Can Believe In — 2008 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Barack Obama.

Country First — 2008 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of John McCain.

The Strength and Experience to Bring Real Change - 2008 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Hillary Clinton

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps We Should Try to Be Wary Not of Mitt,

Tho' His Tighty Whitey(s) Be Plenty Scary.

Tis Odd that Mean Ole' Bain Should Be His Bane,

Whilst In His Arse is a Cobb the Size of Newt's Boot,

And in His Head Dances Joseph Smith's Fairy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhpas We Should Try to Be Wary Not of Mitt,

Tho' His Tighty Whitey(s) Be Plenty Scary.

Tis Odd that Mean Ole' Bain Should Be His Bane,

Whilst In His Arse is a Cobb the Size of Newt's Boot,

And in His Head Dances Joseph Smith's Fairy.

Very nicely done, but I would expect nothing less from a payroll making poet!

Adam

respectfully from a fellow payroll maker

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now