World Politics

Page 448 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
rhubroma said:
The entire system is controlled by the financial capitalists. They own the corporate mass media too. It's all propaganda. The state of the US mass media these days is rather deplorable in informing people about the actual gravity of the situation - and it isn't the protesters!

What don't you get about how outrageously scandalous the financial practices of Wall Street and the stock markets are? What don't you get about hedge funds and financial speculation playing with the pocket books of entire states like Greece? What don't you get about the debt of private wealth being socialized and the wealth of society being privatized? What don't you get about the banks owning everything? Or that democracy itself has become something which can be bought politically, not earned by suffrage? What don't you get about a finance that has witnessed gargantuan wealth concentrated in ever fewer hands, while workers salaries have been stagnant since the 70's? What don't you get about mass credit, offered by these same banks, being foisted upon the middle class to provide the impetus for a consumer economy that otherwise would be dead to make up for low wages, with interest to boot?

Is your question mere intractableness or do these things truly escape you? I'm beginning to wonder if some are just that effen thick, or so conservative and moralistic in their world view, as to actually be fearful and scandalized by the OWS protesters, which seems to be the case, rather than what's really to be fearful of and scandalized by?

Pardon me for saying it so baldly, but I have run into your kind before. And be careful about using the word idiot in your assessment of others, before you have first seriously contemplated all the questions posed above.
His points were that from what he saw on the television the preoccupied group did not indicate a solid idea for the protest. Then he said it was interesting how these preoccupied protesters were able to just camp out without working etc. I thought they were valid questions / observations.

Hey rhubroma if he KNOW what it is that has them all preoccupied then why don’t you take off from your job and get over to wall street and let the media know these important points that you was so clearly able to define to ACF.

"Pardon me for saying it so BALDly, but I have run into your kind before.":rolleyes:
 
Nov 30, 2010
797
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Hey is the bold part your take on the October 18th article or is it a quote from bloomberg article?

Based on your take on this article I just went and took my 21 dollars out of that bank and put into capital one. Thanks for the great info caveman, I just sent this out to all my Whisky Tango Village friends via email alert so they can take their money / change out also.
Whisky Tango Village friends?

It's my take based on the OWS take which was endorsed here.
 
Jul 4, 2011
1,899
0
0
Wikileaks stops publishing classified files

The whistle-blowing website Wikileaks is suspending its publication of classified files.

Wikileaks said that it would focus instead on raising funds to ensure its future survival.

The announcement came after what the group called a blockade by US-based finance companies.

This followed its disclosure on the internet of hundreds of thousands of secret US government files and diplomatic cables.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said that since last December an "arbitrary and unlawful financial blockade" had been imposed by Bank of America, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and Western Union.

"The attack has destroyed 95% of our revenue," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15434493

Hardly surprising, it was only a matter of time, once they blocked Paypal and similar sites that the leaked matter would stop.
 
auscyclefan94 said:
Umm, excuse me? Where did this all come from? Did I say that I disagreed with what some of the real protesters were/are against? No. Am I completely against Capitalism? No, not at all. My family's old business what shut down partially due to big privatised corporate businesses. I think I understand first hand about what you are discussing. I am not exactly sure where you are from but protesting in the city for multiple days straight disrupting the city is beyond a fair protest. I also don't agree with your point on corporate mass media. You will get many media sources which are owned by big corporate business organisations but are generally of a left wing persuasion which is generally who most of the anti-capitalism supporters are. I am certainly not fearful of what they are saying either but the way the protesters went about it was wrong and I think some of the professional protesters that were at the event devalued the point that the actual people who wanted to protest properley and make a point about an issue they felt strongly about. Just because I am have generally a conservative political opinion does not make me an idiot either and I also could view some strong views about socialists like yourself but I certainly won't go to such depths on this forum.

I think you owe me an apology with such a misguided, outrageous attack. Until then, I will continue to wait.
I got the highlighted parts and this just affirmed everything I had written to you before. You really don't like such business, because for you it's not "proper." Well welcome to the real world, were things aren't always "proper" and "clean." It goes against your concept of a "productive" and "worthwhile" existence so it seems. It really bothers you that people want to change a system that has allowed greed and interests a free reign. And this is where the really improper and dirty business is to be found.

As bad as Wall Street has been screwing mass society of late, the protest was decidedly mild and had every right to exist for as long as there was motivation behind it. This isn't something which the city can decide, however they may have "disrupted things." What you describe is a revolution, but that's not what this was. Even if that's what's needed, a revolution.

But if you think the main stream media on the right and left in America is not pro-capitalist, then you obviously have no familiarity with what real and radical leftist journalism is, like that which is to be found outside the US in many palaces around the world, and not just in Europe.
 
Nov 30, 2010
797
0
0
rhubroma said:
...
But if you think the main stream media on the right and left in America is not pro-capitalist, then you obviously have no familiarity with what real and radical leftist journalism is, like that which is to be found outside the US in many palaces around the world, and not just in Europe.
Not Buckingham Palace surely?
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
2
0
Captain_Cavman said:
If any of the readership here has a deposit account with the Bank of America, I'd advise moving it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/bofa-said-to-split-regulators-over-moving-merrill-derivatives-to-bank-unit.html

To be clear, the derivatives contracts will be paid out first. $Trillions. BoA deposit holders won't get paid out because there'll be no money left. They are promised some recompense provided by the FDIC which is funded by the tax payer. Whether that promise can be kept and how long it would take to make it happen are uncertain. Too uncertain.

The bank of opportunity. they don't mean your opportunity, obviously.
This would be my reading, too. Except, since that part of BoA is FDIC insured, there's in fact no need to move your account. The problem is rather that the FDIC simply cannot pay in the case of a BoA default, which means that the FDIC would need to be bailed out by the taxpayer in such an event. Also: while you eventually will get your deposit back, that does not need to happen all that quickly (meaning weeks or months could pass).

The problem here, as always, is the lack of regulations. Sound regulations would either forbid such a move entirely (a type of Glass Steagall rule, repealed by the Clinton administration) or require BoA to pay the FDIC for the insurance, preferably at market price (which they wouldn't be able to afford).

That the Obama administration would allow such a thing is deeply troubling. Mostly, I assume, BoA is in deeper trouble than everybody thinks (well there was that downgrade in September), and Bernanke looked at the numbers and it's either this underhanded move (with the hope, I assume, that BoA can be saved at all), or an outright default right now with another banking crisis and a certain slide back into recession.

Troubling times indeed.

Of course the whole thing can still blow up, and if so, it's certainly going to be in October 2012, one month before the election.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
2
0
A follow up:

If you really, truly want to understand what is messed up with the financial system, you need to go no further than looking at the numbers in that single Bloomberg article:

BoA third quarter profit this year: 6.2 billion
BoA third quarter loss last year: 7.3 billion
BoA bailout during the financial crisis: 45 billion
Sum of BoA deposits as of midyear: 1,040 billion
Derivative contracts held by BoA by end of June: 75,000 billion
Moved over to the FDIC insured side: 22,000 billion (as I understand the article)
Compare that to the current US national debt (total): 14,871 billion
Total residential mortgage volume this year: likely below 1,000 billion

Now add to that the derivative contracts held by JP Morgan Chase which is 79,000 billion, and whatever Goldman Sachs and the other banks have. It's pretty clear what went completely out of proportion and needs to be reigned in.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
Captain_Cavman said:
Whisky Tango Village friends?

It's my take based on the OWS take which was endorsed here.
Whisky Tango = White Trash
Village = trailer park or Cracker Barrel

Friends = ???????? I realy have none but like to pretend. :D
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Horrifying reading.:mad:

America's child abuse epidemic


Four times more children have been killed this decade than US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their assailants? Their families

Seema Jilani
guardian.co.uk, Monday 24 October 2011 18.32 BST

When I arrived to provide medical care, the four-year-old girl was unconscious. She had multiple bruises, skull fractures, a brain contusion, vaginal and anal tears, venereal disease, and was hemorrhaging from places a little girl should not. The perpetrator? Her stepfather.

I actually sighed with relief when I learned she later died of her abusive injuries in the hospital; at least she was spared the anguish of surviving such brutality. Pediatricians across America have witnessed countless similar tragedies. A new BBC documentary has investigated why the US, one of the most prosperous nations on earth, has the worst child abuse record in the industrialised world. America's child maltreatment death rate is triple Canada's and 11 times that of Italy. Over the past decade, more than 20,000 American children have been killed their own family members – that is nearly four times the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What differentiates us from other countries? The single best predictor of child abuse is poverty. Children raised in families with annual incomes of less than $15,000 are 22 times more likely to be abused. Since the economic downturn, there has been a 30% increase in child maltreatment. The recession is, quite literally, a slap in the face of American children. The vast social programs available to low-income families in other countries are gapingly absent in the US. Social programs are also suffering funding cuts at the hands of Republicans, who persistently paint citizens in need of social programs as manipulative pariahs on the populace.

Since entering the bid for the 2012 presidential election, Gov. Rick Perry has boasted Texas' pseudo-success, bedazzling voters with misleading statistics. His swagger is rooted in the fact that Texas is a low-tax, low-social service state. He neglects to mention that children from Texas are four times more likely to be incarcerated, four times more likely to be uninsured, twice as likely to drop out of high school, and nearly twice as likely to die from abuse and neglect. In order to perpetuate the façade of "traditional family values", Child Protective Services in states with strong Republican leanings prefer to keep the faux family together, even in cases of flagrant abuse, instead of taking custody and removing children from their cruel environment. Nearly half of all Texan children killed by abuse belonged to families investigated by CPS, but the service's myopic political masters would rather leave a child in the hands of a sadistic, torturous family than have a child raised by a gay couple in a safe and nurturing home.

Thus Texas has the lowest rate of removal for abused children from their homes. Not surprisingly, it also has the highest number of child abuse fatalities in the country.

Amid these dire circumstances, House Republicans passed an atrocious bill this month that would deeply impact pregnant women of lower socioeconomic status. Currently, hospitals receiving federal funds must provide emergency healthcare, including abortions, which can sometimes be life saving for the mother. The deceptively named Protect Life Act – which does anything but - would permit hospitals receiving federal funds to refuse to perform an emergency abortion, even if a woman's life was at stake. A vicious attack on the most basic right to life, HR 358 ambushes poor pregnant women into a bleak decision: either deliver an unwanted baby and raise the child in an unstable home, or have an unsafe abortion that could jeopardise your life. Will the GOP, our bastion of God-sanctioned moral righteousness, also be providing discounts on rusty coat hangers to further hasten the death of pregnant women?

In contrast, a new UN report released this week demonstrates that restrictions on abortions do not impede abortions; they only impede safe abortions and endanger women's lives. The report also shows that that access to sex education and contraception are proven to reduce the need for abortions.

The GOP's shrill moral indignation will force low-income mothers to have children who are born into poverty, rendering them at risk for abuse. Once the babies are born, however, Republicans abandon them in their most vulnerable moment by vehemently opposing social programs that would ameliorate their deplorable conditions. Love those fetuses unconditionally … until they take they take their first breath, when they magically transform into wretched, handout-seeking leeches on society. Abortion? A sinful abomination! Allowing a toddler to die because of lack of access to social programs? Man up, kid; God helps those who help themselves.

Inevitably, adoption is always the suggested panacea, but many children are just filtered through foster programs, which are themselves horrifically abusive. A 1986 survey conducted by the National Foster Care Education Project found that foster children were 10 times more likely to be abused than children among the general population. A follow-up study in 1990 by the same group produced similar results.

Republicans can cry "scary socialism" all they want. If that is what it takes to prevent blindness in a shaken baby, or anal tears in a seven-year-old resulting from knife sodomy, bring it on. Jonathan was an seven-year-old I treated whose relatives used to starve him, hang him from his shirt on the coatrack all night, dip his feet in boiling oil, and threaten to cut off his penis while holding a hot knife to his genitals. His caretakers had suffered similar abuse in their youth. Abused children are 74 times more likely to commit crimes against others and six times more likely to abuse their own children. This is why it is of paramount importance to offer therapy and rehabilitation to those from broken homes.

Ultimately, the blame of abuse always lies with the perpetrators who commit these heinous acts. But while those to the right of the aisle use melodramatic rhetoric to demonise social programs, studies have shown that preventive measures and therapeutic rehabilitation can, indeed, diminish the cycle of violence. Furthermore, women who are unable to provide a safe environment for children should be allowed to terminate their pregnancies safely, rather than risking their own lives and subjecting their children to a wretched existence full of misery and pain.

The narrative of healthcare reform and social programs must stop reflecting the agenda of morally bankrupt politicians whose eyes only fix on the next election. Propagandised myths need to be replaced with an empathic truth that reflects the needs of catastrophically shattered children who are struggling to survive and begging for our compassion.

• Details of patients, including names, have been changed to protect their identities

• Editor's note: the figures originally given for problems with foster care, involving the prevalence of substance abuse among foster carers, may not have been reliable. So the article has been amended to give accurate information, at 6.30pm (ET; 11.30pm UK time) on 24 October
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Amsterhammer said:
Horrifying reading.:mad:

America's child abuse epidemic


<snipped>
I truly can't imagine having parents that would have done those things to me as a child. True evil.

As far as the conclusions... I have a friend who is an attorney. He specializes in ADA cases centered around abuse of developmentally disabled children and adults. The cases are typically horrifying.

Most of his cases involve public schools and public funded group facilities.

Once again, another government program is not the answer.

It's important for this trend to be reversed;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/14/us-poverty-levels-record-high

Also, as long as our welfare system encourages women in poverty to continue to have children then don't expect much change in the numbers.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Horrifying reading.:mad:

America's child abuse epidemic


Four times more children have been killed this decade than US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their assailants? Their families

Seema Jilani
guardian.co.uk, Monday 24 October 2011 18.32 BST

<snip>
thanks for posting that - i think. depressing, but informative. i don't mean to be a scold, but it is good manners to include the link.

here it is: America's child abuse epidemic

cheers
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
gregod said:
thanks for posting that - i think. depressing, but informative. i don't mean to be a scold, but it is good manners to include the link.

here it is: America's child abuse epidemic

cheers
You old nag:p

You're quite right, of course. I always post the link when only posting an excerpt from an article, but forgot in this case because it was clearly the entire article with title and byline, so it was always quick and easy to find.

As for the article itself, I certainly have no answers, though I'm not entirely sure that you can blame everything on poverty. There are plenty of very poor people all around the globe who apparently do not abuse their children to such an extent. Maybe it's also to do with insufficient or totally lacking socialization of the parents. There are indeed many people who are simply not fit to be parents. The question that needs answering is why such a disproportionate number of these people live in the US.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
...the following must have been rather hard for Frum to admit as it not only reveals a lack of ideological purity but it also shows that on rare occsions he can be both honest and can think for himself ( which in certain political camps is the kiss of death )...and the following may also give some credance to the old saw that facts have a liberal bias....

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

Krugman spotted the "liquidity trap" early on (since the problem with the economy was too much debt, cutting rates and creating easier money would not get us out of it).

Krugman shot down the hyperventilation about a coming hyper-inflation, arguing that the global labor glut would prevent easy credit from inflating wages.

Krugman quickly pronounced the Obama Administration's stimulus as far too small and said it would not get the job done.

Krugman scoffed at the idea that interest rates were about to skyrocket as our creditors decided en masse that we were so fiscally irresponsible that they couldn't possibly lend us any more money.

He has been right on all counts.

http://www.businessinsider.com/david-frum-paul-krugman-...

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

Cheers

blutto
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
<snip>

america's child abuse epidemic

Also, as long as our welfare system encourages women in poverty to continue to have children then don't expect much change in the numbers.
how does the welfare system encourage women to have children? i have absolutely no idea how the welfare system works, but as the guardian article pointed out, texas is a "low-social service state".
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
As for the article itself, I certainly have no answers, though I'm not entirely sure that you can blame everything on poverty. There are plenty of very poor people all around the globe who apparently do not abuse their children to such an extent. Maybe it's also to do with insufficient or totally lacking socialization of the parents. There are indeed many people who are simply not fit to be parents. The question that needs answering is why such a disproportionate number of these people live in the US.
excellent observation. even though the abuse statistics correlate with poverty, what is it about poverty in the US that leads to this on this scale?
 
gregod said:
thanks for posting that - i think. depressing, but informative. i don't mean to be a scold, but it is good manners to include the link.

here it is: America's child abuse epidemic

cheers
Having lived in a the inner city of a big US metropolis for a few years in the past, and form what I know of the US back lands and the state of culture that persists their, which is often of the depressed redneck or minority variety, the trend doesn't surprise me in the least.

In the mad consumer, hyper-market driven culture such as exists in America - and the unsupportable economic and social pressures of upward advancement, as well as a lack of any political culture to promote forms of social values or solidarity (and not those merely based on fake and hypocritical political correctness) - there seems to have been something which has gone decidedly awry in basic family behavior, in the civilized and humane senses. As if the basic fundamentals of a family, its nurturing and protective capacities, have been radically overturned, or were never instilled, in an alarming number of savage cases.

It is indicative of a broader suffering and injustice within a culture that seems totally insensitive to the weak and the economically depressed. And has led to such abominations regarding that most fundamental building block of any society, the family: which has as result been left in a desperate and, in these cases, barbaric state.

Herein lies one of the central paradoxes of the American way of life, or at any rate so it seems to me.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
2
0
blutto said:
...the following must have been rather hard for Frum to admit as it not only reveals a lack of ideological purity but it also shows that on rare occsions he can be both honest and can think for himself ( which in certain political camps is the kiss of death )...and the following may also give some credance to the old saw that facts have a liberal bias....

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

Krugman spotted the "liquidity trap" early on (since the problem with the economy was too much debt, cutting rates and creating easier money would not get us out of it).

Krugman shot down the hyperventilation about a coming hyper-inflation, arguing that the global labor glut would prevent easy credit from inflating wages.

Krugman quickly pronounced the Obama Administration's stimulus as far too small and said it would not get the job done.

Krugman scoffed at the idea that interest rates were about to skyrocket as our creditors decided en masse that we were so fiscally irresponsible that they couldn't possibly lend us any more money.

He has been right on all counts.

http://www.businessinsider.com/david-frum-paul-krugman-...

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

Cheers

blutto
You can do worse than listening to Krugman.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Here is the original article referred to in the Guardian piece on the previous page..


Why is the problem of violence against children so much more acute in the US than anywhere else in the industrialised world, asks Michael Petit, President of Every Child Matters.

Over the past 10 years, more than 20,000 American children are believed to have been killed in their own homes by family members. That is nearly four times the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The child maltreatment death rate in the US is triple Canada's and 11 times that of Italy. Millions of children are reported as abused and neglected every year. Why is that?

Part of the answer is that teen pregnancy, high-school dropout, violent crime, imprisonment, and poverty - factors associated with abuse and neglect - are generally much higher in the US.


Further, other rich nations have social policies that provide child care, universal health insurance, pre-school, parental leave and visiting nurses to virtually all in need.

In the US, when children are born into young families not prepared to receive them, local social safety nets may be frayed, or non-existent. As a result, they are unable to compensate for the household stress the child must endure.

In the most severe situations, there is a predictable downward spiral and a child dies. Some 75% of these children are under four, while nearly half are under one.

Geography matters a lot in determining child well-being. Take the examples of Texas and Vermont.

Texas prides itself in being a low tax, low service state. Its per capita income places it in the middle of the states, while its total tax burden - its willingness to tax itself - is near the bottom.

Vermont, in contrast, is at the other extreme. It is a high-tax, high-service state.

In looking at key indicators of well-being, children from Texas are twice as likely to drop out of high school as children from Vermont. They are four times more likely to be uninsured, four times more likely to be incarcerated, and nearly twice as likely to die from abuse and neglect.

Texas spending

$6.25 billion (£4.01bn) spent in 2007 on direct and indirect costs dealing with after-effects of child abuse and neglect
$0.05 billion (£0.03bn) budgeted in 2011 for prevention and early intervention

Source: Univ of Houston, TexProtects

In Texas, a combination of elements add to the mix of risks that a child faces. These include a higher poverty rate in Texas, higher proportions of minority children, lower levels of educational attainment, and a political culture which holds a narrower view of the role of government in addressing social issues.

Texas, like many other traditionally conservative states, is likely to have a weaker response to families that need help in the first place, and be less efficient in protecting children after abuse occurs.

The sharp differences between the states raises the question of an expanded federal role.

Are children Texas children first? Or are they first American children with equal opportunity and protection?

A national strategy, led by our national government, needs to be developed and implemented. For a start, the Congress should adopt legislation that would create a National Commission to End Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities.

And no children's programmes should be on the chopping block, federal or state. Children did not crash the US economy. It is both shortsighted economic policy and morally wrong to make them pay the price for fixing it.

But instead as the US economy lags, child poverty soars, and states cut billions in children's services, we are further straining America's already weak safety net.

Inevitably, it means more children will die. The easy answer is to blame parents and already burdened child protection workers. But easy answers don't solve complex problems.

And with millions of children injured and thousands killed, this problem is large indeed, and it deserves a large response.

Michael Petit is the president of Every Child Matters. He served as the state of Maine's human services commissioner, and as deputy of the Child Welfare League of America.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15193530
 
blutto said:
...the following must have been rather hard for Frum to admit as it not only reveals a lack of ideological purity but it also shows that on rare occsions he can be both honest and can think for himself ( which in certain political camps is the kiss of death )...and the following may also give some credence to the old saw that facts have a liberal bias....

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

Krugman spotted the "liquidity trap" early on (since the problem with the economy was too much debt, cutting rates and creating easier money would not get us out of it).

Krugman shot down the hyperventilation about a coming hyper-inflation, arguing that the global labor glut would prevent easy credit from inflating wages.

Krugman quickly pronounced the Obama Administration's stimulus as far too small and said it would not get the job done.

Krugman scoffed at the idea that interest rates were about to skyrocket as our creditors decided en masse that we were so fiscally irresponsible that they couldn't possibly lend us any more money.

He has been right on all counts.

http://www.businessinsider.com/david-frum-paul-krugman-...

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

Cheers

blutto
I'm familiar with all these analysis and predictions of Krugman, from la Repubblica. Imagine Italy gets to read Krugman in trans.

In today's edition there is in fact an article by Krugman entitled: The Whole in Europe's Trashcan.

Haven't read it yet and I don't always take to his essentially market ideology, he is an economist after all, although his analysis of what's wrong with the economy and the markets is about the best out there. Always worth the read, that is.
 
Jul 4, 2011
1,899
0
0
Amster, I read both articles and I am left with a question nagging me. What exactly does child abuse refer to within the frame of the article? Does it include both mental and physical abuse or only physical abuse.

The word neglected is used but mental / psychological abuse isn't encompassed by neglect.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
blutto said:
..a lot has been said among the naysayers about the lack of a clear message from the OWS group...the Tea Party, bless their souls, show the power of a clear message.....and this goes a long way to explain/define the place they have earned in our hearts...see below

http://www.truth-out.org/moment-pure-astonishment-again/1319390406

Cheers

blutto
Odd how the tea party folks weren't all that outraged when spending and deficits were soaring under Bush. Odd how they weren't outraged at the incredible waste in Iraq - how much have we spent there now? Could you imagine if Obama did something like this?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/13/world/la-fg-missing-billions-20110613

Man, you'd think that sending 21 cargo planes filled with $12 billion worth of shrink-wrapped cash, $6.6 billion of which simply disappeared, would've ****ed them off a bit, but nope, apparently not.

Odd that they weren't protesting the raising of the debt ceiling what, 7 times during the Bush years?

They really didn't seem to have much of a problem with all of the things that they're supposedly so mad about now that there's a black Democrat in the White House. Kinda makes one suspect that it's not the economy or the deficits or spending that really ****es off the tea baggers...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS