Advanced Search

Author Topic: 2012 Presidential Election  (Read 16135 times)

June 01, 2012, 07:49:59 PM
Reply #25

James

  • Should go on a ring diet

  • *

  • 3069
    Posts

  • blah

    • View Profile
    • My dA site
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #25 on: June 01, 2012, 07:49:59 PM »
... Even though I'm currently taking an American Political Government class, everyone's posts are just plain making my head hurt.

June 01, 2012, 09:07:03 PM
Reply #26

Sz

  • Pasta

  • *

  • 3667
    Posts

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #26 on: June 01, 2012, 09:07:03 PM »
Congress's duty is not to pass legislation for the sake of "working."  Inaction is--when necessary--just as important as ramming through legislation, especially when the Congress fails to pass legislation sensibly and in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.  Pelosi's house from 2009 to 2010 never presented a budget.  Yet, the 2,500-page Obamacare monstrosity was blasted through with strange parliamentary procedures (Senate passing a bill before the House despite being commerce related, severe limitations on the amendment process, frequent modification to the bill which left little to no time to actually read the legislation.)  If the filibuster is a problem, any Senate majority leader since the 1800s can have changed the rules regarding the filibuster and cloture.  Bill Frist threatened it around 2005 regarding Bush judge appointments.  No change was made.  Reid could very well have the rules changed to end the existence of cloture, yet he refuses.  Yet, even when bills have been coming from the House like the 2012 budget, Reid has blocked voting claiming the short-term continuing resolutions to be of equal value to an annual budget.  Let's also look at Reid's attempt to block the most recent Jobs Stimulus bill proposed by the President and passed by the House.  Can't cry foul about filibustering when the Senate Majority Leader refuses to allow cloture votes or change the filibuster rules.

I'm crying foul about filibustering because, for the first time in US history (!), it's being used to establish minority rule.

But since when is Reid my champion? He's a clown just like the rest of them. He happens to be a democrat, which in general means he's a lesser clown.


I'm aware.  Newt Gingrich wanted it as Speaker of the House.  He's a self-admitted Progressive who despite crafting the Contract with America, is favorable to large government programs as he was suggesting with health care.  But, because you want something doesn't allow Congress the liberty to enact it.  It is forcing individuals to engage in commerce.  While Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, it has no explicitly defined right or precedent to force a citizen to purchasing a good or service just because said citizen is alive.  I trust that the Supreme Court will recognize the unconstitutionality of such.  If you want constitutionality of forced commerce and a single-payer system of whatever type, push for a federal amendment to grant Congress such an egregious power or gain citizenship in a country with forced commerce to enjoy the utopian paradise of being forced into buying a service for the public good.

As I said, I'm not going to defend the "mandate". Single payer would be better. (anything is better than what we have now)


The impact of the Bush tax brackets was minimal at most.  Have a chart from the CBO of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP.  Notice the declines in revenue are between 2001 and 2003 after the first tax cut was passed which coincided with the recession from the Dot Com burst and economic uncertainty following the 9/11 attacks and 2008 when the financial crisis and current stagnant recession hit.  Compare that then with a CBO graph of the growth of debt during the Congresses under Presidents of the 20th and 21st Centuries.  Bush was no small government conservative.  His pride legislation, things like Medicare Part D benefits, No Child Left Behind spending, the creation of DHS, spending on two full-scale wars, etc. resulted in unbalanced budgets and some deficit spending.  However, take note of the much more rapid increase in spending that came from Pelosi’s Democrat-controlled House starting in 2007 and 2008 (Bush compromised on increased spending which resulted in more expensive budgets) and then explosive deficit spending lasting through present day including the financial bailouts, stimulus packages, unbudgeted bureaucratic expansion, and anemic tax base that has added a trillion dollars for every year that the current president has been in office.  That’s hell waiting to break loose as national debt is near 100% of GDP and no serious legislation has been enacted to control spending.  And, no tax of any severity can make up that kind of deficit.  There is no tax basis that can be sucked up to cover such insane spending levels without further disastrous effects on economic development, investment, lending, employment, etc.

Bush also fought two wars, which has had something to do with the debt as well. The argument isn't that Obama hasn't been a big spender, as he has -- with the intent of smoothing out the recession, which he has (thus far). But here's a better graph based on CBO data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png

Record setting deficits are the result of both recent lows in revenue and recent highs in spending. The highs in spending have an excuse: economic policy. The lows in revenue can only be attributed to (too) low taxes on the people who have all the money.


I’d partially agree with you here.  The problem with the stimulus and various bailouts is that it went to shore up old businesses and firms.  It went to the rich, politically-connected investors like the entrepreneurs of energy company Solyndra and wireless firm Light Squared, stagnant car companies GM and Chrysler loaded with debt, lack of innovation, and unsustainable labor contracts, and “too-big-to-fail” financial firms like Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, etc. hit by the sub-prime loan collapse.  Infrastructure spending has been nothing but a joke of political kabuki theater.  "Shovel-ready jobs" was a ploy to create a political slush fund, and nothing of substance has been gained with more than $4 trillion added to the debt.

Regarding employment, add on the problems that tax policy is uncertain with the United States now holding the honor of having the highest corporate tax rate in the world and the President seeking income, capital gains, and healthcare taxes to cover deficits under Congress and his own $3.8 trillion 2013 budget shot down almost unanimously in both the House and Senate.  There is little interest in doing business in the U.S. for the massive looming tax burdens which results in continued anemic job growth.  Enjoy a summary of the Department of Labor’s May 2012 report on growth and jobless claims with links to the actual report for the hard facts.


"little interest in the U.S. for [..] tax burdens" might as well be code for "free trade sucks". It's descriptive of a problem (not all countries have the same laws), the same problem that's enabling China to kick our ass with their 30-year tax-free government supported startups.


That’s a nonstory wrapped in veteran patriotism to feign a sob story of disenfranchisement.  The man’s voting record came into question with a request for him to provide ID.  He did, and so he can continue to vote.  Period.

IDs are demanded for buying liquor, cigarettes, and goods with an unsigned credit card.  IDs are required for traveling on plane and train, driving, entering a federal building, getting loans, etc.  Voting without ID to guarantee an individual’s valid citizenship and right to vote is an injustice for any and all potential fraud.


Right, and so it's pure coincidence that this happens a couple months before a presidential election. If voter fraud were a legitimate concern, it would be an ongoing effort, not a political ploy trotted out during the summer once every 4 years.


Krugman is a biased source based on his own self-declared leftist partisanship and long-established animosity towards the Republican party and free market economics.  I’ve followed his political hackery for years in print and on television, his openly partisan nature, and his constant drumming for Keynesian economics to get out of the current recession.  (“Spend massively through the public sector to stimulate private growth.”  How’s that worked, so far?)  Add into that his criticism of the President for leaving out a “Progressive-Economist Wing” in the White House in the early part of his presidency or support of the Congressional Progressive Caucus’s 2012 Budget seeking massive a budget with a significant redistribution of wealth.  (There’s that Progressive ideology again…)

Furthermore, Medicare and Medicaid are impending long-term disasters as you just acknowledged.  I never said that they were to go to hell tomorrow.  However, with Congress’s unwillingness to do anything about the cost of the programs, twenty years is a short time to plan for the problem when they become unsustainable.  Both plans have also been threatened by the White House seeking to cut $360 billion while pushing to build up the thus far immeasurable Obamacare mandate monstrosity.


"redistribution of wealth" is relatively sound economic principle: see the tax rates under Truman and Eisenhower. The problem is getting people to swallow the pill that'll make them better, because it sure looks gross and doesn't taste good either. Krugman has his political bent, but it does not devalue his opinions as an economist -- if anything, his economic policy motivates his political bent, not the other way around.


Bullshit.  Political ruthlessness is a politician with a published enemies list because individuals donate to another candidiate.  Political ruthlessness is slanderous hatemongering and fearmongering.  Political ruthlessness is a well-connected organized labor group terrorizing a private citizen’s family and trespassing on his property for perceived injustice for a man being a rich banking executive.

Do yourself a favor and read about Progressivism.  Read about the ideology, its early thinkers and organizations, its roots, its goal of bringing about fundamental change resulting in rule of man’s whim over law, its creeping gradualism to avoid the shock of violent revolution that comes with full-blown Marxism, and the present actors who subscribe to the ideals and admire its thinkers.  It’s not secret society conspiracy shit; the ideology is well documented, and modern progressives are pretty damn bold about their ideology.  At least explore Wilson, one of the most clearly defined creeps to run this country.


I'm aware Wilson was a dick. I'm not aware of how his existence condemns every idea associated with populism and "demand-side" economics. Progressivism is not a disease, it's not even a cohesive thing anymore. It's a derivation of Teddy Roosevelt's old party. It used to be a movement, and gave us things like child labor laws, workers rights, women voting, labor unions (an unquestionably good thing), etc. Now it's purely a buzzword, used to justify arbitrary positions both "for" an arbitrary definition of progressivism and "against" it.


Well, the police state is a problem.  I can tell you all about the farcical security theater in D.C.—absurd procedures entering federal buildings, bureaucratic nonsense getting into museums, millions spent on DHS propaganda, and never mind the grope-happy TSA.  Add to that the legalization of drones now approved to patrol U.S. skies and the President’s ability to hold American Citizens without due process.  It's scary shit enacted by self-righteous legislators and the President seeking to take liberties in the name of national security.

Agreed, though I'd argue the online stuff (e.g. CISPA) is even more cogent, and damning.


Other than that, no buzzwords there.  I've made very clear my points regarding Progressivism, an ideology that favors rule by government body and man with ambiguous and highly-subjective goals over a constitutional republic (which the United States is) that favor protection of liberty and control of government power to prevent tyranny.  The goal of Progressivism is murky, ill-defined "fundamental transformation" to use an infamous catchphrase under a leader's control.  The old GOP as I've said time and time again is worthless.  It is poisoned by Progressivism seeking government control and manipulation of society and economics, willing to sacrifice liberty piece by piece.  The Democrat party is completely poisoned by Progressivism, pushing for a shift into egalitarianism, waging war on businesses for being too rich (after accepting their donations), waging war on the population for being too free (forced commerce with Obamacare, taxing fuel and regulating energy development in stagnation, smothering free economic development and opportunity for prosperity), and agitating race, class, and gender tensions in flowery rhetoric to get everyone pissed and jealous of each others' successes to pry off of their misery with shiny government programs to attract their votes.

I'm unfamiliar of a definition of progressive that excludes the existence of constitutions, republics, protecting personal freedoms, and restraining government power. In general progressives seek to use government as a blunt instrument against other threats (social inequality, big-business running amok), but that does not mean we wish to institute newspeak.

It's a legitimately good thing that we can agree that both parties are worthless. In general, though, I'd say I find it difficult to grok why I should even entertain the notion that a viral progressivism is the cause of our government's ills. Occam would suggest a much more straightforward reason: those who are buying elections and re-elections are dictating the laws. Lobbyists write the laws, it's not a large leap to suggest they might decide what goes in them.


Study the societies that came from revolutions and what government they overthrew.  The American Revolution stabilized rather peacefully through establishment of a constitutional republic from a parliamentary democracy with no representation.  The Poles and Czechs broke away from crumbling Marxist tyranny as did much of the rest of the Soviet Bloc quite easily to form their own republics.  The violent Marxist revolutions of Russia, Mainland China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Campbodia, etc.…well, go see the egalitarian workers’ paradises that that bunch turned out to be.  Check out the French Revolution and subsequent bloodsoaked republic too.  Lovely places they were!  Fairness abounded!  Misery and oppression for all under an authoritarian political elite!  That’s what happens with Marxist revolution.

Democracy is sweet, yo.


Rich backers or not, the Tea Party is one of the most organic and civilized advocacy group I ever encountered in person.  No elitism and race/class/gender agitation, no violence, no property destruction, just advocacy for controlling government and restoration of liberty.  They are the antithesis of the standard protester, whether with the ANSWER Coalition, the October Rebellion, the Occupy Movement, the New Black Panthers, the D.C. Carpenters’ Union, SEIU paid protesters, or any other thuggish gang of terrorizers.  Go to a movement.  Talk to attendees.  They’re as pleasant and respectful as I’ve ever met in person.

As for the Koch Brothers, they’re Obama’s boogeymen for using money legally to support policies.  Money has been upheld by the Supreme Court as free speech, and people have the right to spend their private monies as they see fit, whether for goods, services, organizing events, or whatnot.  Just as valid as every other individual who donates to a cause.


Money has been considered free speech by a republican supreme court. I don't think we should put that one to bed just yet.


Obviously, you’re not with your dismissal of its principles and careless attitude towards trampling of liberty by historic figures in the Progressive Movement.  You fail to appreciate the stability and freedom of a constitutional republic over Marxist hate-the-rich claptrap.

The mindset does not define the political system.


Backasswards.  Lobbying interests may make advances in their interest, but it’s the politicians who manipulate the playing field.  Long-lasting barnacles build up wealth and ties.  They lose respect for their electorate and then operate ignorant of Constitutional limits, constituent interests, and states’ interests with primary focus on making a deal with whomever the Sugar Daddy to enrich themselves as career politicians and stay in power until death.

Right, but the lobbying interests can remove someone who doesn't do the job and find someone who does. You think Scott Walker was the best candidate for governor of Wisconsin? Hell no! But by getting him elected, the Koch brothers secured no-bid state contracts for power plants, environmental regulation cutbacks, and a shot across the bow of worker's rights. For them, it was a worthwhile investment. They wouldn't have invested if they didn't think he could do the job for them.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 09:14:36 PM by Sz »

June 01, 2012, 09:21:26 PM
Reply #27

Sz

  • Pasta

  • *

  • 3667
    Posts

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #27 on: June 01, 2012, 09:21:26 PM »
... Even though I'm currently taking an American Political Government class, everyone's posts are just plain making my head hurt.

Lesson 1 of American government class: they'll never talk about how American government actually works. (or doesn't, as the case may be)

Lesson 2: you know how everyone pretends that politicians are incompetent? That's a lie. They're just not trying to accomplish what you think they are.

Lesson 3: American politics is a much different game today than it was 50 years ago.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 09:23:18 PM by Sz »

June 01, 2012, 09:45:23 PM
Reply #28

Keith Stack

  • Ringmaster

  • *

  • 5018
    Posts

  • The prettiest.

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #28 on: June 01, 2012, 09:45:23 PM »
So yeah, it's going to be a pretty uninteresting election because it is very unlikely that Romney will win.

June 02, 2012, 04:34:44 AM
Reply #29

Zodberg

  • Should go on a ring diet

  • *

  • Playing it bogard.

  • 3687
    Posts

  • the day Adorable won

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2012, 04:34:44 AM »
I think Obama's biggest failure as President was the billion bucks he gave to the solar power company that went bankrupt.
But really, in his position I would have done the same thing because a billion bucks away from the government is a billion bucks out there stimulating economic growth and better it goes to sustainable power than encouraging progress towards the Run Out Of Oil Everybody Dies scenario.

June 02, 2012, 06:37:38 AM
Reply #30

yaj

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • 1729
    Posts

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2012, 06:37:38 AM »
The only president who ever won an election with the unemployment rate this high was FDR. The economy trumps all other issues with most people. So Obama might not win.o.

SoObamaMightNotWin

June 02, 2012, 09:09:20 AM
Reply #31

Squishdiboo

  • Moderator

  • **

  • Ruiner

  • 8503
    Posts

  • sniff

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2012, 09:09:20 AM »
I'm hoping these religious fascist Republicans offend enough people that Romney loses. Things will be a lot worse if he wins.  At least, for me, because I have a uterus.

June 02, 2012, 01:10:18 PM
Reply #32

Vexiss

  • Should go on a ring diet

  • *

  • 4036
    Posts

  • RIP Lucky

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #32 on: June 02, 2012, 01:10:18 PM »
=
Andy Richter's Newt Gingrich

i've not seen this

June 02, 2012, 10:02:02 PM
Reply #33

Josie

  • Global Moderator

  • ***

  • Momentai

  • 4796
    Posts

  • Queen of This

    • View Profile
    • Mastodon Lion Thunderzord Power
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #33 on: June 02, 2012, 10:02:02 PM »

I haven't read any of Mirai's posts and from past experience I'm pretty sure I'd disagree with them if I did read them (Nothin' against you, bro, we just got diff'rent views is all!) but this image is fantastic.

June 03, 2012, 12:56:09 PM
Reply #34

Your Pure Sexcellence

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • Smiley Face G

  • 1879
    Posts

  • ⌐_⌐

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #34 on: June 03, 2012, 12:56:09 PM »
How did you like an Inside Job, Mirai? 
The Golden Guy was upper case, the Golden Guy was in first place
The Golden Guy was holding all the aces
The Golden Guy was in the news, the Golden Guy was blue suede shoes
The Golden Guy was secret rendezvous
The Golden Guy was samurai, the Golden Guy was legal high
The Golden eyes was infinitely white
The Golden Guy was French champagne, the Golden Guy was summer rain
The Golden Guy invented the fast lane
The Golden Guy was easy street sitting in the catbird's seat
The Golden Guy was melt-in-your-mouth meat
The Golden Guy could cast a spell, the Golden Guy was wedding bells
The Golden Guy had a voice like Elvis

June 11, 2012, 11:59:41 PM
Reply #35

Fadflamer

  • Global Moderator

  • ***

  • That Guy With The Milky Plush

  • 1977
    Posts

  • That's as many as Four Tens. And that's Terrible.

    • View Profile
    • BleistiftAnsatz Sissy - Dead Autism Forever
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #35 on: June 11, 2012, 11:59:41 PM »
I stand by my solution of generating a black hole big enough to absorb all of the universe.

June 14, 2012, 08:03:45 PM
Reply #36

Josie

  • Global Moderator

  • ***

  • Momentai

  • 4796
    Posts

  • Queen of This

    • View Profile
    • Mastodon Lion Thunderzord Power
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #36 on: June 14, 2012, 08:03:45 PM »
That already exists.  It's called the universe.

June 15, 2012, 08:52:36 AM
Reply #37

▲ndrusi

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • Lalaist Precurian

  • 2224
    Posts

  • Precure... In... SPACE!

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #37 on: June 15, 2012, 08:52:36 AM »
In order to generate a black hole big enough to absorb all of the universe, you must first create the universe.

June 16, 2012, 08:18:02 AM
Reply #38

Your Pure Sexcellence

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • Smiley Face G

  • 1879
    Posts

  • ⌐_⌐

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #38 on: June 16, 2012, 08:18:02 AM »
The Golden Guy was upper case, the Golden Guy was in first place
The Golden Guy was holding all the aces
The Golden Guy was in the news, the Golden Guy was blue suede shoes
The Golden Guy was secret rendezvous
The Golden Guy was samurai, the Golden Guy was legal high
The Golden eyes was infinitely white
The Golden Guy was French champagne, the Golden Guy was summer rain
The Golden Guy invented the fast lane
The Golden Guy was easy street sitting in the catbird's seat
The Golden Guy was melt-in-your-mouth meat
The Golden Guy could cast a spell, the Golden Guy was wedding bells
The Golden Guy had a voice like Elvis

June 17, 2012, 06:53:30 PM
Reply #39

Fadflamer

  • Global Moderator

  • ***

  • That Guy With The Milky Plush

  • 1977
    Posts

  • That's as many as Four Tens. And that's Terrible.

    • View Profile
    • BleistiftAnsatz Sissy - Dead Autism Forever
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #39 on: June 17, 2012, 06:53:30 PM »
I'm hoping these religious fascist Republicans offend enough people that Romney loses. Things will be a lot worse if he wins.  At least, for me, because I have a uterus.

How dare you have one of those things !

June 17, 2012, 06:55:24 PM
Reply #40

Fadflamer

  • Global Moderator

  • ***

  • That Guy With The Milky Plush

  • 1977
    Posts

  • That's as many as Four Tens. And that's Terrible.

    • View Profile
    • BleistiftAnsatz Sissy - Dead Autism Forever
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #40 on: June 17, 2012, 06:55:24 PM »
I don't give a fuck what I have to do to make a black hole.  I'm going to rip this universe a new sphincter.  End of discussion.

June 20, 2012, 03:11:19 AM
Reply #41

SoNick

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • 1008
    Posts

  • No longer seeking applications for new picture

    • View Profile
    • SoNick's vaguely coherent ramblings
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #41 on: June 20, 2012, 03:11:19 AM »
That is incredibly arrogant of you!
There are many more creatures living in this universe than you can even imagine, and you think that you - a single one of the countless - have the right to decide whether or not the universe continues to exist?
these links are old:
MySpace | Sonic Retro Wiki Entry | ImageShack

June 20, 2012, 05:57:03 AM
Reply #42

Squishdiboo

  • Moderator

  • **

  • Ruiner

  • 8503
    Posts

  • sniff

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #42 on: June 20, 2012, 05:57:03 AM »
Whoever wields the power decides what is to be done with that power.

June 20, 2012, 10:03:11 PM
Reply #43

Zodberg

  • Should go on a ring diet

  • *

  • Playing it bogard.

  • 3687
    Posts

  • the day Adorable won

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #43 on: June 20, 2012, 10:03:11 PM »
There can be only one, and then whomever is left shall claim The Prize.

September 29, 2012, 03:18:20 PM
Reply #44

yaj

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • 1729
    Posts

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #44 on: September 29, 2012, 03:18:20 PM »
how DARE you all speak against joe biden.

umm..the debates are coming up. two boring men are going to talk in boring voices about boring things. it would be more fun if this was Howard Dean VS. Herman Cain. Howard VS Herman! verses. whatever..

























































NO PUN INTENDED.

October 02, 2012, 12:21:56 PM
Reply #45

Southbird

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • AKA "RobS" and something Epoch

  • 1139
    Posts

  • Starbounder

    • View Profile
    • YouTube
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #45 on: October 02, 2012, 12:21:56 PM »

October 02, 2012, 08:41:20 PM
Reply #46

yaj

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • 1729
    Posts

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #46 on: October 02, 2012, 08:41:20 PM »
ROB....


ever noticed how we uh..never really acknowledge kind of knowing each other?

kind of?

political football.

October 03, 2012, 02:15:23 PM
Reply #47

AJ

  • 3 ring meals a day

  • *

  • 674
    Posts

    • View Profile
    • Save Shaq Fu
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #47 on: October 03, 2012, 02:15:23 PM »
how DARE you all speak against joe biden.

umm..the debates are coming up. two boring men are going to talk in boring voices about boring things. it would be more fun if this was Howard Dean VS. Herman Cain. Howard VS Herman! verses. whatever.


Read that as "two boning men are going to talk in boning voices about boning things." Would have been far more interesting.

October 03, 2012, 05:35:25 PM
Reply #48

Southbird

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • AKA "RobS" and something Epoch

  • 1139
    Posts

  • Starbounder

    • View Profile
    • YouTube
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #48 on: October 03, 2012, 05:35:25 PM »
ROB....


ever noticed how we uh..never really acknowledge kind of knowing each other?

kind of?

political football.

I didn't know it was necessary.  But hi, I know you.

October 03, 2012, 09:31:28 PM
Reply #49

yaj

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • 1729
    Posts

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #49 on: October 03, 2012, 09:31:28 PM »
no, it's not necessary. sorry if i made it sound that way. just an observation.


Read that as "two boning men are going to talk in boning voices about boning things." Would have been far more interesting.

you're a horny little rabbit.