Brexit: would you change your vote.
Discussion
glazbagun said:
fblm said:
Sf_Manta said:
...
Going to WTO rules means another 1.5 to 4 years minimum of austerity...
What austerity? UK government spending is up from 633bn in 2009 to 800bn in 2018.Going to WTO rules means another 1.5 to 4 years minimum of austerity...
gooner1 said:
Elysium said:
I agree. In response to the referendum our Govt has pursued Brexit and they have agreed terms with the EU under which we will leave on the 29th Mar 2019.
As you already know, but are pretending not to understand:
1. MP's (including staunch brexiteers) do not like May's deal.
2. People are now talking seriously about 'no-deal', which really means no-plan or Brexit in the stupidest way possible. I believe that most people and most MP's would see 'no-deal' as a failure, by Govt and against the leave voters. On that basis, I think that something needs to and will happen to avoid it.
3. Since the vote, a sizeable group of people (we don't know how many), find that they have greater insight into the issues and potential costs of Brexit than they did at the time of the vote. We also have new information, including confirmation that the leave campaign broke electoral law and the strong suggestion that social media in the run up to the vote was manipulated by a particular group of people, potentially backed by a foreign power.
4. Many people (at least 4 million based on the 2016 petition) felt that the terms of the original vote, with a simple majority required, did not provide a sufficient mandate to justify a step into the unknown if that could greatly damage our nations prosperity.
I am one of the people who thought that the simple majority approach provided a weak mandate for Brexit. However, I have reluctantly accepted that we intend to leave and I did not support a peoples vote when that campaign was launched.
The response from MP's and the public to Mays deal changes that. There is really very little wrong with it, but it has quickly become a political football and the potential of 'no-deal' is being used as a threat to coerce support.
I do not believe we should exit with no-deal, unless we have a robust mandate from the electorate confirming that they still want Brexit on those terms, even if that means the potential for extreme disruption and increased financial hardship.
I think there is plenty of rational, logical thought there. Enough to show that this view is not about 'disrespecting the vote' or 'voting again until we get the right answer'. I expect leavers to disagree, but I think it is absurd for them to pretend they don't understand these arguments.
In fact, I see the question in reverse. In an ideal world, why would we not go back to the people to have them ratify the final terms of our withdrawal from the EU?
I can only see one reason why leave voters dislike this idea. There is a risk that the mood really has changed and that they are no longer in the majority. I understand that risk, but that would be the democratic position.
Arguing that we should not consult the people because it would be undemocratic is, in my opinion, rank hypocrisy.
To summarise, you think that ignoring a democratically reached decision As you already know, but are pretending not to understand:
1. MP's (including staunch brexiteers) do not like May's deal.
2. People are now talking seriously about 'no-deal', which really means no-plan or Brexit in the stupidest way possible. I believe that most people and most MP's would see 'no-deal' as a failure, by Govt and against the leave voters. On that basis, I think that something needs to and will happen to avoid it.
3. Since the vote, a sizeable group of people (we don't know how many), find that they have greater insight into the issues and potential costs of Brexit than they did at the time of the vote. We also have new information, including confirmation that the leave campaign broke electoral law and the strong suggestion that social media in the run up to the vote was manipulated by a particular group of people, potentially backed by a foreign power.
4. Many people (at least 4 million based on the 2016 petition) felt that the terms of the original vote, with a simple majority required, did not provide a sufficient mandate to justify a step into the unknown if that could greatly damage our nations prosperity.
I am one of the people who thought that the simple majority approach provided a weak mandate for Brexit. However, I have reluctantly accepted that we intend to leave and I did not support a peoples vote when that campaign was launched.
The response from MP's and the public to Mays deal changes that. There is really very little wrong with it, but it has quickly become a political football and the potential of 'no-deal' is being used as a threat to coerce support.
I do not believe we should exit with no-deal, unless we have a robust mandate from the electorate confirming that they still want Brexit on those terms, even if that means the potential for extreme disruption and increased financial hardship.
I think there is plenty of rational, logical thought there. Enough to show that this view is not about 'disrespecting the vote' or 'voting again until we get the right answer'. I expect leavers to disagree, but I think it is absurd for them to pretend they don't understand these arguments.
In fact, I see the question in reverse. In an ideal world, why would we not go back to the people to have them ratify the final terms of our withdrawal from the EU?
I can only see one reason why leave voters dislike this idea. There is a risk that the mood really has changed and that they are no longer in the majority. I understand that risk, but that would be the democratic position.
Arguing that we should not consult the people because it would be undemocratic is, in my opinion, rank hypocrisy.
Edited by Elysium on Monday 24th December 10:13
to hold another referendum because some people, and you're not sure of the numbers , may have changed their minds, is democrocy?
The rank hypocrisy is all yours, Eliesome.
How is it possible for a second referendum to ignore a democratically reached decision? The act of holding a second referendum does not in itself change our course. Like the 2016 referendum it would be advisory.
If the mandate is still to leave, then that is a democratic decision.
If the mandate has changed and the majority now want to remain, then that is still a democratic decision.
Democracy is continuous. When we have a change of Government following a general election we don't argue that the latest vote has 'ignored' the democratic decision of the previous one.
Your argument hinges on the idea that one vote is more important than another. That can only be because the vote you want honoured gets you something you want.
I am fine with that as a personal view, but I maintain that it is hypocritical to argue against a second referendum to 'defend democracy'.
As I am sure you know Jacob Rees Mogg agreed with me in 2011 when he proposed the following in Parliament:
JRM said:
It might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed
fouronthefloor said:
Ghibli said:
fouronthefloor said:
You seem to have misinterpreted my question. Do you think we should have a referendum based on May's deal or no deal?
It makes no difference what I think. It's now down to the MPs to make the decisions.The reason I ask is that almost every post you make, tends to be a question. You then proceed to argue, actively misinterpret and twist what people have said.
I thought I'd ask a plain simple question in the hope that you could put YOUR view forward in a non-confrontational way.
Then everyone knows where you stand without any BS.
People only got one vote in the referendum yet many on this forum think that they now have some form of further say. It's up to the MPs now to make decisions for us.
Elysium said:
I can only see one reason why leave voters dislike this idea. There is a risk that the mood really has changed and that they are no longer in the majority. I understand that risk, but that would be the democratic position.
AS a Leave voter I have no problem with another referendum as follows. We leave as per the mandate (real not imaginary) from the recent referendum, then see if there's an appetite for a referendum on re-applying. The Referedum Act did not specify any criteria based on turnout, margin, or deal. Nor on buyer's remorse if and where it exists. The result stands.A change of mind is one of those things - never mind! General elections lead to governments that don't do what their manifesto says, and people may change their mind mid-term but the basis for a national mood swing in an opinion poll or two is never enough to trigger a new election even if there's more information available i.e. part(s) of the manifesto being set aside.
Claiming that demoncracy requires a re-run due to new information, or any other reason for some people changing their minds,is not justified. It's pure opportunism on the part of those who didn't get what they wanted the first time and will spin for all they're worth to get the decision overturned somehow, anyhow. At this stage it's wearing very thin and the excuse is transparently bogus; it's the way of the EU to stage manage re-runs until they get the result they wanted, but that's partly why some people want distance between the UK and the EU puppet masters.
gooner1 said:
Elysium said:
I believe that a 'first past the post' representative democracy is the best model. Our democracy has evolved over thousands of years, during which time all sorts of people have tried and failed to twist it to their advantage. It is imperfect, but the checks and balances that are built into the system mean that all people have representation.
You are suggesting that the majority interest has been left behind for 40 years, between the referendum on entering the EU and the 2016 referendum on leaving it. You have no evidence base for that. The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago. At some point that shifted in favour of leaving, but we don't know when. We also don't know if that is still the case.
You say that my opinions 'crumble under mild scrutiny'. I assume that means that you simply disagree with them, which is up to you. It does not mean that they are wrong.
The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago?You are suggesting that the majority interest has been left behind for 40 years, between the referendum on entering the EU and the 2016 referendum on leaving it. You have no evidence base for that. The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago. At some point that shifted in favour of leaving, but we don't know when. We also don't know if that is still the case.
You say that my opinions 'crumble under mild scrutiny'. I assume that means that you simply disagree with them, which is up to you. It does not mean that they are wrong.
Really?
Over time membership arrangements for that organisation and it's name have changed and the majority no longer wanted to be members in Jun 2016.
This does not support the argument that 'the majority have been left behind for 40 years'.
Judging by the polls on websites, on here and reading opinions, it looks like hardly anyone who voted Leave has changed there mind. By contrast, there are very very few who voted to Remain and have now changed there mind. So another referdendum will be a waste of time and money, and will likely give a similar result again.
turbobloke said:
AS a Leave voter I have no problem with another referendum as follows. We leave as per the mandate (real not imaginary) from the recent referendum, then see if there's an appetite for a referendum on re-applying. The Referedum Act did not specify any criteria based on turnout, margin, or deal. Nor on buyer's remorse if and where it exists. The result stands.
A change of mind is one of those things - never mind! General elections lead to governments that don't do what their manifesto says, and people may change their mind mid-term but the basis for a national mood swing in an opinion poll or two is never enough to trigger a new election even if there's more information available i.e. part(s) of the manifesto being set aside.
Claiming that demoncracy requires a re-run due to new information, or any other reason for some people changing their minds,is not justified. It's pure opportunism on the part of those who didn't get what they wanted the first time and will spin for all they're worth to get the decision overturned somehow, anyhow. At this stage it's wearing very thin and the excuse is transparently bogus; it's the way of the EU to stage manage re-runs until they get the result they wanted, but that's partly why some people want distance between the UK and the EU puppet masters.
I think I asked a little earlier on the thread, but I'm still struggling with how exactly it's wrong to ask someone who works at somewhere such as JLR whether or not, in the current climate, he or she still feels that they want the additional uncertainty that leaving the EU may bring.A change of mind is one of those things - never mind! General elections lead to governments that don't do what their manifesto says, and people may change their mind mid-term but the basis for a national mood swing in an opinion poll or two is never enough to trigger a new election even if there's more information available i.e. part(s) of the manifesto being set aside.
Claiming that demoncracy requires a re-run due to new information, or any other reason for some people changing their minds,is not justified. It's pure opportunism on the part of those who didn't get what they wanted the first time and will spin for all they're worth to get the decision overturned somehow, anyhow. At this stage it's wearing very thin and the excuse is transparently bogus; it's the way of the EU to stage manage re-runs until they get the result they wanted, but that's partly why some people want distance between the UK and the EU puppet masters.
They'd probably argue that quite a bit has changed for them in the last couple of years.
I can understand how people might feel it isn't respecting their vote in 2016, but I'm not sure telling someone else that they don't have the right to be change their mind is respecting them either.
Elysium said:
gooner1 said:
Elysium said:
I believe that a 'first past the post' representative democracy is the best model. Our democracy has evolved over thousands of years, during which time all sorts of people have tried and failed to twist it to their advantage. It is imperfect, but the checks and balances that are built into the system mean that all people have representation.
You are suggesting that the majority interest has been left behind for 40 years, between the referendum on entering the EU and the 2016 referendum on leaving it. You have no evidence base for that. The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago. At some point that shifted in favour of leaving, but we don't know when. We also don't know if that is still the case.
You say that my opinions 'crumble under mild scrutiny'. I assume that means that you simply disagree with them, which is up to you. It does not mean that they are wrong.
The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago?You are suggesting that the majority interest has been left behind for 40 years, between the referendum on entering the EU and the 2016 referendum on leaving it. You have no evidence base for that. The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago. At some point that shifted in favour of leaving, but we don't know when. We also don't know if that is still the case.
You say that my opinions 'crumble under mild scrutiny'. I assume that means that you simply disagree with them, which is up to you. It does not mean that they are wrong.
Really?
The referendum result was not legally binding; however, it was widely accepted that the vote would be the final say on the matter and would be politically binding on all future Westminster Parliaments. In a 1975 pamphlet Prime Minister Harold Wilson said: "I ask you to use your vote. For it is your vote that will now decide. The Government will accept your verdict." The pamphlet also said: "Now the time has come for you to decide. The Government will accept your decision—whichever way it goes."
Referendum Question said:
Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?
Choice was Yes or NoThe majority accepted the governments action of joining - Do any of those assurances in bold ring any bells
Elysium said:
Over time membership arrangements for that organisation and it's name have changed and the majority no longer wanted to be members in Jun 2016.
This does not support the argument that 'the majority have been left behind for 40 years'.
Bit in Bold whatever the creep in scope it's pretty clear that the majority in 2016 didn't support continued membershipThis does not support the argument that 'the majority have been left behind for 40 years'.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:turbobloke said:
AS a Leave voter I have no problem with another referendum as follows. We leave as per the mandate (real not imaginary) from the recent referendum, then see if there's an appetite for a referendum on re-applying. The Referedum Act did not specify any criteria based on turnout, margin, or deal. Nor on buyer's remorse if and where it exists. The result stands.
A change of mind is one of those things - never mind! General elections lead to governments that don't do what their manifesto says, and people may change their mind mid-term but the basis for a national mood swing in an opinion poll or two is never enough to trigger a new election even if there's more information available i.e. part(s) of the manifesto being set aside.
Claiming that demoncracy requires a re-run due to new information, or any other reason for some people changing their minds,is not justified. It's pure opportunism on the part of those who didn't get what they wanted the first time and will spin for all they're worth to get the decision overturned somehow, anyhow. At this stage it's wearing very thin and the excuse is transparently bogus; it's the way of the EU to stage manage re-runs until they get the result they wanted, but that's partly why some people want distance between the UK and the EU puppet masters.
I think I asked a little earlier on the thread, but I'm still struggling with how exactly it's wrong to ask someone who works at somewhere such as JLR whether or not, in the current climate, he or she still feels that they want the additional uncertainty that leaving the EU may bring.A change of mind is one of those things - never mind! General elections lead to governments that don't do what their manifesto says, and people may change their mind mid-term but the basis for a national mood swing in an opinion poll or two is never enough to trigger a new election even if there's more information available i.e. part(s) of the manifesto being set aside.
Claiming that demoncracy requires a re-run due to new information, or any other reason for some people changing their minds,is not justified. It's pure opportunism on the part of those who didn't get what they wanted the first time and will spin for all they're worth to get the decision overturned somehow, anyhow. At this stage it's wearing very thin and the excuse is transparently bogus; it's the way of the EU to stage manage re-runs until they get the result they wanted, but that's partly why some people want distance between the UK and the EU puppet masters.
They'd probably argue that quite a bit has changed for them in the last couple of years.
I can understand how people might feel it isn't respecting their vote in 2016, but I'm not sure telling someone else that they don't have the right to be change their mind is respecting them either.
B'stard Child said:
Elysium said:
gooner1 said:
Elysium said:
I believe that a 'first past the post' representative democracy is the best model. Our democracy has evolved over thousands of years, during which time all sorts of people have tried and failed to twist it to their advantage. It is imperfect, but the checks and balances that are built into the system mean that all people have representation.
You are suggesting that the majority interest has been left behind for 40 years, between the referendum on entering the EU and the 2016 referendum on leaving it. You have no evidence base for that. The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago. At some point that shifted in favour of leaving, but we don't know when. We also don't know if that is still the case.
You say that my opinions 'crumble under mild scrutiny'. I assume that means that you simply disagree with them, which is up to you. It does not mean that they are wrong.
The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago?You are suggesting that the majority interest has been left behind for 40 years, between the referendum on entering the EU and the 2016 referendum on leaving it. You have no evidence base for that. The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago. At some point that shifted in favour of leaving, but we don't know when. We also don't know if that is still the case.
You say that my opinions 'crumble under mild scrutiny'. I assume that means that you simply disagree with them, which is up to you. It does not mean that they are wrong.
Really?
The referendum result was not legally binding; however, it was widely accepted that the vote would be the final say on the matter and would be politically binding on all future Westminster Parliaments. In a 1975 pamphlet Prime Minister Harold Wilson said: "I ask you to use your vote. For it is your vote that will now decide. The Government will accept your verdict." The pamphlet also said: "Now the time has come for you to decide. The Government will accept your decision—whichever way it goes."
Referendum Question said:
Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?
Choice was Yes or NoThe majority accepted the governments action of joining - Do any of those assurances in bold ring any bells
Elysium said:
Over time membership arrangements for that organisation and it's name have changed and the majority no longer wanted to be members in Jun 2016.
This does not support the argument that 'the majority have been left behind for 40 years'.
Bit in Bold whatever the creep in scope it's pretty clear that the majority in 2016 didn't support continued membershipThis does not support the argument that 'the majority have been left behind for 40 years'.
I have explained why I now support a second referendum and why I do not accept that is undemocratic.
gooner1 said:
Elysium said:
I believe that a 'first past the post' representative democracy is the best model. Our democracy has evolved over thousands of years, during which time all sorts of people have tried and failed to twist it to their advantage. It is imperfect, but the checks and balances that are built into the system mean that all people have representation.
You are suggesting that the majority interest has been left behind for 40 years, between the referendum on entering the EU and the 2016 referendum on leaving it. You have no evidence base for that. The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago. At some point that shifted in favour of leaving, but we don't know when. We also don't know if that is still the case.
You say that my opinions 'crumble under mild scrutiny'. I assume that means that you simply disagree with them, which is up to you. It does not mean that they are wrong.
The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago?You are suggesting that the majority interest has been left behind for 40 years, between the referendum on entering the EU and the 2016 referendum on leaving it. You have no evidence base for that. The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago. At some point that shifted in favour of leaving, but we don't know when. We also don't know if that is still the case.
You say that my opinions 'crumble under mild scrutiny'. I assume that means that you simply disagree with them, which is up to you. It does not mean that they are wrong.
Really?
Edited by Geoffrey 321 on Monday 24th December 15:05
Geoffrey 321 said:
gooner1 said:
Elysium said:
I believe that a 'first past the post' representative democracy is the best model. Our democracy has evolved over thousands of years, during which time all sorts of people have tried and failed to twist it to their advantage. It is imperfect, but the checks and balances that are built into the system mean that all people have representation.
You are suggesting that the majority interest has been left behind for 40 years, between the referendum on entering the EU and the 2016 referendum on leaving it. You have no evidence base for that. The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago. At some point that shifted in favour of leaving, but we don't know when. We also don't know if that is still the case.
You say that my opinions 'crumble under mild scrutiny'. I assume that means that you simply disagree with them, which is up to you. It does not mean that they are wrong.
The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago?You are suggesting that the majority interest has been left behind for 40 years, between the referendum on entering the EU and the 2016 referendum on leaving it. You have no evidence base for that. The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago. At some point that shifted in favour of leaving, but we don't know when. We also don't know if that is still the case.
You say that my opinions 'crumble under mild scrutiny'. I assume that means that you simply disagree with them, which is up to you. It does not mean that they are wrong.
Really?
Geoffrey 321 said:
gooner1 said:
Elysium said:
I believe that a 'first past the post' representative democracy is the best model. Our democracy has evolved over thousands of years, during which time all sorts of people have tried and failed to twist it to their advantage. It is imperfect, but the checks and balances that are built into the system mean that all people have representation.
You are suggesting that the majority interest has been left behind for 40 years, between the referendum on entering the EU and the 2016 referendum on leaving it. You have no evidence base for that. The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago. At some point that shifted in favour of leaving, but we don't know when. We also don't know if that is still the case.
You say that my opinions 'crumble under mild scrutiny'. I assume that means that you simply disagree with them, which is up to you. It does not mean that they are wrong.
The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago?You are suggesting that the majority interest has been left behind for 40 years, between the referendum on entering the EU and the 2016 referendum on leaving it. You have no evidence base for that. The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago. At some point that shifted in favour of leaving, but we don't know when. We also don't know if that is still the case.
You say that my opinions 'crumble under mild scrutiny'. I assume that means that you simply disagree with them, which is up to you. It does not mean that they are wrong.
Really?
The question of sovereignty was discussed in an internal document of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO 30/1048) before the European Communities Act 1972, but was not available to the public until January 2002 under the thirty-year rule.
among "Areas of policy" listed "in which parliamentary freedom to legislate will be affected by entry into the European Communities" were: Customs duties, agriculture, free movement of labour, services and capital, transport, and social security for migrant workers.
The document concluded that it was advisable to put the considerations of influence and power before those of formal sovereignty
But it was a free and informed vote
I don't believe a 2nd referendum repeating the first question would resolve anything. It would be costly, time consuming and divisive. The likely outcome would be a marginal win either way. Leave, and we have wasted considerable resource to achieve the sum total of nothing. Would remainers finally accept the result if it was 52/48 leave again? Narrow remain win, why should that result be final and binding? Some vocal remainers have spent over 2 years undermining and actively campaigning to cancel the 2016 result. Should leavers just roll over and say 'fair enough, clearly we should now remain'? IF there was another ref to resolve the current impasse it should be May's deal vs No deal Brexit.
The irrational - almost visceral - opposition to a second referendum by Brexiteers is interesting.
Whilst, by and large, leave voters were less well educated and less intelligent than remain voters, I can't believe that they are so stupid that they believe the pro -Brexit nonsense that another vote by the electorate somehow betrays the wishes of the electorate.
That only leaves the conclusion that they aren't confident that, now, with better facts, they'd win.
Whilst, by and large, leave voters were less well educated and less intelligent than remain voters, I can't believe that they are so stupid that they believe the pro -Brexit nonsense that another vote by the electorate somehow betrays the wishes of the electorate.
That only leaves the conclusion that they aren't confident that, now, with better facts, they'd win.
I'm not really sure there's too much to still discuss.
We voted to leave, and are now doing so. Any attempt by the Remainers in London/SE to overturn a democratic vote will be, rightly, ignored as just totally silly and them clutching at straws.
In which case, as has been mentioned many times, we either end up with a less than perfect 'TM Brexit' or an even worse 'No Deal Brexit'. We can't really influence either, so what are we still discussing ?
We voted to leave, and are now doing so. Any attempt by the Remainers in London/SE to overturn a democratic vote will be, rightly, ignored as just totally silly and them clutching at straws.
In which case, as has been mentioned many times, we either end up with a less than perfect 'TM Brexit' or an even worse 'No Deal Brexit'. We can't really influence either, so what are we still discussing ?
ClaphamGT3 said:
The irrational - almost visceral - opposition to a second referendum by Brexiteers is interesting.
Whilst, by and large, leave voters were less well educated and less intelligent than remain voters, I can't believe that they are so stupid that they believe the pro -Brexit nonsense that another vote by the electorate somehow betrays the wishes of the electorate.
That only leaves the conclusion that they aren't confident that, now, with better facts, they'd win.
I think Leave would walk it with a far larger majority - I'm not opposed to a second referendum or a third - just cannot see what question would be acceptable to all and what it will actually achieve with regard to the current impasse in government....Whilst, by and large, leave voters were less well educated and less intelligent than remain voters, I can't believe that they are so stupid that they believe the pro -Brexit nonsense that another vote by the electorate somehow betrays the wishes of the electorate.
That only leaves the conclusion that they aren't confident that, now, with better facts, they'd win.
Ghibli said:
fouronthefloor said:
Ghibli said:
fouronthefloor said:
You seem to have misinterpreted my question. Do you think we should have a referendum based on May's deal or no deal?
It makes no difference what I think. It's now down to the MPs to make the decisions.The reason I ask is that almost every post you make, tends to be a question. You then proceed to argue, actively misinterpret and twist what people have said.
I thought I'd ask a plain simple question in the hope that you could put YOUR view forward in a non-confrontational way.
Then everyone knows where you stand without any BS.
People only got one vote in the referendum yet many on this forum think that they now have some form of further say. It's up to the MPs now to make decisions for us.
You are very good at replying with questions but you seem intent on stirring things up rather than putting forward your own personal opinions.
Is it because you doubt your debating abilities?
Judging by the amount of time you've spent commenting on Brexit threads (the only threads you comment on) I guess you must have some views of your own. I'd like to know your personal view.
Perhaps you could start by explaining why you voted to remain?
My reasons for voting the other way are very simple because I live a very simple life. I don't like to get embroiled in discussions about highfalutin politics because of this, yet I'd like to be persuaded that I voted the wrong way.
From what I've read so far, I made the right choice.
You obviously know a lot. I'd like you to give me some meaty nuggets of wisdom to help me regret my decision.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff