Florida GOP kicking out conservative / Ron Paul Republicans!

I'm going to have to disagree with Ron Paul on possible redemption of the Republican Party. Just my opinion, but I've almost completely lost any appetite in having anything to do with that withering carcass of an organization.

I just don't see how the past can be undone.
 
The guy who this forum is named after would disagree with you!

I appreciate you and Ron Paul working within the Republican party and I think liberty people need to be everywhere but I don't think the Republican party will ever recover. Time to look to the future. I will never register as a Republican again.
 
I'm going to have to disagree with Ron Paul on possible redemption of the Republican Party. Just my opinion, but I've almost completely lost any appetite in having anything to do with that withering carcass of an organization.

I just don't see how the past can be undone.
I appreciate you and Ron Paul working within the Republican party and I think liberty people need to be everywhere but I don't think the Republican party will ever recover. Time to look to the future. I will never register as a Republican again.


How many local Republican Party meetings have the two of you attended? Have you put out any effort at all in this matter?:confused:
 
Matt, I personally believe that it is a lost cause but I refuse to let that stop me anymore....! I will also fully support third party movements but look out because things are fixing to happen here in the Arkansas GOP!!!!!!!!!

RISE EVERYONE AND TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE....! THE WAY TO PREVENT ANY VIOLENCE IS TO MOVE NOW HARD AND FAST...! :cool:
 
The Florida GOP is on the verge of bankruptcy, their numbers are dwindling, and the time is ripe for a takeover. I think we should hit them with some lawsuits and fight them tooth and nail on this issue.
I don't like the idea of being chased out.
 
Last edited:
It's not about redeeming the republican party, but getting the message out through the apparatus of the republican party. It's challenging, but possible as Ron Paul has already proved. It simply isn't effective through the libertarian party for many reasons.

In time, real change will occur as more ordinary citizens become involved, likely inspired by Paul, Schiff, rand and others. This is the best strategy, because it has already proved itself succesul in influencing the hearts and minds of people.

The leadership is corrupt, out of touch, but becoming less powerful as their motives become apparent to all. They will eventually fail if enough of us get involved.

The strategy of fringe party, or worse nonparticipation that many are advocating will get us nowhere. It will ensure defeat.
 
I appreciate you and Ron Paul working within the Republican party and I think liberty people need to be everywhere but I don't think the Republican party will ever recover. Time to look to the future. I will never register as a Republican again.

i am still registered republican, but i agree with you. the brandname is so tarnished. No one wants to be asscoiated as a republican!

the gop is pretty close to polling 3rd party status in some states. I personally do not think the gop can recover> they have tarnished their brandname! It is like trying to sell a person a bag of crap but calling it Gold. It is still crap!

personally .if the factions of the lp/cp/tp and rpr/rpd and indy's joined . the gop would be a 3rd party and the new coalition would be the 2nd major party in most states if not all without all the crap baggage!

the idea your gonna convert a major part of the neo-cons! is a dream!! let the neo-cons have their dying party!
i will keep my republican registration for now. I see some gains in some counties but the state leadership is still the same in every state!

the gop needs to hit rock bottom! the gop doesn't back liberty candidates! They have yet to change anything in state platofrms that is even close to Ron Paul's Platform! the gop has 2 choices change in the next 8-12 yrs or die in the next 2-12yrs! i do not see any changes that come close to our revolution, except some neo-cons trying to hi-jack our message! not acceptable!! the gop is still deaf dumb and blind! maybe in 4-12 yrs if they open their eyes and run Liberty Candidates but since they haven't changed any platforms yet. We are no where near changing the gop ,since they haven't listened yet! maybe in the future? the gop is still not listening,so my vote sits here waiting to send the gop packing until then! the gop hasn't earned my vote yet and they never will until they give us a voice in our party. which they do not plan on!

the gop in lake county republican will get what they deserve nothing!

I will be supporting Ron Paul Dems in Lake county colorado! sad when you have to support ron paul republicans in the democratic party. the gop is still turning their backs on ron paul supporters! The gop truly is deaf dumb and blind and i will be glad to keep them on that level with my vote!!

the gop does not want to win, if they did they would of never alienated ron paul supporters the last 2 yrs and still counting!! i relate the gop leaders and most republicans to a heroin addict that still needs to hit rock bottom to get rid of their addiction to bad government and big goverment! the gop only has themselves to blame! they alienated us! They have done nothing to gain our votes and the arguement but but but obama is running is not going to have me running to the gop with a blind vote!!

deal with typos spell check not working
 
Last edited:
It's not about redeeming the republican party, but getting the message out through the apparatus of the republican party. It's challenging, but possible as Ron Paul has already proved. It simply isn't effective through the libertarian party for many reasons.

In time, real change will occur as more ordinary citizens become involved, likely inspired by Paul, Schiff, rand and others. This is the best strategy, because it has already proved itself succesul in influencing the hearts and minds of people.

The leadership is corrupt, out of touch, but becoming less powerful as their motives become apparent to all. They will eventually fail if enough of us get involved.

The strategy of fringe party, or worse nonparticipation that many are advocating will get us nowhere. It will ensure defeat.

huh? the fringe party is the republican party!(i do agree use the gop to help spread our message for sure,but in the end if the gop fails to listen us them let them die as they should. if the 3rd parties will get off their own train and unite as ron paul showed . then the gop in colorado will be the 3rd party!

i do not argree with your idea that politics never changes! the gop is doing nothing to make themselves a viable 2nd party! as for the lp/cp/tp and rpr/rpd and indys. if we unite under a new platofrm that doesn't have the shit name repub;oican under it! then we would be the next viablew party! i 100% disagree on the idea that the gop is the only way! The gop is this close to being a 3rd party in Colorado! never say never . if what you say is true. then we would never had a republican party! you cannot predict the future! i say the gop will be a 3rd party soon if they do not listen!

we just need to make a new brandname that the tp/lp/cp/rpr/rpd and indy's can unite under! Ron Paul's Platform proved that or i wouldn't be a disgusted republican! It is about the platform not the party! the fact is the gop[ has done nothing to change their platform to Ron Pauls and nor do i see it in the near future maybe 4-12 yrs depending! until then i think a new coalition in colorado is needed. if we form a new coalition then the new 3rd party will be the gop. while we become the second major party in Colorado. Seems alot faster then waiting 12 yrs for the gop to open their eyes and ears!
thegop will be a 3rd party soon if they do not listen and that is the gop's problem not mine!

I am here to help the gop but if they refuse the help. then i will be here to help put down the gop like the spca! the gop will make their own future.If they fail to listen . i predict the gop will be a 3rd party in Colorado sooner then you think. Is it that my fault? NOPE! the blame is with the gop! the gop is not listening. if we have to run ron paul republicans as democrats in Colorado;) which we will have to do. then the gop gets what it deserves NOT A DAM THING!!

nobody is saying do not get involved .what they are saying is get involved with a party that is growing not shrinking! just because they are not involved in the failed gop does not mean they are not moving our revolution further. it is not about the gop. if you want to know why folks want nothing to do with the gop. you should bring it up with your gop leadership. it is not the fault of the voter .it is the gop that is alienating folks. i hope the gop continues to alienate folks! the gop deserves the ditch! i went to the gop meetings the last 2 yrs(neo-con lovefest). they are not listening. the gop deserves to shrink! if the gop becomes a 3rd party in some states. they deserve that as welL the gop can become a 3rd party just like they became a 2nd party! politics never happens overnight! we will not have to worry about the gop being a 2nd major party. if we send it to 3rd party status. the gop is doing that on their own! if the gop will not listen. then i will send the gop where they belong to a 3rd party status. i am a republican but the gop has done nothing to earn my vote!

right now all the ron paul republicans and neo-cons are arguing over is a party of shit! in the end it is still a bag of shit! the problem with the term gop/republican is the brandname! In Colorado i hope we continue to unify the ron paul republicans in the gop but sooner or later we need to unify beyond party lines and the gop is not the vehicle to do it in Colorado. I am leaning more for a new party with new platform that makes the gop a 3rd party while we unite the lp/cp/tp and rpr/rpd and indy's! on that note why would we need a useless 3rd party like the gop .when we have a new coalition that far exceeds the % of the failed coloradogop! the bottom line the gop better morph into a ron paul platform party or the gop will become a 3rd party cin Colorado. do i have aproblem with that? HELL NO . BRING IT ON! the gop deserves whatever happens politically in everystate!

deal with typos spell check not working screw fiefox/mozilla and chrome! can i just get one browser that works without crashing!
 
Last edited:
To each their own, but how do you think the neocons took over the conservative movement in the Republican party, to begin with? They didn't outnumber the limited government folks. They infiltrated, showed up, got elected to positions from the ground floor on up and then, converted.

We could do the same and are, if we just won't give up.
 
To each their own, but how do you think the neocons took over the conservative movement in the Republican party, to begin with? They didn't outnumber the limited government folks. They infiltrated, showed up, got elected to positions from the ground floor on up and then, converted.

We could do the same and are, if we just won't give up.

well that is great but in some areas neo-cons firmly control the party and trying to get someone to attend a republican meeting is like getting them to jump of a building! so in the states and counties were the neoc-ns control let them kill the party!
it really depends on your state and local politics. what is good for your county and state may not be the same for my county and state. let the gop die where it musts and if you can save a local gop then do it! if not let them die. sooner or later the ron paul republicans can either control their gop or not. when they finally control the state if they ever do then fine. if not then you take your republican wing and leave the gop and form a new coalition. this is how it was done when the gop became a 2nd party and it can happen to make the gop a 3rd party and bring in a new party or new coalitions! the path can have 2 roads to travel not just one road blindly supporting gop just because it has the word republican.

every ron paul republican that voted for mccain or endorsed a somewhat neo-con against a dem deserves the gop they are getting .they endorsed the very platform they voted for neo-cons! so for all the lesser of 2 evils that voted out of fear of obama and voted mccain. you get exactly what you voted for a neo-con platform! you voted for it!

the gop has a choice follow us or get the f out of the way! so far the gop is still not listening. when i hear a state platform has changed to a ron paul platform then maybe. but i am not waiting 4-12 yrs for the gop to get its act together! i will pursue the best road to change things in colorado and so far the gop is not that vehicle! it is helpful to unite thinkers in the gop to our cause! but the cogop is not endorsing ron paul republicans but the democrats are in Colorado! sounds like a cogop problem! i will be working to support ron paul republicans in the democratic party and the lp/cp/tp and the gop (if they ever have any)??? the cogop is making the problem not me. So i will save my money and time supporting Liberty Candidaates in any party. upto the gop if they want my support in their candidates! until they give me something to vote for .they get nothing!!
 
Last edited:
If you can't even take over one party, what makes you think you will ever take over the whole government?
 
I call BS on the Florida GOP leadership for this attempted ouster of solid conservative Republicans from the party.

This is throw down the gauntlet time. This reminds me of the RP Republicans out in California who had a lawsuit thrown at them but were successful! Get in touch with those guys.

Fight this. FIGHT IT! Create the biggest stink you can. Fight the Bailouters! Fight the the Big Government Fake Republicans!


This needs to go national -- come on bloggers, C4L! Get this out there! People - this is where it happens - local level. Win here, win all the way up the line!
 
Florida is still probably dominated by the Jeb Bush machine, you wouldn't expect them to give up without a fight would you?

Is there some liberty candidates running for office that can lead the fight?

What about Mario Rubio? Isn't he leading a charge against Governor Crist?
 
Iraq: Claim vs. Reality
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

...

Mr. Speaker, consider some of the following claims presented by supporters of this resolution, and contrast them with the following facts:

Claim: Iraq has consistently demonstrated its willingness to use force against the US through its firing on our planes patrolling the UN-established "no-fly zones."

Reality: The "no-fly zones" were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991), Iraq's repression of the Kurds and Shi'ites was condemned, but there was no authorization for "no-fly zones," much less airstrikes. The resolution only calls for member states to "contribute to humanitarian relief" in the Kurd and Shi'ite areas. Yet the US and British have been bombing Iraq in the "no-fly zones" for 12 years. While one can only condemn any country firing on our pilots, isn't the real argument whether we should continue to bomb Iraq relentlessly? Just since 1998, some 40,000 sorties have been flown over Iraq.

Claim: Iraq is an international sponsor of terrorism.

Reality: According to the latest edition of the State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq sponsors several minor Palestinian groups, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). None of these carries out attacks against the United States. As a matter of fact, the MEK (an Iranian organization located in Iraq) has enjoyed broad Congressional support over the years. According to last year's Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq has not been involved in terrorist activity against the West since 1993 – the alleged attempt against former President Bush.

Claim: Iraq tried to assassinate President Bush in 1993.

Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq was behind the attack. News reports at the time were skeptical about Kuwaiti assertions that the attack was planned by Iraq against former President Bush. Following is an interesting quote from Seymore Hersh's article from Nov. 1993:

Three years ago, during Iraq's six-month occupation of Kuwait, there had been an outcry when a teen-age Kuwaiti girl testified eloquently and effectively before Congress about Iraqi atrocities involving newborn infants. The girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington, Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and her account of Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators was challenged as exaggerated both by journalists and by human-rights groups. (Sheikh Saud was subsequently named Minister of Information in Kuwait, and he was the government official in charge of briefing the international press on the alleged assassination attempt against George Bush.) In a second incident, in August of 1991, Kuwait provoked a special session of the United Nations Security Council by claiming that twelve Iraqi vessels, including a speedboat, had been involved in an attempt to assault Bubiyan Island, long-disputed territory that was then under Kuwaiti control. The Security Council eventually concluded that, while the Iraqis had been provocative, there had been no Iraqi military raid, and that the Kuwaiti government knew there hadn't. What did take place was nothing more than a smuggler-versus-smuggler dispute over war booty in a nearby demilitarized zone that had emerged, after the Gulf War, as an illegal marketplace for alcohol, ammunition, and livestock.

This establishes that on several occasions Kuwait has lied about the threat from Iraq. Hersh goes on to point out in the article numerous other times the Kuwaitis lied to the US and the UN about Iraq. Here is another good quote from Hersh:

The President was not alone in his caution. Janet Reno, the Attorney General, also had her doubts. "The A.G. remains skeptical of certain aspects of the case," a senior Justice Department official told me in late July, a month after the bombs were dropped on Baghdad...Two weeks later, what amounted to open warfare broke out among various factions in the government on the issue of who had done what in Kuwait. Someone gave a Boston Globe reporter access to a classified C.I.A. study that was highly skeptical of the Kuwaiti claims of an Iraqi assassination attempt. The study, prepared by the C.I.A.'s Counter Terrorism Center, suggested that Kuwait might have "cooked the books" on the alleged plot in an effort to play up the "continuing Iraqi threat" to Western interests in the Persian Gulf. Neither the Times nor the Post made any significant mention of the Globe dispatch, which had been written by a Washington correspondent named Paul Quinn-Judge, although the story cited specific paragraphs from the C.I.A. assessment. The two major American newspapers had been driven by their sources to the other side of the debate.

At the very least, the case against Iraq for the alleged bomb threat is not conclusive.

Claim: Saddam Hussein will use weapons of mass destruction against us – he has already used them against his own people (the Kurds in 1988 in the village of Halabja).

Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds. It may be accepted as conventional wisdom in these times, but back when it was first claimed there was great skepticism. The evidence is far from conclusive. A 1990 study by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College cast great doubts on the claim that Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Following are the two gassing incidents as described in the report:

In September 1988, however – a month after the war (between Iran and Iraq) had ended – the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq's relations with the Kurds...throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies – Iran and elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of the operation – according to the U.S. State Department – gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds' human rights.

Having looked at all the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with, there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds – in Turkey where they had gone for asylum – failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee...

It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.
Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information, and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action.

Claim: Iraq must be attacked because it has ignored UN Security Council resolutions – these resolutions must be backed up by the use of force.

Reality: Iraq is but one of the many countries that have not complied with UN Security Council resolutions. In addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91 Security Council resolutions by countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. Adding in older resolutions that were violated would mean easily more than 200 UN Security Council resolutions have been violated with total impunity. Countries currently in violation include: Israel, Turkey, Morocco, Croatia, Armenia, Russia, Sudan, Turkey-controlled Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Indonesia. None of these countries have been threatened with force over their violations.

Claim: Iraq has anthrax and other chemical and biological agents.

Reality: That may be true. However, according to UNSCOM's chief weapons inspector 90–95 percent of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and capabilities were destroyed by 1998; those that remained have likely degraded in the intervening four years and are likely useless. A 1994 Senate Banking Committee hearing revealed some 74 shipments of deadly chemical and biological agents from the U.S. to Iraq in the 1980s. As one recent press report stated:

One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three...

The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid – used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin – directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show.

These were sent while the United States was supporting Iraq covertly in its war against Iran. U.S. assistance to Iraq in that war also included covertly-delivered intelligence on Iranian troop movements and other assistance. This is just another example of our policy of interventionism in affairs that do not concern us – and how this interventionism nearly always ends up causing harm to the United States.

Claim: The president claimed last night that: "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles; far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work."

Reality: Then why is only Israel talking about the need for the U.S. to attack Iraq? None of the other countries seem concerned at all. Also, the fact that some 135,000 Americans in the area are under threat from these alleged missiles just makes the point that it is time to bring our troops home to defend our own country.

Claim: Iraq harbors al-Qaeda and other terrorists.

Reality: The administration has claimed that some Al-Qaeda elements have been present in Northern Iraq. This is territory controlled by the Kurds – who are our allies – and is patrolled by U.S. and British fighter aircraft. Moreover, dozens of countries – including Iran and the United States – are said to have al-Qaeda members on their territory. Of the other terrorists allegedly harbored by Iraq, all are affiliated with Palestinian causes and do not attack the United States.

Claim: President Bush said in his speech on 7 October 2002: " Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem..."

Reality: An admission of a lack of information is justification for an attack?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul58.html

I spent alot of time on the campaign. I don't remember seeing this before. And if I don't remember seeing this, then I am sure most republicans have never been exposed to this. It is somewhat persuasive with many facts. It is still a tall order to change many republicans minds, but this is a good place to start.
 
What about Mario Rubio? Isn't he leading a charge against Governor Crist?

We do have some Rubio fans around here. But none of them have been able to provide any evidence that he is any better than Crist. He certainly hasn't publicly taken any positions that any Ron Paul supporters should be excited about. To me he looks like an establishment decoy along the lines of what Pat Toomey is up in PA (supposedly more conservative than Specter but actually not). It looks like the closest thing to a constitutionalist in the FL Senate race is Bob Smith, who, despite already having experience as a US senator, is completely marginalized in the FL GOP.
 
Last edited:
It's not about redeeming the republican party, but getting the message out through the apparatus of the republican party. It's challenging, but possible as Ron Paul has already proved. It simply isn't effective through the libertarian party for many reasons.

The strategy of fringe party, or worse nonparticipation that many are advocating will get us nowhere. It will ensure defeat.

To each their own, but how do you think the neocons took over the conservative movement in the Republican party, to begin with? They didn't outnumber the limited government folks. They infiltrated, showed up, got elected to positions from the ground floor on up and then, converted.

We could do the same and are, if we just won't give up.


If you can't even take over one party, what makes you think you will ever take over the whole government?


In my conversation with Ron a couple of weeks ago I sort of asked him about this and told him what we were up to in TN (I'm the vice chair of the Nashville GOP with at least 6 other limited-government types on the Executive Committee too). Ron essentially said that while controlling the Party may not be possible, we should work to influence its direction.
 
We do have some Rubio fans around here. But none of them have been able to provide any evidence that he is any better than Crist. He certainly hasn't publicly taken any positions that any Ron Paul supporters should be excited about. To me he looks like an establishment decoy along the lines of what Pat Toomey is up in PA (supposedly more conservative than Specter but actually not). It looks like the closest thing to a constitutionalist in the FL Senate race is Bob Smith, who, despite already having experience as a US senator, is completely marginalized in the FL GOP.

There is a difference between Toomey and Specter, especially on spending hopefully.

I am optimistic about the potential to take over the party, however, we have to get our act together to actually do it. Everybody knows about shortcomings of the presidential campaign and even CFL, until we are marginally more effective than our opponents, they will be able to control the party.

Having spoken to hundreds and thousands of gop activists and donors the last six months, the majority of them are fed up with the current leadership and are screaming for change. I know because they scream at me, until I let them know I am on their side and agree with them on many issues.

Ron Paul's challenge to is to get his message out. Plus, activists like ourselves have to run for local GOP positions.

And we certainly can't have a chip on our shoulder when we are trying to win votes to get elected to GOP committee positions.
 
There is a difference between Toomey and Specter, especially on spending hopefully.

There might be, but not based on their records in office. Toomey, despite going on the head the Club for Growth, had gotten worse grades from them when he was a Congressman than did Specter as a Senator. Toomey even voted for Bush's prescription drug benefit (which is now the single largest component of our future liabilities, larger even than Social Security), and Specter voted against it.

Toomey, like Rubio, is basing his conservative credentials purely on getting people to talk him up as the alternative to some left-leaning Republican. In both cases I doubt there's any legitimacy to it.

I've seen tons of grassroots conservatives screaming for change too. But unfortunately, it looks all too easy to convince them this or that establishment Republican will bring that change without them having to prove anything or even put themselves on the line by committing to anything specific.
 
Last edited:
One way to approach candidates is to get them to sign a pledge. Many candidates talk a good game, but a written pledge not to raise taxes or increase spending is little more binding on an elected official.

Unless you are as dumb as George H.W. Bush from 1988 and make the center piece of your campaign, "read my lips, no new taxes" and then he raises taxes. Of course he went on to lose in 1992.
 
Back
Top