Political Fantasies and the Republican war on Americans

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
AKA "The Best Rant of All Time"








Political fantasies and the Republican war on Americans



by Massimo Pigliucci

Sometimes I think I’m not paid enough to do this job. Well, actually I’m not paid at all, but that’s beside the point. I ought to be paid more than a large number of pundits on CNN and editorialists at the New York Times. Why? Because I didn’t believe for a minute their bull****, a mere two years ago or so, about a post-racial America and the permanent relegation of the Republican party to minority and even fringe status within the American political landscape — which many of them were confidently predicting.

As soon as Obama was elected, the media trampled all over each other to declare the end of racism in America. All it took was one (admittedly pivotal, historical) event — the election of a quasi-black man to the Presidency — and voilà, everything from slavery to the Civil War to Jim Crow laws was going to be relegated to ancient history. It will all be an embarrassing memory, but only a memory nonetheless, nothing to do with the new post-racial America.

Except of course that it was bull****, and of the self-evident type to boot. Sure enough, it took only weeks for the same media to start reporting on large percentages of Republicans believing that Obama is a Muslim (as if that were somehow an indictment of some kind), that he is not American (despite the public availability of documents clearly showing that he is), that he is a socialist (despite his Presidency clearly settling on a pretty moderate course from the get go), and so on. Why? Because a large number of Republicans simply can’t stand the very idea that a (quasi) black is their President. But they can’t say it in so many words (we have made some social progress since the ‘50s), so they express their outrage by embracing political fantasies and conspiracy theories.

And what about that “the Republicans are relegated to permanent minority” idiocy? Well, just look at the midterm elections a mere two years later. They got back control of the House by a large margin, they missed on regaining the Senate only because they overreached by getting in bed too tightly with the silliness of the Tea Party, and they now represent a clear and present danger to a second Obama term. Oh, and they have immediately re-started with much fanfare their war against unions, public education, the poor and the middle class, all the while further fattening their Wall Street masters (who just two years previous caused a global economic catastrophe out of sheer greed, and got compensated with billions of our dollars for doing so). The real question is: how did this happen?

There are, of course, a variety of reasons, but some of them can be understood by examining the parallel between US politics and — of all comparisons — the Italian one, which I still follow from a distance, despite having left the Bel Paese more than twenty years ago.

You see, in the 1990s Italy switched from a proportional (classic European style) electoral system to a “winner take all” one modeled on the American system — Italians have always had a fetish for all things American, from Dallas (the tv show) to Madonna (the singer, not the alleged mother of Jesus), so why not imitate the voting system of the self-professed best democracy in the world?

The result was catastrophic: overnight it turned the multi-party system that had navigated (with ups and downs, for sure) the Italian ship since the end of World War II (and made it one of the world’s seven most industrialized nations) into a de facto two-party (they call them “poles”) system where those in power have an increasingly easier time remaining there. Add to this that the Italian Right (partly through the evil genius of Silvio Berlusconi) controls the majority of newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations; that it has the Catholic church on its side (all in favor of family values except when it comes to pedophiliac priests); that a huge amount of money is continuously funneled to the Right by the ultra-rich (and the Mafia); that the sheer stupidity and gullibility of about half of the Italian citizenry has reached astounding heights not seen since the Mussolini era; and that the opposition is simply inept, and you’ve got a pretty much complete explanation.

Sound familiar? Maintaining the same order so that the parallelism is particularly obvious, Republicans keep coming back and controling the agenda even when they are not in power because: a) There is a two-party system which guarantees that any meaningful alternative doesn’t have a chance from the get go; b) Republicans have a powerful and dedicated party propaganda machine masquerading as news media (Fox) that manages to manipulate and frame the political discourse for the rest of the media, plus a capillary network of “talk radio” stations throughout the country that further amplify the noise (and no, MSNBC doesn’t even begin to balance things out, and if you think so you are absolutely deluded); c) a large portion of American evangelical and fundamentalist churches support the Right’s agenda because they've bought into the peculiar concept of “morality” that suits the Republican party (where sex is a moral issue, unless it is a pastor or Newt Gingrich who commits the deed, while obscene income disparity, raping of the environment, white collar crimes and so forth somehow don’t show up on the morality radar screen); d) Wall Street (particularly, but not only, Goldman Sachs) and other super-rich individuals and corporations now have unlimited political access — thanks to a recent, truly despicable, Supreme Court decision — so that they can buy all the elections they want; e) the American public is certainly no more savvy than the Italian counterpart (creationism, anyone? Or climate change denial? Or vaccine-autism connection?); f) the Democratic party is just as spineless as the Italian center-left coalition has been for the past several decades.

The result is the continued decline — economic, cultural, and ethical — of both countries. And there is no end in sight, I’m afraid. Only three things could possibly reverse the trend, and they are all under fierce (and by no means random) fire by the Republicans: unions (see Wisconsin), public education (see everywhere in the country), and more political participation (see the Republicans’ constant assault on political enfranchisement).

Republicans — like their Italian counterparts — have managed to convince Americans that public employees are overpaid bastards who don’t want to share in the necessary sacrifices that it will take to save America (while at the same time, naturally, we keep pumping billions into the hands of the super-rich). They have also convinced most American workers that unions — certainly not perfect in themselves, but the only organized resistance against the erosion of the middle class — are a communist ploy bent on undermining “the American way” of life (which, let us not forget, despite Glenn Beck's style of historical revisionism, was made possible by an initial double whammy of slavery and genocide).

Americans — like Italians across the pond — have been bamboozled by fear mongering (the communists! the terrorists! the nazi-social-communists!), lulled by endless mindless entertainment (so-called “reality” television and countless completely inane morning and afternoon shows), and when all else fails discouraged and in many cases simply barred from voting (naturally, since in both countries the majority of those having a right to vote lean much further to the left than to the right). Ever wondered why the US elections are held for one day only, in the middle of the week? In Italy at least they take two days, and they are carried out on weekends, to maximize participation. Ever asked yourself why Republicans are so obsessed with solving the non-existent problem of illegal immigrants somehow sneaking into the voting booth, which continuously results in the Republican party passing laws and ordinances that actually end up turning away scores of legitimate voters from the underclasses, the very same ones that, surprise surprise!, tend to overwhelmingly vote Democrat?

All of this has established a de facto plutocracy in both countries — much more so in the US than in Italy — a plutocracy that keeps its power through the expenditure of huge amounts of money to buy politicians and courts, and thanks to continuous devious propaganda to convince Tea Partiers and assorted simpletons that they, the super-rich, are really on the side of Joe the Plumber.

There are only two things that can possibly reverse this state of affairs: a concerted, multi-decade, extremely canny counter-initiative by the Democrats (similar to the one initiated by Reagan more than three decades ago), or a revolution. The former isn’t likely to happen given the recent history of the Democratic party and its inept leaders (some of whom, of course, are almost as bad as their counterparts across the isle). The latter is not going to happen until things get much, much worse for the majority of Americans, as they probably will due to one final fatal overreach by the Plutocracy.

Rationally Speaking: Political fantasies and the Republican war on Americans
 
Last edited:

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
This is a much more realistic map:


Aztlan
SOUTHWEST is defined as the Pueblos de Aztlan, sensitive to the existence of the indigenous nations that occupy this territory and their descendents. This also recognizes that the U.S. Southwest is part of a larger European Colonial Occupation that has been in progress since 1492. That Spain, Mexico, California Bear Republic, Republic of Texas, and the United States of America is a continuum of this colonial occupation. There is no desire to reunite with Mexico. The Chicano Movement is part of and struggles in the hemispheric struggle for self determination and liberation of these lands.
Carlos Pelayo
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
Democrats are too passive to do anything about the Republican anti-USA campaign.

There is no consensus on the USA because we can't agree on what America is or should be. Intellectually, you're entitled to your vision just as I am entitled to my vision. The problem is that our visions can't coexist. One must triumph and the other must disappear. Compromise isn't possible because it is no longer possible for either side to trust the other. That's a shame, but it's the truth. It doesn't matter who is at fault. One side must win and the other side must be absolutely and utterly defeated. Only then can America start again if that is possible.

From my standpoint I don't think your side is going to win because the numbers don't pencil out. America no longer produces the excess wealth to carry the indolent and the overpaid. If America tries to tax its way out of this crisis it will be faced with capital flight.

Higher taxes mean less private investment. Less private investment means fewer jobs. Fewer jobs means diminished living standards. Diminished living standards mean the break down of social cohesion.

Obama's problem is that he has created a situation where it no longer makes sense to create jobs or invest in America. There are safer places in the world to invest.

The problem for me is the dawning realization that it may simply be too late for America to heal under any set of circumstances. America is living off the accumulated capital of earlier generations plus massive borrowing and printing of dollars. That capital is being consumed at a ferocious pace by an increasingly ignorant and impoverished populace. The borrowing and printing of dollars means that the currency is being debased.

Have you read Sartre's tome No Exit?
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
''Obama's problem is that he has created a situation where it no longer makes sense to create jobs or invest in America. There are safer places in the world to invest.''

He did not create that situation as jobs have been exported far more under Republicans. True, he has kept the problem going by refusing to have Congress impose further excise taxes or by refusing to call in all sheltered overseas accounts. But he did not start the problem as you allege.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
''Obama's problem is that he has created a situation where it no longer makes sense to create jobs or invest in America. There are safer places in the world to invest.''

He did not create that situation as jobs have been exported far more under Republicans. True, he has kept the problem going by refusing to have Congress impose further excise taxes or by refusing to call in all sheltered overseas accounts. But he did not start the problem as you allege.

Obama inherited terrible problems, and has done everything within his power to make them worse.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Democrats are too passive to do anything about the Republican anti-USA campaign.

True enough. But that is because most Democrats are Republicans in disguise. In reality the US does not have a two-party system, it has a one party system, and that is the major reason why the US cannot solve its myriad problems. Nothing will change unless Americans turn to a third party alternative, and I do not mean the Tea Party, which was subverted to the cause of the US establishment within weeks of its formation.

Higher taxes mean less private investment. Less private investment means fewer jobs. Fewer jobs means diminished living standards. Diminished living standards mean the break down of social cohesion.

Obama's problem is that he has created a situation where it no longer makes sense to create jobs or invest in America. There are safer places in the world to invest.

Actually US investors have been transferring capital outside the US for decades. An enormous amount of the growth of rival economies such as China has been financed by US capital. This has very little to do with Obama's policies and much more to do with the fact that US investors and large US corporations long ago gave up on their own country as a place to invest. It is one of the reasons why continued tax breaks to the wealthy in the United States have had almost no effect except to give the wealthy more cash to invest overseas. If you actually want more investment in the US then the tax breaks allowed the wealthiest Americans must be tied to investment into their own country.

You should also understand that giving members of the nouveau riche like Charlie Sheen tax breaks in no way contributes to US job creation, except perhaps in the pharmaceutical industry. Too often tax breaks for the wealthy are excused as being necessary for economic growth, but there is very little evidence that this has any effect on boosting economic growth or creating jobs, unless you count jobs created outside of the US.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
...Actually US investors have been transferring capital outside the US for decades. An enormous amount of the growth of rival economies such as China has been financed by US capital. This has very little to do with Obama's policies and much more to do with the fact that US investors and large US corporations long ago gave up on their own country as a place to invest. It is one of the reasons why continued tax breaks to the wealthy in the United States have had almost no effect except to give the wealthy more cash to invest overseas. If you actually want more investment in the US then the tax breaks allowed the wealthiest Americans must be tied to investment into their own country.

You should also understand that giving members of the nouveau riche like Charlie Sheen tax breaks in no way contributes to US job creation, except perhaps in the pharmaceutical industry. Too often tax breaks for the wealthy are excused as being necessary for economic growth, but there is very little evidence that this has any effect on boosting economic growth or creating jobs, unless you count jobs created outside of the US.

I don't disagree with what you've said, but I would add that now the capital flight from America is taking on stampede proportions even by small investors. Most investors now believe they have to get some significant portion of their assets out of the country.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
''Obama inherited terrible problems, and has done everything within his power to make them worse.''

Such as?

What alternative would you propose? How would McCain have done it differently?

''Higher taxes mean less private investment. Less private investment means fewer jobs''

We have discussed this subject dozens of times on this forum before. As always, taxes were HIGHER under previous administrations going all the way back to FDR and domestic investment was significantly higher as well.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
''Obama inherited terrible problems, and has done everything within his power to make them worse."


Increasing the American Forces presence in the ME...

Closing Gitmo...

Introducing Obamacare (but conveniently forgetting to mention that he'd charge 'em for it).

Running on a platform of "Hope" and Change"

All of these are broken promises or partial promises (which equate to lies all the same).

What alternative would you propose? How would McCain have done it differently?



I guess we'll never really know, but if you're asking, let's suppose that we could speculate that he would have kept his promises.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
''Obama inherited terrible problems, and has done everything within his power to make them worse.''

Such as?

What alternative would you propose? How would McCain have done it differently?

''Higher taxes mean less private investment. Less private investment means fewer jobs''

We have discussed this subject dozens of times on this forum before. As always, taxes were HIGHER under previous administrations going all the way back to FDR and domestic investment was significantly higher as well.

That America isn't coming back for a number of reasons. It was the result of a left and right that could compromise. Republican Congress, Demo President. The time for compromise is over. The last ten years have proven that one side must win and the other side must be defeated. You can't negotiate anything with someone who won't negotiate.

That America was a First World Country. Now large portions of America are part of the Third World. That was the afterglow of Empire. Now the Party is over. And the jobs are in China. The vultures have come home to roost.

If you want higher taxes you'll have to fight. And if you win there will be capital flight.:)

''Obama inherited terrible problems, and has done everything within his power to make them worse.''

Such as?

Stimulus of $800 Billion.

Increased federal borrowing of $4 Trillion.

Escalated war in Afghanistan.

New war in Libya.

Giving Chryler and GM to his cronies in the UAW.

Giving tax breaks to his cronies in General Electric.

Increased defense spending.

How much time do you have? I could go on and on.

How would McCain have done it differently?

I don't give a **** about McCain or the Republicans. I want to fight American leftists, except for you. I want to take you on a pub crawl.:)
 

Highball

Council Member
Jan 28, 2010
1,170
1
38
Instead of talking about political entities why not point out that corporate greed is one of the culprits. It doesn't exist exclusively in the USA. It is present globally. The US financial collapse I believe was a carefully and skillfully engineered event. Paulson retired from a multi million dollar CEO job at Goldman Sachs and was appointed as the Secretary of the US Treasury to oversee that the whole scheme was successfully completed. That resulted in the largest swindle of the US taxpayers in the history of the nation. There are other schemes still out there in other nations. The gap is widening daily in the issue of the shrinking middle class. In the US many of those who are a part of this operation do happen to be Republicans but that isn't exclusive to them. There are many very wealthy Democrats (Kennedy's, Rockefeller, Soros and others) who are involved in the swindle also.
 

The Old Medic

Council Member
May 16, 2010
1,330
2
38
The World
The government can not give it's citizens anything. In order to provide anything to the population, it must first TAKE the earnings of its people away from them. Then, it decides who is "worthy" of receiving those funds.

The Republicans are not at war with anyone. Quite the opposite, they want to stop the constant class warfare that the Democrats keep formenting. The Dems want to play "Robin Hood", and take everything from the rich, and give a pittance to the poor (while making certain that they skim off a large portion for themselves and their cronies before anything ever gets to the people.

The Republicans stand for the proposition that most people know what they need, and are capable of getting it without the governments interference. That when a person earns money through their own efforts, they are entitled to actually keep and benefit from those earnings.

The Democrats have been pushing the "Great Society" since 1965. So, what are the results of that "Great Society"? The people that it was supposed to benefit are still mired in poverty. They are sicker than they were BEFORE Medicaid for the poor. They are less educated than they were BEFORE Head Start and all of the other "Educational" programs that the government has enacted. Teachers are markedly LESS qualified than they were in 1965, and they are paid a LOT more (in constant dollars) than they were back then.

We now have 3rd generation welfare families, that have almost no possibility of ever lifting themselves out of the hole. And the Democrats want to keep them in that hole, so they can keep right on fooling the folks about how "we really care about you and we are enacting yet another program for you".

Name a single Federally funded program that has actually worked to help the poor better themselves.

The Democrats answer to a failing program is always to throw even MORE money into it. They act in a totally schizophrenic manner, even though the program has failed over and over and over again, they just keep on trying the same old thing.

I grew up as poor as it is possible to be in the USA. I ate dry dog food at times as a child, because that's all we had. I never got new clothes, they always came from thrift stores. I was also physically, mentally and sexually abused by my mother and several step-fathers. We moved constantly (I went to 28 different schools between 1st and 11th grade), which meant I was always the "new kid" who had no friends, and was never accepted.

I got out of that through my OWN efforts, not the governments. I joined the US Army at the age of 16. I spent 10 years as an Army Medic. I passed the High School GED while in Basic Training, and I passed the College GED less than 6 months later (the Army gave me credit for completing one year of college). While in the Army, I began taking college courses (earning all A's by the way).

I left the Army when my first wife decided to become a "Hippie", and walked out on me and our two daughters. I went to College full-time, raised my girls as a single father, and completed my BA and a dual Masters program in Psychology and Rehabilitation Counseling. I worked Friday and Saturday nights in emergency rooms (my sister watched the girls) to pay our way (no we didn't live very high on the hog, but we made it).

I later EARNED my Doctorate in my field. I paid for it. I did all of the course work.

The government didn't give me a damn thing, I worked hard to get where I am today. I own free and clear a 3,200 sq. foot home on 5 acres of land. I have a motorhome, a Chrysler Town & Country Minivan, a Ford Expedition that I drive, and two classic cars, as well as a 750cc motorcycle and a Cessna 210 airplane. Not bad for someone that still doesn't have a High School Diploma!

You never teach anyone anything by giving them a living. You teach people by training them to support themselves. You do that by making it barely possible to survive with welfare, and requiring them to work to get that (the work can be education, as well as an actual "job"). You limit welfare to a set period, and then either they go to work, or they are cut off. If they refuse to do manual work, let them starve (but take their kids away from them and let a family that will raise those children properly have them).

Very few people will starve (if any) under such a program. It's about time that people learn that no job is demeaning (I've scrubbed toilets, done every kind of restaurant work, worked as a common laborer, worked in the woods as a "choker setter" and a lot of other kinds of dirty, unskilled or semi-skilled jobs.) I began working for wages (which my mother took from me) at the age of 11.

None of those kinds of jobs ever hurt anyone, and they do teach people HOW to work. If a person has a functional brain at all, they can, and they will, use such work as a stepping stone to something better.

The disabled should be taken care of. Children should be taken from those that refuse to care for them, and placed in families that do care about children. The frail elderly that can not work should be cared for.

But there is absolutely NO reason why any reasonably healthy person under the age of 70 should not be required to work for any benefit that they receive from the government. AND, they should be required to repay the government for any benefits that they have received.

As John F. Kennedy stated it so beautifully, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
 

Durry

House Member
May 18, 2010
4,709
286
83
Canada
The government can not give it's citizens anything. In order to provide anything to the population, it must first TAKE the earnings of its people away from them. Then, it decides who is "worthy" of receiving those funds.

The Republicans are not at war with anyone. Quite the opposite, they want to stop the constant class warfare that the Democrats keep formenting. The Dems want to play "Robin Hood", and take everything from the rich, and give a pittance to the poor (while making certain that they skim off a large portion for themselves and their cronies before anything ever gets to the people.

The Republicans stand for the proposition that most people know what they need, and are capable of getting it without the governments interference. That when a person earns money through their own efforts, they are entitled to actually keep and benefit from those earnings.

The Democrats have been pushing the "Great Society" since 1965. So, what are the results of that "Great Society"? The people that it was supposed to benefit are still mired in poverty. They are sicker than they were BEFORE Medicaid for the poor. They are less educated than they were BEFORE Head Start and all of the other "Educational" programs that the government has enacted. Teachers are markedly LESS qualified than they were in 1965, and they are paid a LOT more (in constant dollars) than they were back then.

We now have 3rd generation welfare families, that have almost no possibility of ever lifting themselves out of the hole. And the Democrats want to keep them in that hole, so they can keep right on fooling the folks about how "we really care about you and we are enacting yet another program for you".

Name a single Federally funded program that has actually worked to help the poor better themselves.

The Democrats answer to a failing program is always to throw even MORE money into it. They act in a totally schizophrenic manner, even though the program has failed over and over and over again, they just keep on trying the same old thing.

I grew up as poor as it is possible to be in the USA. I ate dry dog food at times as a child, because that's all we had. I never got new clothes, they always came from thrift stores. I was also physically, mentally and sexually abused by my mother and several step-fathers. We moved constantly (I went to 28 different schools between 1st and 11th grade), which meant I was always the "new kid" who had no friends, and was never accepted.

I got out of that through my OWN efforts, not the governments. I joined the US Army at the age of 16. I spent 10 years as an Army Medic. I passed the High School GED while in Basic Training, and I passed the College GED less than 6 months later (the Army gave me credit for completing one year of college). While in the Army, I began taking college courses (earning all A's by the way).

I left the Army when my first wife decided to become a "Hippie", and walked out on me and our two daughters. I went to College full-time, raised my girls as a single father, and completed my BA and a dual Masters program in Psychology and Rehabilitation Counseling. I worked Friday and Saturday nights in emergency rooms (my sister watched the girls) to pay our way (no we didn't live very high on the hog, but we made it).

I later EARNED my Doctorate in my field. I paid for it. I did all of the course work.

The government didn't give me a damn thing, I worked hard to get where I am today. I own free and clear a 3,200 sq. foot home on 5 acres of land. I have a motorhome, a Chrysler Town & Country Minivan, a Ford Expedition that I drive, and two classic cars, as well as a 750cc motorcycle and a Cessna 210 airplane. Not bad for someone that still doesn't have a High School Diploma!

You never teach anyone anything by giving them a living. You teach people by training them to support themselves. You do that by making it barely possible to survive with welfare, and requiring them to work to get that (the work can be education, as well as an actual "job"). You limit welfare to a set period, and then either they go to work, or they are cut off. If they refuse to do manual work, let them starve (but take their kids away from them and let a family that will raise those children properly have them).

Very few people will starve (if any) under such a program. It's about time that people learn that no job is demeaning (I've scrubbed toilets, done every kind of restaurant work, worked as a common laborer, worked in the woods as a "choker setter" and a lot of other kinds of dirty, unskilled or semi-skilled jobs.) I began working for wages (which my mother took from me) at the age of 11.

None of those kinds of jobs ever hurt anyone, and they do teach people HOW to work. If a person has a functional brain at all, they can, and they will, use such work as a stepping stone to something better.

The disabled should be taken care of. Children should be taken from those that refuse to care for them, and placed in families that do care about children. The frail elderly that can not work should be cared for.

But there is absolutely NO reason why any reasonably healthy person under the age of 70 should not be required to work for any benefit that they receive from the government. AND, they should be required to repay the government for any benefits that they have received.

As John F. Kennedy stated it so beautifully, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
My hat off to you !!! Many of us have had it rough at one time or another, but very very few of us have faced the challenges you have faced.

I am willing to bet that less than, say 3%, would survive the kind of challenges you faced and succeeded.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
The government didn't give me a damn thing, I worked hard to get where I am today. I own free and clear a 3,200 sq. foot home on 5 acres of land. I have a motorhome, a Chrysler Town & Country Minivan, a Ford Expedition that I drive, and two classic cars, as well as a 750cc motorcycle and a Cessna 210 airplane. Not bad for someone that still doesn't have a High School Diploma!

Wow, a failure compared to me.

Yet I see the need for government involvement in education, housing, fair wages, health care, infastructure etc etc.

It's not all about me.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
''I want to take you on a pub crawl''

Haha! Wish I was 30 years younger and still doing martial arts. I'd give you the azz whipping of your life!

--------------------------------------------------

As for Obama, Bush was a lot worse. Not that he's been all that great, but if Palin and her crony McCain were in the White House we'd all be up a sh^t creek without a paddle.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
As for Obama, Bush was a lot worse. Not that he's been all that great, but if Palin and her crony McCain were in the White House we'd all be up a sh^t creek without a paddle.

That's pretty much where we are.


Now that Liberal Democrat War Mongerer got us in an illegal war!

NO WAR FOR OIL!

NOT IN MY NAME!

CALL THE HAGUE!
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
''I want to take you on a pub crawl''

Haha! Wish I was 30 years younger and still doing martial arts. I'd give you the azz whipping of your life!

--------------------------------------------------

As for Obama, Bush was a lot worse. Not that he's been all that great, but if Palin and her crony McCain were in the White House we'd all be up a sh^t creek without a paddle.

If you were thirty years younger I'd get you drunk, take you home, put you to bed, and bang your wife. :)