As a conservative, I am both impressed and depressed from watching the first night of the Democratic Convention. Wow.
-
The first night was so much more impressive than the RNC. It's as if the democrats are playing in the NFL while the republicans are playing high school football. It was much better organized, dem enthusiasm was through the roof, and the speeches were sharp.
-
Julian Castro knocked it out of the park. Unlike Rubio, who used the speech selfishly to audition for the 2016 presidential election, Castro spent most of his speech making an argument for Obama and against Romney. He drew sharp distinctions between the two candidates with respect to policies.
-
Michelle was great. Very moving speech, great delivery. More importantly, her story stands in sharp contrast to the life of wealth and comfort that Anne Romney lived. Certainly, one cannot blame Anne for having grown up in privilege. But the juxtaposition between the two womens' stories was glaring.
-
This is only the first night. Tomorrow is Bill Clinton, arguably the most gifted politician of the modern era. And thursday will be Obama. If the democrats have 3 consecutive nights like this one, Obama will get around a 5-10 point bounce. Romney will then be in major trouble.
-
The speeches tonight fused together biography with a vision of where this country should go. I disagree with that vision, and specifically the policies that democrats advocate. Nonetheless, they were highly effective.
The 2012 Republican National Convention will go down as one of the worst in history. I'm furious at the Romney campaign for doing such a poor job of organizing the convention. The quality of speeches was mediocre, and there was a lack of a coherent theme. Romney's speechwriters, in my opinon, committed political malpractice by giving him such a milquetoast vague speech. Of course, don't get me started on the debacle of giving a primetime slot to a senile old washed up actor who spoke to an empty chair like a lunatic.
I hope the Romney people are watching the DNC. They really need to get their sh*t together.
-
Just read Castro's biography. The guy is just another radical leftist. The difference is that this guy is in Texas and has no shot at a national or high profile office, such as Senator or governor. I was a little nervous that the Democrats were grooming this guy for a 2016 run for President, but that's basically impossible for him. No one is going to get elected President as mayor of San Antonio.
On a separate note, conventions don't win elections. Obama knocked it out of the park in his speech in 2004. Bush still won a comfortable victory in November. I don't think the GOP has had an emotionally charged convention since 1980 or 1984. Republicans as a personality trait are less likely to get caught up in celebrity worship than Democrats, hence the DNC will be more charged in general than the RNC.
Oh, I don't support the democratic agenda one bit. Its platform this year is the most liberal in history: public taxpayer funded abortions, massive expansion of government programs, amnesty for lawbreaking illegal immigrants, etc. Having said that, I have to admit that as a piece of political theatrics, the 2012 DNC thus far has been quite effective. And Romney could be trailing by 5-10 points after Obama's post-convention bounce.
Conventions by themselves may not win elections, but successful ones frame the issues in the candidates' favor. Reagan in 1980 and Clinton in 1992 used their conventions very effectively. In 1988 George Bush Sr. was trailing Dukakis by 17 points. He gave a powerful speech in New Orleans, and his numbers skyrocketed.
The silver lining is that Romney is a pretty good debater, so I think he can gain points in that arena. It's obvious that he's a lousy politician. I am still angry though with how bad the 2012 RNC was. I'm a conservative but had a tough time watching it. Seemed more like an audition for 2016 rather than a clarion call for conservative ideals and policies. Total debacle.
Julian Castro should run for President. I think "President Castro" is the only step up from "President Barack Hussein Obama" in terms of unexpectedness.
I'm disjointed they didn't parody or at least reference the whole chair thing from the RNC but ah well.
Democrats are great with smoke a mirrors dude, don't worry. This election is about the economy which continues to suck for the people who will make a difference in the race.
Conventions are really just parties for people who already made up their mind. We've had 4 years of great speeches and lofty rhetoric from Obama. People know he is full of hot air.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-05/democrats-keep-tax-raising-foc…
Look at the anointed ones master plan.
"The approach championed by President Barack Obama would make the tax code more progressive and generate more than $2 trillion for the government over the next decade, compared with extending current rates, according to the Congressional Budget Office. "
$2T over 10 years = $200B per year. Wow. So now we have a $1T per year deficit instead of a $1.2T deficit.
$200B per year is what we pay on the interest for our debt. Just wait until rates go up. This "savings" will be gone.
I'm sorry, but Obama hasn't lived up to his hype. Time to try something new.
Have any of you actually read the Republican Party's official platform? It is loaded with insane fucking shit and so bogged down by social issues that I don't even know what to say.
I'd rather take this "radical leftist" (what a fucking joke) than W 2.0. Also, when you call Obama a "radical leftist," you mean "generally moderate," right?
A guy whose political career was inspired by his mother, a La Raza activist and founder who believes Texas and California should be returned to Mexico, is, by his very nature, a radical leftist.
.
This guys is a laughing-stock in TExas. ONly in San Antonio could this dipshit win an election.
This!! I dont understand how people call the Democrats "radical leftists", when by all historical standards, they are moderates.
When you say insane shit and social issues you really mean social issues you don't support. Dems have their own social issues jammed into things.
I'd love to see a purely economic platform. People are just so dumb. Money = freedom.
As in where both parties debate about the economy and no other social issues? I don't believe that a president has a great of an impact on the economy as many people make it out to seem. I really don't think Romney will do a great job either in growing our economy. Romney entire debate against Obama which will give him a good chance of winning is that the economy is still shitty.
Yeah, who cares about social issues.
And I think Romney will do a better job than Obama.
No, I mean objectively stupid positions and indefensible social issue stances (i.e. their argument that gay people wanting to get married somehow infringes on religious freedom.)
Don't even really want to get into it anymore. There's no point. In 10 - 15 years, the loudest voices for this non-sense will be dead and gone. Good riddance.
Yeah because only old people vote against gay marriage.
Such a minor issue to vote on, but whatever. If that is what it takes to get the anointed one re-elected so be it. He is more than happy to play those people just like he plays his base. Government should have no business in any marriage nor should any married people get benefits. Allow churches to marry and those who don't want a religious ceremony can go to a lawyer and have a legal document drawn up.
Quick poll: did the RNC or DNC sway your vote in any way?
No, absolutely not. Nor do I think it was intended to.
And this is why I don't vote
And you don't need to be religious to be indoctrinated. See liberal political correctness as a perfect example of how to brain wash sans God.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/08/atheism
Your facts are wrong, TNA. "...the past seven years have seen a fivefold increase in people who call themselves atheists, to 5% of the population, according to WIN-Gallup International, a network of pollsters. Meanwhile, the proportion of Americans who say they are religious has fallen from 73% in 2005 to 60% in 2011."
Not nearly 90%, and I guarantee if you drilled down into that 60%, that a large % wouldn't say "I'm religious because I believe Jesus died for our sins." And if you think that that 60% isn't going to continue shrinking, you're lying to yourself.
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
~83% Religious with a majority Christian. 1.6% Atheist.
King, get off Reddit man, place will rot your brain.
This country will go into a revolt because of liberal policies far before atheists can become a majority. Regardless, atheism is not the issue. People are free to believe or not believe whatever they want.
We need to cut spending and reduce the size of government. Will Romney do this? Most likely not, but I will take most likely vs. Obama who we all know wont do it.
Besides, the whole aura surrounding Obama is negative. Always someone elses fault, blame someone else, take from someone else. A very parasitic mindset.
I wonder who is more likely to be politically active (genuinely curious here, not being a dick) a devout religious person or someone who is an atheist. I can see huge amounts of engagement on the far ends of both spectrums.
I'd guess the religious are more active, since atheism is often a cop out to just not have to deal with religion at all. Easy transition to do the same to politics.
You're too smart to say that. Atheism isn't a cop out, it's simply a lack of belief due to a lack of legitimate evidence.
Also, TNA, I'm not sure what Reddit has to do with anything. Baseless attack.
Probably a devoutly religious person. Most atheists aren't frothing at the mouth like the losers on Reddit.
TheKing, I agree that certain parts of the GOP agenda on social issues is pretty whacky. I'm myself is an atheist and rather liberal on social issues.
However, the social platform is mostly lip service to the christian base. Even when the GOP controlled all branches of the government, they did little to try to implement those policies. But when democrats are in control, they ALWAYS expand government programs, raise taxes, and give out more free stuff. The modern democratic party is a coalition of various interest groups, each of which wants something from the government. Given the choice between these 2 very imperfect parties, i'm voting for the gop.
The Bush administration along with Republicans in Congress pushed through one of the biggest handouts of all time (Medicare Part D) while we were in two wars and didn't pay for anything. Let's not act like the modern republican party does anything it claims it will.
Also, while historically the social issues have been lip service, I'd argue that it isn't true post-2010. The data is out there, the amount of anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage bills that have been pushed since the 2010 elections blows historical precedent out of the water.
I never once defended Bush in this thread or any others. As a matter of fact, I'm very critical of Bush's presidency, especially on fiscal matters. Having said that, the national debt did go up from $10 trillion to $16 trillion in just 4 years under Obama. The healthcare bill will result in another $2 trillion in spending and tax hikes.
As I said, neither party is perfect nor guiltless. But given the two choices, the GOP is the better option for someone like myself, who believes that endless government entitlements will have devastating consequences.
Finally, the liberal media's obsession over the "diversity" of the DNC is quite amusing. The GOP has hispanic governors, female senators, etc., but those speakers were dismissed as window dressing. In terms of policies, i see very little evidence that blacks and hispanics do better under a democratic presidency.
Let's play mad libs.
However, the social platform is mostly lip service to the [Insert] base. Even when the [Insert Party A] controlled all branches of the government, they did little to try to implement those policies. But when [Party B] are in control, they ALWAYS [expand/shrink] government programs, raise taxes, and give out more free stuff. The modern [Insert] party is a coalition of various interest groups, each of which wants something from the government. Given the choice between these 2 very imperfect parties, i'm voting for the [Other Party].
Republicans are generally against gay marriage and against abortion. Maybe very right wing, southern Republicans will be for creationism in the schools, but it isn't a party platform issue.
Abortion isn't something that you need to be religious to be against. And I suppose religion is the big issue against gay marriage. So there you go. Religion being against gay marriage is really the only main party platform issue that the Republicans have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29#Ideol…
Pro Second Amendment - check Pro Business and Free Market - check Anti reverse discrimination - check Pro school choice - check Pro Capital Punishment - check
Sounds pretty awesome. Libertarian would be ideal, but much better than the Democratic party.
Yup. This platform is pretty sweet. I'm pro-choice, but at the same time I don't want taxpayer money going to fund abortions. And I certainly don't want my money going to women like Sandra Fluke, so she can subsidize her sexual lifestyle through the use of birth control pills.
The democratic party platform this year is the most liberal in history-not just on social issues but economics as well. Basically we're talking about a political party that genuinely believes that the primary purpose of the federal government is to ensure that people are on equal footing, that they will be taken care of from cradle to grave. I have my beef with the GOP on a lot of areas, but for me it's a no-brainer between the two parties.
Yeah, truth man.
But, wait a minute...don't you want to crush sluts in b-school off the strength of going to b-school? Don't you want to encourage chicks to put out so you can crush more of them at HBS?
ps - BC is often prescribed for non-sex related issues (painful & elongated periods, etc.)
If a woman is too poor to buy birth control pills , it's in the best interests of the state to provide her with them. It is by far cheaper than letting her have kids and then have all of us bear the expense. And from a pure numbers perspective , the same would apply to abortion.
This may sound brutal , but there needs to be more family planning. If you're too poor to have kids - don't!
Yeah because religion is all about feeling good. I mean all those people on missionaries in horrible countries or people coming together in their time of need is nothing more than a teddy bear hug.
If one wants tolerance they should promote tolerance. The biggest issue I have with atheists is this utter smugness that so many of them show. As if being religious automatically means you are a caveman watching Jerry Springer all the time.
I see plenty of ignorance, hatred and disgusting behavior going on regardless of the belief.
I'm agnostic as I think it's the only rationale platform. With that said, atheists are as a group among the most pompous people on the planet.
The U.S should have "Marriage" and "Marriage*" for G/L (with the asterisk included on purpose) with both types receiving all the monetary benefits.
But being rational, shouldn't we at least worship at least one religion in order to avoid going to hell in case it does exist?
.
As an outsider, this is very interesting to watch.
.
What is so funny is the two people rooting for Romney the most are probably Bill and Hillary. For all Clinton's faults, he came to the center and was a much better President than Obama is or ever will be.
I really don't care if people believe or don't believe. It is in the human condition to look at an unknown force in an attempt to make sense of life. Every culture has had a god concept so it is within reason to think that the Judeo-Christian sense of religion is equally made up. With that said, believing in God doesn't make a person unintelligent or unable to think rationally or in depth.
With religion gone there will still be hate. See Europe and their irrational xenophobic behavior. Without religion abortiion will still be an issue. Yes, bad things have been done in the name of religion, just as bad things have been done without it. Greed, envy, jealousy, religion, hate, etc have all been used as a motive.
If Hawkins wants to act like a BSD Atheist, fine, he knows his shit. Some clown with a junior college degree doesn't get to act like a know it all just because they equate Jesus with Santa Claus. Just as believe in a man in the clouds is part of human history so is the over confidence in man while forgetting our innate imperfections.
Wow. Bill Clinton just KILLED it. Holy cow. I knew it was going to be good, but he just murdered the GOP. And word is that much of the speech was extemporaneous.
Gotta love Bill outshining the anointed one.
.
Clinton is rogue. Obama needed to have him speak, but must have known you can't control him. I wouldn't be surprised that if you polled a large amount of Dem's and asked if they would support Bill over Obama you would see Obama lose in a landslide.
.
The DNC keynote speaker is the son of an activist who wants to return TX/CA to Mexico. What could be more treacherous to the country than this?
If the Democrats keep getting elected, we will become a nation like the castrated-ball-less Europeans.
It is not very difficult for me to imagine the DNC plotform in 2020 might include a resolution to return the Southwestern US to Mexico.
it's strange to watch the king kong of the democratic party slaughter the GOP ruthlessly...but not be able to vote for him afterwards.
Although the speech had some inaccuracies, distortions, and weak arguments for Obama, Clinton is a masterful politician, and his dismantling of the GOP was ruthless but done with his good old southern charm. As a conservative I cannot help but give the Big Dog mad props for his talent. I'm so glad that he can't run for the presidency again; it would be a bloodbath.
Now only if we had someone on our side who can articulate the conservative viewpoint as effectively as Clinton does for the democrats. Sigh.
.
A lot of talk about gay marriage here. Can anyone give a coherent argument as to why heterosexuals should have the right to get married and homosexuals should not?
If you have the proposition that marriage exists to channel the interest of the state in procreation , then you have this argument. This was classically the definition that existed for centuries kids were a form of wealth and could be put to work early. Now , that kids are a major cost center , especially in an urban environment - there is more and more dissociation between marriage and procreation - and ultimately , total dissociation. That dissociation is the underlying force behind the feminist movement and the gay rights movement.
As I imagine you already know, there is no practical argument against gay marriage that can stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever. And as soon as someone starts invoking tradition and religion, they've already lost the argument.
There isn't one.
Anytime I start hearing someone invoke religion I want to vomit.
Can you give me a reason that they should be allowed to marry? Can you give me a reason why a man and a dog should be allowed to marry? Why is the burden on those who support 10,000 years of human history when there is no burden on those who want to upset 10,000 years of human history?
Just saying something doesn't make it so.
nm
Agree or disagree with Clinton, but that man is the most gifted politician I have ever seen.
That speech was absolutely phenomenal.
It is actually shocking how mediocre the RNC looks versus the DNC.
There is no rational argument against gay marriage. Period. The longer the GOP uses it as this rallying call for their base, the longer the younger, educated demographics will migrate away.
You are assuming a couple things though.
1) People care, which they don't
2) Gay marriage trumps economics as a voting issue as people get older.
Also, the young and "educated" always vote Dem until they get older and married. No strategical sense going after this group since it will be an up hill battle and they are broke anyway.
Sure there is. Did you just see what Brazil did? It legalized polygomous marriages. One could easily argue the slippery slope with gay marriage. One could also argue that recognition of gay married couples by government would make it equally likely that a gay couple would adopt as a straight couple, and we have 10,000 years of human history that tells us that households with a mother and father is optimum for raising kids. We have a half century of evidence that demonstrates that a one parent household is suboptimal. We have really no history one way or the other about gay parenting.
I'm not trying to argue against gay marriage, I'm simply saying that one can easily make a rational case against gay marriage.
I'm actually opposed to gay marriage simply because I find homosexuality to be physically revolting and my own personal interactions with gay men (not much interaction with lesbians at this point) has turned me off from their lifestyle and made me unsympathetic to their desires. I don't necessarily believe in the slippery slope theory (because I don't think polygamy will ever have the popular support in the U.S.) and I think gay couples could probably be just as incompetent in raising children as straight couples. But you can't look me in the eye (proveribally of course) and tell me that a rational person couldn't make a rational argument against gay marriage.
Common man, you are much better than that. You admitted that you don't like gay marriage because you find it physically revolting. Well, so do I. I bet SirTradesALot also doesn't watch gay porn, and doesn't like sausages up his anus (unless he is actually gay). HOWEVER, that doesn't mean you legislate taste. The fact that I don't like something does not mean I suppress it. I don't like your face, for example. Should you not be allowed to marry? I find your intelligence physically and intellectually revolting. Should I force a lobotomy on you? I don't think the world works that way.
By the way, I find it ironic that for a "government out of our business" conservative you want the government to get in these peoples' business and take their freedoms away. Hmmm, cognitive dissonance, much?
Read some Voltaire, come to terms with your internal contradictions, and shut the fuck up.
Yea, lets not do the obviously right thing because of strategy.
I think the same can be said for both sides.
There is zero evidence of gay couples adopted children being somehow inferior to straight couples. In fact, as it often requires infinite more work on the part of the gay couple, you could argue that they are very very well prepared to raise a child whereas there are clearly many many straight couples that are not. We have 10,000 years of losers and welfare mongers to prove that straight parenting isnt exactly fantastic in all cases either.
The slippery slope argument is the last bastion of the fool. You can't legalize weed because what about heroin. You can't legalize gay marriage because then people will marry their toasters and have 11 dogs as concubines.
I hate having to call you out on this, but, bro, did you even read my statement? I clearly said that there is NO evidence either way of the inferiority, equality or superiority of a gay couple compared to a straight couple in raising children. I clearly stated that. Clearly stated that. The point was that we have thousands of years of evidence that a father and a mother are a good match for raising kids. You stated that no rational argument could be made against gay marriage--there's a rational argument, that gay couples would be able to adopt children at equal rates as straight couples and that we really have no evidence other than isolated cases about the ability of 2 men or 2 women to successfully raise kids. Do I agree with that argument? I don't know--it has some merit but some flaws as well. But to look me in the eye and tell me that one couldn't make a valid arguent against gay marriage is cognitive dissonance.
With regard to the slippery slope argument, I don't agree with it in the context of gay marriage but you can't honestly say that it isn't a valid logical tool. Cigarettes and marijuana are known as gateway drugs because they are what most heroin and cocaine addicts started with--a gateway is the same logical argument as the slippery slope. The same can be argued by a Libertarian against government regulation and erosion of the Constitution--most erosions of the U.S. Constitution arent' egregious in themselves, but the small things add up to bigger and worse things all the time.
I agree that the slippery slope is an effective tool but, again, I think the logic in which the situation is grounded though clearly thats a pretty idealistic outlook when it comes to the voting public.
And this is what happens when government gets involved. Marriage has been restricted based on race, religion, ethnicity, etc since the government started validating marriage. Make it a religious institution or a purely legal one and this argument goes away.
As long as you provide government benefits to married people and those benefits are paid for with tax dollars, people will have a say in who gets married.
I'll vote based on economics and not whether two people can receive tax deduction.
.
Playing devil's advocate here: who does that really hurt? Why is that any of your business?
The Republicans will never come out for gay marriage simply because too many toothless moronic Christians in the south vote republican simply for the fact they don't want to see gay marriage. Without the gay marriage/abortion republicans would have almost no shot in national elections. If elections were about economics Republicans would lose, the idea that you can give tax cuts while committing resources to wars is a patently republican (and failed) idea. Some of the best economic times this country has seen has been under democrats (increased tax rates and all). Knowing this, Repubs will cling to their irrelevant issues and play politics (stonewalling democratic presidents on every policy they can, whether or not its practical for the country) until they get power again, then fuck up the country (see both Bush's and that embarrassment the worship named Reagan). Rinse and repeat.
Yeah, capitalism fails and socialism and profligate spending and regulation reign supreme. Just ask Illinois, California, New Jersey, Michigan, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Cuba, Venezuela, and Bolivia and they'll tell you how great command and control, highly regulated industry and profligate social justice expenditure is.
In comes BigBucks with the hard hitting and insightful post. Round of applause ladies and gents.
Anyway, I hope I'm not the only one here who plans to vote for Gary Johnson.
See, while I support a libertarian President, I don't really care about the drugs issue. If you have a college education and a decent job drugs are completely legal to buy and use. Only disenfranchised people go to jail for drugs and I legalizing drugs for them is not high on my priority list.
That's actually a pretty interesting way of looking at it.
Vote for MITT if you want the banks to have less regulation.
Enough said.
And yet it is still banned in the majority of places in the US and the majority of citizens are against it. And there is no practical argument for reverse discrimination, yet it holds support amongst the Dems so lets not make it sound like only Republicans can be blindly biased.
CLINTON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS.
I'd marry the fuck out of Walmart.
You just want to marry the people of walmart
Just watched Obama's speech. It wasn't that good. He made some great jabs at the GOP, and delivery was fine but very little substance. He did not ouline a clear vision of what the next 4 years would look like. He used the word "hope" so many times that it got tiresome. Great rhetoric, but where's the beef?
The DNC was much more effective than the RNC, but Romney can still win this one. He needs to get more specific on his policies and kick ass in the debates.
We'll see in next week's polling how effective the conventions were.
.
Precisely this. He went over the same subjects, that he hasn't accomplished, and extended their timelines. Pathetic
It took an entire day for you leftists to finally attempt to make an argument in favor of gay marriage after a half dozen posts proding you to do so. Why is that? Because liberals are too arrogant to believe that anyone else could possibly see the world differently than them other than uneducated rubes. For the entirety of September 6, 2012 you all refused to even attempt to defend your position and instead returned to the common Democrat fall back--personally insult or denigrate an entire group of people with whom you disagree with intellectually. Doesn't it feel good to finally man up and attempt to have a discussion with someone without calling that person a redneck, racist, homophobe, xenophobe, Nazi, fascist, etc.?
That's all I was trying to get out of you--actually attempting a logical argument--an entire day after it was asserted that no one could possibly make a rational argument opposed to gay marriage!
SirTradesAlot, in 100 years people won't be looking back in awe wondering how people could have opposed gay marriage--they will be looking back 100 years wondering how the most powerful nation in the history of man could have allowed itself to have been hijacked by a bunch of left wing losers a mere 2 decades after the ignominious collapse of the Soviet Union. They'll wonder how it is that their technological advancement and standard of living could have been so stunted--and it will haven been because of the road to Hell that the liberals have put this country on that began with Franklin Roosevelt almost 80 years ago, that was accelerated drastically by Lyndon Johnson and that was exacerbated at the fiscal end with Barack Obama.
These wedge issues that you hippie liberal pukes tried to play up at the DNC--abortion, gay marriage, God, etc.--are mere intellectual red herrings meant to mask the road to fiscal ruin and socialism that your intellectual brethren have wrought on our nation. The morally bankrupt ideas that the American left holds on capitalism, corporations, welfare, health care, spending, the rule of law, etc. are the issues that I care about. How liberals address the debate on gay marriage and deficits, however, is the same--demagoguery.
The truth is, I couldn't possibly give a damn about the gay marriage debate, but at least have the intellectual fortitude to defend your position when you assert that half the nation are a bunch of brainwashed rednecks--at least those brainwashed rednecks aren't responsible for $16 trillion in debt and as much as $100 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities. No, you've got a bunch of Ivy Leaguers to thank for the looming decline of this great nation. No, in 100 years we'll be lucky to be a wealthy enough nation to even care about the wedge issues. Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
So, supporting gay marriage automatically makes you liberal? Do you swallow whole the ideology of your party? Personally, I find both of the major parties to be completely full of shit. My preference is to have the government out of my bedroom and out of my pockets. Neither party delivers.
No, but demagoguery of an issue is the easiest way to spot a liberal. I grew up in Washington, D.C. I can smell a left wing rat from 10 miles in the air.
Quae nobis accusamus excepturi enim assumenda. Quo voluptatem laboriosam corporis perspiciatis eos quos et. Ut eum est repellendus esse atque iste. Laboriosam repudiandae id aspernatur ut error. Ullam nulla quia occaecati.
Voluptatem ex sit consequatur cum iste. Et nulla sed reprehenderit dolores ut velit harum. Voluptatibus vero sunt nobis totam dolores. Qui enim dolorem asperiores officiis minima aut.
Nemo autem qui magni assumenda perspiciatis. Perferendis quasi aut aliquam porro ea. Ad quidem eius velit consectetur quaerat nobis numquam. Sint aperiam sit ut eum.
Voluptatem est deleniti dolorem aut odit saepe. Magni nesciunt nisi architecto repudiandae dolorum sit. Rerum quisquam libero tempora mollitia et dolore qui. Occaecati similique ut nulla minus voluptatem eligendi aut. Aut nesciunt rerum quis voluptate.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Magni velit repudiandae ullam nihil perferendis eaque aut. Veritatis quia error dolore error. Similique autem optio cupiditate numquam. Soluta cumque totam qui error tempora. Voluptates quidem culpa dignissimos expedita labore. Beatae et porro magni.
Fugiat qui est adipisci at. Et odio qui mollitia nam fugiat alias officiis. Natus laboriosam et doloremque qui rem laboriosam maiores.
Nostrum a ad eius porro delectus fugit sit vitae. Cupiditate ut nam expedita aut. Aut alias quis modi quia. Assumenda aliquam numquam dignissimos nesciunt autem. Incidunt saepe dolorum esse porro accusantium maxime dolore.
Ipsa cum libero corporis necessitatibus molestiae incidunt et. Rerum necessitatibus consequuntur est. Beatae quae nemo harum provident placeat rem. Sed veniam possimus qui ea inventore distinctio corporis. Molestiae quo eos hic quos temporibus dolor.
Fugiat ea porro modi sit sunt aut. Vel accusantium modi omnis laudantium. Aut quibusdam delectus veniam sit iusto. Quidem cumque perspiciatis culpa omnis distinctio. Et voluptatem veniam maxime. Reprehenderit mollitia eum ipsa sequi.
Vero sed laborum sint doloremque qui. Dolorem omnis et quod animi qui. Perspiciatis numquam debitis ea quam sint cum. Quidem vero et aut eligendi minus quisquam.
Mollitia quidem ut sit. Ut molestias maxime ut est ut. Eius aliquam in aut ut et dolor voluptatibus. Officiis modi veniam tempora ipsam itaque. Saepe ea odio quia totam dolores amet. Iure quo ad porro ad voluptas exercitationem sed.
Tempora sequi odit possimus soluta sunt sapiente consequatur ut. Est voluptatum consequuntur consequatur vero et. Nobis necessitatibus et est culpa. Ut aut atque dicta consequatur consectetur.