Obama's faithful: Younger Americans

Republican's faithful:

*
http://hiphopwired.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/niggar-sign-tea-party.jpg
*

Why, this is nothing short of Obamariffic!

Great article, champ.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS SUPPORT RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION FOR OUR CHILDREN

When 30 Senate Republicans voted to protect corporate-sponsored rape, it seemed that we had finally reached the nadir of the Greedy Oil Party.
.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/

But yesterday, House Republicans gave their senate cohorts a run for their scum-sucking money when they refused to support H.R. 4247, the Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act.
.
http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/201003030008

The bill passed, but 153 House Republicans, so intent on saying no to any legislation introduced by a Democrat, couldn't bring themselves to agree that children in school shouldn't be tied up, drugged, or isolated in order to discipline them.

This should serve as a reminder to anyone humming the Kumbaya, bipartisan song ... you cannot deal in any meaningful way with Republican stooges who are hell-bent on destroying this country in order to further their political aims.

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."
.
~ Winston Churchill

Here's The Old John McCain vs The New John McCain - they're both liars
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-3-2010/a-few-gay-men---women
.

Well what do you expect from a bunch of young punks who are color blind? Of course they are behind Mr. hopey changey the socialists! :)

Elaine:

Thanks for that I had no idea...not that any of our schools would do such a thing. But, I'm making sure that the administration is aware of that legislation..

Would someone please give John W. a job.

"Youth is wasted on the young" - George Bernard Shaw

They watched the "culture wars" of the sixties lead to the fantasy of the Reagan Years to the completely transparent political assasination of Clinton by the "Contract on America" extremists. They watched the radical "Christianists" try to take over Federal Government. They can see through the Fear and Hatred of the New American Fascist Party.

A few thousand noisy Tea Party types, amplified by the Right Wing Press, won't stop them. They don't care about religion or gay rights or abortion. They want a color-blind, free and fair America.

They voted heavily for Obama and anyone who tries to steal power from the duly elected President of the USA better watch out.

Advocating the overthrow of the government by force and violence is treason.

Here's the ironic thing, all this debt that BO is incurring will be paid off by them. File this under, be careful what you wish for.

How exicted do you think these 18 -29 year olds will be with no "personality" on top of the ticket to come out and vote this fall? Kiss the dems good-bye in November.

Elaine,

Thanks for pointing out just how evil the teacher's union and its members are. I suspect this problem is only prevalent in schools controlled by dems such as Chicago and therefore wasn't an issue for the repub constituents. Repubs don't appoint pedophiles to be school safety czars either so that just shows how little they care about children.

It also represents a divide between younger and older Americans that wasn't seen in the presidencies of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, according to the Gallup Poll.

I think that was the point of this article. Looking at these comments, I don't know what some of you guys think you read.... maybe you didn't even bother to read it.

Hans, you have a good point there.....pugs don't put their pedophiles in the public schools, they put them behind the alter and in the church schools.

I guess the pole really does prove the point that dubbya was put in there by the scared soccer moms.

Yes, we all were young and stupid once. Some of us grew up and wised up, others got stuck in the 60s and their bong.

Are these the whiney BO supporters?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-university-cuts-freeway-closed,0,206299.story

"Where's mine?"

-------------------------------------
evil the teacher's union and its members are. I suspect this problem is only prevalent in schools controlled by dems such as Chicago and therefore wasn't an issue for the repub constituents. Repubs don't appoint pedophiles to be school safety czars
Posted by: Hans | March 4, 2010 7:08 PM
--------------------------------

First of all, "Hans"
The Wingnut pedophile meme thing is complete fiction, it's a flat out lie that has been repeated so often by Fake News Channel and Druggy Rush that right wing rubes like you have swallowed it as the "truth" hook, line and sinker.
.
http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2009/12/right-wing-plan-against-kevin-jennings.html

And secondly, so you're saying that you agree with Republican leadership that corporations should be able to legally rape women and school children should be beaten and placed in isolation by their teachers when they are punished?

No wonder everyone hates Republicans....

This article made me feel young again for a fleeting moment.

Usually it's us geezers who "always vote", not the young.

This year, however, with no jobs for recent graduates, perhaps the young will care to vote in larger numbers.....

Just possibly.

Just wait until they have to pay the taxes for their something for nothing idealism. They are now, for the most part, living off their parents. How nice to think that the government will continue to pay for everything the way that they NOW expect their parents to do.

My, my, my, how we love to hate when one of the millions of polls doesn't make us feel all warm and fuzzy.

Young and stupid!. Unfortunately they are impressed by promises that the Democrats make but are unable to deliver on. The seem to be impressed
by "pie in the sky" rhetoric. Once they come to realize that Dems with say anything and promise everything just so they can stay in office. A lot of promises but no substance,

* * * * *
Posted by: Paul | March 5, 2010 3:41 PM
.
You might have something there, Paul. The quote from Churchill (above) fits with what you say. At the outset, young voters are enthralled by the promises made by pseudo-liberal politicians. Then, as they grow older and see how few of the fabulous promises become true (and how unrealistic they are to implement without too much damage), it dawns upon them (if they have any brains) that basic government is the best one can hope for, and that fancy government spending solves little and wastes valuable resources. The small government model is also a definite plus to those who value personal freedom.

Yes, let's base everything on a silly quote, there are plenty of them out there.

As a first time voter in the 80's, I saw a joke of a president that cursed basic morality, thought he was above the law, was pathetically irresponsible economically, played to the upper 10% and deregulated the financial sector in large part resulting in the catastrophe we now have. Not to mention the rest of the more obvious failures of the Raygun Admin.

We will always have some form of government, but unregulated capitalism is fox meet hen house. And the less informed and partisan sheep in the 80's were our parents, not us.

Yes the young have all the answers, sans experience, but there is a reason why young people can learn foreign languages better than their parents.

The biggest difference in the political age conundrum is that young republicans are brought up to believe nothing other than what their stoic brain-washed parents and private prep schools teach them. Young independents,dems, libs, etc. are encouraged to live deeper and on their own. Experience life, question authority, don't be afraid of debate or somebody different than yourself. And most of us turn out much more well-rounded and intelligent humanitarians that continue to laugh at the Churchill quote.

"Young independents,dems, libs, etc. are encouraged to live deeper and on their own. Experience life, question authority, don't be afraid of debate or somebody different than yourself"

As long as someone else foots the bill - as seen by all the demonstrations on the cost of college in the past few days.

John, then please explain why Canada provides free healthcare; free college; more holidays; better benefits for the workers; higher minimum wage ($9); has higher taxes; better world stature; is more charitable; better social safety nets; more restrictions on big business; has government owned utility providers;

AND,

manages to have one third the national debt than the US; has smarter kids; has cheaper utility costs; is nearly Kyoto compliant (in Quebec); and typically balances their national budget every year.

I guess you are another victim of looking out as far as your own backyard and making your sweeping definitive statements. Rome is burning John, and you are here typing away on your computer.

* * * * *
Posted by: Xcellentform | March 6, 2010 10:21 AM
.
Is this a riddle, not-in-so-excellent-form-today?
.
Assuming all you say is true (and I will assume it is for the sake of argument), do you think it might have something to do with the fact that Canada has fewer people, and that those fewer people are more productive per-capita than Americans? Given that we have thrown trillions upon trillions of dollars at the problem of poverty over the years, and still can’t manage to have any fewer poor people, I strongly suggest that Canadians might actually have a different caliber of people. The “smarter kids” part is a dead give-away that Canadian parents (and Canadians on average) perpetuate a culture that promotes learning. America, as a nation, has been loosing that culture, and the end of the brain drain is nowhere in sight. But, all of this is just guessing on my part.
.
As far as the house burning down: It is. And it is burning down as a direct result of the stupid, stupid legislation passed by Republicans and Democrats over the years. (But mostly Democrats.) With Social Security and Medicare, alone or in combination, Democrat legislators have guaranteed that we, as a nation are either going to go UNDER unless these programs are severely restricted or terminated. We cannot afford the many trillions in obligations even without all of the other welfare state obligations we have, much less all the new harebrained spending bills on the table. This would still be true had Bush never spent a penny, and even if the federal government never handed out another penny in new spending.
.
In contrast, Canadians can pull off all of the same kinds of programs because they obviously don’t have bone-headed legislators (like we do) who spend money accumulated for one program ON SOMETHING ELSE. If you notice, Canada doesn’t run up deficits or a debt like we do. The balanced budget part is the dead giveaway on the “responsible” bi. There is also a difference between the “Social Democracy” (read: continental socialism) practiced in Canada and the idiotic plunder politics practiced in the United States.
.
@ Bubba ✔:
.
I hope you are joking, and/or don’t take any of your own nonsense seriously. If what I see on this blog is any indication, that Democrat who lives deeper and independently; is interested in others, willing to challenge authority, thinks for him/herself and is willing to rationally debate others - SIMPLY DOESN’T EXIST. That self-aggrandizing definition certainly doesn’t apply to you. Your view of conservatives is both counterfactual and illustrative of how you, in fact, do not debate those with other views. You merely generalize, marginalize and label. In general, I have never seen so much utter rubbish from left-wingers until I happened upon this blog, nor have I seen any group as willing as Democrats to blindly believe everything they are told by their leaders. What you have asserted, if believed by anyone, is just so much arrogant, elitist rot.

John,

You are soooo close to giving the good answer, which is....there is a cancerous rot growing in the US, and I believe it is unfixable. You can't blame big guvmnt, cause I just gave you one (of many) example to disporove your theory. Right now, economically, when the US gets the flu, everyone else gets a cough.

It is also of note, that no amount of band-aids can fix the decades of plundering that the pugs have done to the US. The US has past critical mass; the tipping point; the point of no return.

I just looked at the debt clocks yesterday and was suprised to see the new make-over on the US one, which has much more information on it. Not sure where they are getting their information from, but they had always seamed to be a reliable source. I am particularly intrigued by their "real" unemployment figures, which I do not doubt.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://www.debtclock.ca/

Absorb those numbers and tell me if that's not sobering.

* * * * *
Posted by: Xcellentform | March 8, 2010 10:43 AM
.
I’m not so sure that you have given me a good example of big government by pointing to Canada. Fortunately for Canadians, your figures on Canada’s debt are way off. Their national debt is substantially smaller than one-third of the U.S. debt that you represented. What is true about Canada is that is has (roughly) the population of California (and little more than one-tenth of the U.S. population), and a national debt about one-twenty fourth the U.S.’s (approx. $514 billion Can.). Many Canadians are up in arms even over that level of debt. Canadians also appear to be willing to pay for what they get, inasmuch as they are taxed for all the social services provided by the government. The latter certainly isn’t true of Americans who have put too much of it on the government credit cart.
.
Then again, Canada doesn’t have anywhere near the defense budget we do (which they don’t need because of us); they didn’t spend trillions of dollars on the war on poverty, trillions on the cold war, Vietnam, or Korea (or, more recently, fighting stupid wars in western Asia); they don’t have the same leadership roles the United States has undertaken in the UN, NATO, SEATO, and a variety of other organizations; they don’t have military bases all over the world; and they don’t hand out anywhere near the amount of money the U.S. gives in foreign aid.
.
You are right that there has been a lot of plundering, but the Pugs didn’t do all of it; and when they did, the Democrats were often complicit. Even with regard to Bush’s wars, the Democrats eventually caved in and voted to keep up the funding. No one had the courage to pull the plug even after the Democrats gained a majority in both houses. And, lest we forget, the Democrats have been just as bad throughout history in passing out corporate welfare. Their willingness to leave health insurance companies in charge of health care in all of their various proposals speaks volumes.
.
I gave the examples of Medicare and Social Security for a reason. For the federal government to pay all of its obligations to the retiring generation of baby boomers under these programs, it would take more than twice the amount the United States currently has in assets. We are talking about many tens of trillions of dollars. The current debt doesn’t hold a candle to what the debt will turn into when those payments come due. That is why I say it will bankrupt us if nothing else does.
.
The “rot” is truly the scope and breadth of the federal government. Any endeavor that is subsidized grows and eventually demands more subsidy. Greedy people, corporate and real, are drawn to the federal government because it has more cash to pass out than any other single source; and it’s often free to the recipient. Had the federal government left most government functions to the states (where it belongs), the greedy would have had to beg from each individual state to acquire the same level of patronage and welfare (and yes I’m speaking more about industry here). That hasn’t been the case since the symbiotic relationship between corporations and the federal government emerged with the FRB and, later, during the New Deal. Things are even worse now because the “work ethic” has devolved into corporate irresponsibility and the belief that Big Brother will bail out failures.
.
Yes, the numbers on the debt clock are terribly sobering. A sane leadership would put the federal government on a diet instead of engaging in even more profligate spending. I just don’t know what they are trying to accomplish, if it isn’t the final demise.
.
PS - (Sarcasm on.) I would like to congratulate Canadian doctors, nurses, and all other medical health professionals of every stripe; along with all of those selfless educators who, together, provide “free” healthcare and higher education services to Canadians. It’s incredible that all of them would simply donate their time, energy and material to the cause of Canada without pay. (Sarcasm off.) They AREN’T paid, are they, Xcellentform? Because if they are paid, it isn’t “free” as you claim, is it?

Not so Bad Form,

"...that no amount of band-aids can fix the decades of plundering that the pugs have done to the US..." I disagree with you on the history, but I'll save that for another discussion.

You use a band-aid when you have a cut that is bleeding - like teh gov't spending we had. Would you call the solution for that cut a band-aid or a bigger and deeper cut? Dr. Barack Obama has selected the large scalpel to make the cut larger and deeper and therefore increase the bleeding.

On January 20, 2001 the national debt was $5.7 Trillion, on Janaury 20, 2009 the national debt was $10.6 Trillion - an increase of $4.9 Trillion in 96 months.

Not even 14 months later, according to the debt clock, the current the debt is now $12.5 Trillion. BO has increased the debt by $1.9 Trillion in this short period of time. BO, Nancy, and Harry are not the solution to our country heading toward financial ruin. Those numbers don't even count the deficits that will be added due to socialized health care.

John, sounds like we somehow reashed an agreement again. The 1/3 debt that I refer it is the ratio of debt/ person, which I feel is the fair way to measure a nations debt. Of course one could argue a debt/ GDP as well, but I chose the former because it is a more stable statistic.

As I've said before here; I don't have all the answers, and anyone that says they do you better watch with both eyes. I can say that I am glad that I am now on this side of the border (Canada). There is a much more positive energy up here (despite the conservative PM that sent the rest of parliment home for a while). I like the ideas that they have done, and I am amazed at the amount of natural resources per person, including petroleum. Forbes just wrote a glowing article about investing in Canada. http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/26/investing-canada-olympics-personal-finance-darst.html

Teri, a band-aid, in my opinion is ANYTHING that gets done to prolong the inevitable, by either party. The US will eventually fold like a lawnchair, the writing is on the subway walls. I'm predicting 10 years at max.

I'm not going to even go into the debt numbers with you, bacause Raygun trippled the debt, daddy bush doubled it, and schrubby doubled it again. If BO kept spending like he does, maybe he will make it to your hero status and double the debt again.

The pugs have had substantial political majority for the last 20 years, and boy did they ever score their loot.

Horrible Form,

Sorry, I had to demote you.

"The US will eventually fold like a lawnchair". Agree. Now to handle you little deception with numbers.

Reagan's 8 year increase in the debt, while nearly tripled, it was "only" $1.763 Trillion. BO has passed him in his first 13 months. It's not hard to triple a relatively small number.

Bush41 debt balance started at $2.7 Trillion and ended at $4.2 Trillion. Clinton then added another $1.5 Trillion to the debt balance.

Over the last 30 years, the GOP has had both houses of Congress and the Executive branch for about 4.5 years. The dems have had it for about 3 years, worjking on their 4th years. The remaining years have been a divided gov't. Do you want to know who raised the debt higher when they had both branched of gov't?

The dems have done their share of looting.

Ahhh, Teri, the bar has long been closed and it's just you and I again chugging away. Well, here is a database I made a few days ago (because I was curious too) about confirming my beliefs of which party laid fiscal waste to this country. Here is the link to the database (with few formulas) http://www.editgrid.com/user/xcellentform/Debt_history_for_congress_and_presidents_2

And here is a link to the same database's predecesor, which has all working formulas: http://www.editgrid.com/user/xcellentform/Debt_history_for_congress_and_presidents

Don't worry old friend, I will be posting these links in future debates on how the pugs fiscally destroyed this country over the last 30 years.

After reviewing the data.....have another one on me. I'm also sorry that you believed the lies your party told you all those years.

* * * * *
Posted by: Xcellentform | March 11, 2010 9:12 AM
.
I’m not trying to gainsay your point. If it is correct, then it is correct. But correct conclusions need to come from correct data. If your conclusion attempts to fix blame for the ultimate demise of the American government, then one has to look at a few more of trends related to the cause of government spending practices - that is, if you wish to be entirely correct.
.
For instance, the most fundamental question regarding “who is to blame” is to identify which party, precisely, is responsible for the “big government model” currently in use by the federal government. It is only because of that government model that bloated budgets, outrageous spending and the ability to plunder the public weal have been possible. I don’t suppose you have to guess which group I think is responsible for beginning this model. In the end, however, both parties have been complicit in the plunder politics that has occurred. It is simply the nature of the political beast in the U.S. for a politician to spend his or her way to popularity with constituents. Unfortunately, it works.
.
In addition, you actual data doesn’t account for legislative action that has had a long term impact on the government’s spending practices. ne must remember that having a bare majority in Congress is no guarantee that one party or another will be able to repeal or undo spending practices from a previous year. Some programs have been enacted without any sunset provision, meaning they automatically become part of the ensuing years’ budgets until they are amended or repealed. Thus, there is no strict 1:1 correspondence between the actions of a single legislative session and the budget.
.
For example, in 1964 (or thereabouts) the federal government enacted a system of welfare support for the poor, as part of Johnson’s “Great Society.” The Republicans have never had the votes (nor, sometimes, the inclination) to get it repealed. It was only rolled back a bit during Clinton’s second term under pressure from a Republican Congress. More recently, Democrats have been moving toward amending the welfare system to make it “generous” again. In the meantime we have spent well in excess of $4.5 trillion dollars on welfare (often very wastefully), and our expenditures on nanny-state giveaways have substantially increased. This year, the budget for the Department of Health and Human Services (that administers nanny-state programs) is the biggest part of Obama’s proposed budget, and is $200 billion larger than the Defense Department’s. This stuff does not reflect the spending practices of Congress in a single year. It reflects the policies and practices of a single party that, while enacted in one year, have had a significant impact on the government’s budgetary allocations for nearly a century. It is stuff like this for which you fail to account in your data.

Well John.....I thought Teri and I were having a private conversation here! I must say, I am again dissapointed with you. While you are looking at hard data points, you are still managing to make excuses and appologies for the party that won you heart. It's true for all libertarians....they are just a bunch of pissed off pugs.

Let's run with your nonsense of "structural debt" being the dems problems (I'd love to see YOUR database to prove your points), then why wouldn't the pugs fix these problems all the years that they had clear majorities?

Some of your arguement is self defeating, like the entitlement of SS, which is self funded (which is also why it is insolvent).

I'd LOVE to see your source for the $4.5T of welfare payments. If that number does really exist, I don't think bank bailouts and S&L bailouts count as "welfare", but the pugs sure like to foot those bills.

Part of the big equation that neither of us has spoken of, is the massive interest payments, which gets factored into the structural debt. Since the vast majority of this debt has occured with pug rule, I will give them the dubious honor of owning the interest paid too.

I'll hand it you John, it is nearly impossible to argue with factual statistics, but you gave it your best shot for the sake of the good ol GOP.

Horrible Form,

Did you know your president just set a record deficit of $220 billion for a single month? And that was in the month of February. Just think of what he would have beeb able to do if he had a full 31 days!!!

John W just beat me to the punch, so I'll give the Cliff note version. It's the entitlements that are killing this country, namely Social Security and Medicare. Both passed under democratic presidents that had large democratic Congressional majorities.

Social Security Tax rate has gon up over six fold so far and the Medicare tax rate has quadrupled. Do you trust a 3rd major entitlement that will cover ALL Americans to actually shrink the deficit as BO claims? If you believe BO, then its a shame that only 30 million are uninsured and not 300 million. If all of us were uninsured, then BOCare would retire the national debt.

And from back in the corner of the bar, opens the door from the bathroom.....It's John W!!!! Lightweight Teri has long since passed out.

I forgot to mention a few things. First, the US, under no contortions, has a "big model government" like you claim. Put it against any other government in the industrialized world and it simply is not big. The only exhorbanent part of the US government is the military segment, which of course we know which party wants that.

Your pug party had complete control of things for 5 of bush's years, and they chose to do anything they wanted, except things to help this country. They instead chose to deregulate everything they could touch; start a war; piss off our allies; pass as many "free trade" agreements as they could; cut taxes for the wealthy; introduce cooked books for government accounting; pass unfunded medicare part D; must I go on John or do you get the point?

Don't make excuses for them John, they don't deserve them. Their "starve the beast" program has worked perfectly well, Rome is ablaze with fire and there is nothing the dems or Obama can do about it.

Horrible Form,

Sorry - I have a JOB.

So you are onto "It's still Bush's fault".

"Deregulate everything they could touch" - Sort of like Carter, Reagan, Bush41 and Clinton.

"start a war" - or take care of a terrorism problem that had been festering for years and had just been kicked down the road with a few cruise missles lobbed at it.

"piss off our allies" - the apology tour has reaped what benefits so far?

pass as many "free trade" "agreements as they could" - What were the trade agreements that were passed that were as large as NAFTA?

cut taxes for the wealthy" and every other tax payer. Since those tax payers had their rates cuts, guess who pays a higher % of taxes than when their rates were higher? Since those tax rates were lowered, the economy grew for 73 months.

"introduce cooked books for government accounting" - long before the Bush administration. If you want crooked accounting, go visit that democratic retirement home called Fannie and Freddie.

"pass unfunded medicare part D" - agree on that - just never should have been passed - funded or not.

"Rome is ablaze with fire and there is nothing the dems or Obama can do about it." - So let's pass another entitlement program. Sounds rational to me.

It will probably be another 24 hours until I respond since I have a JOB.

Teri, you really are a simpleton's turd. Why don't you give me 5 trillion dollars and I will then:
1. Give healthcare to everyone in the states
2. Pull out of the Iraq war
3. Stimulate the economy
4. Give free college education to everyone
5. Oh, and I will also grow the economy for 74 months, you twit.

You also seem to be forgetting that your hero schrub lost every penny of that "73 month gain" and put the stock market back ANOTHER 73 months before that twit left office.

Horrible Form,

Let's see how is BO doing with his $2 Trillion in 14 months?

No healthcare.

Still in Iraq.

Unstimulated economy.

College costs are skyrocketing.

And an economy that will never see 74 months of consecutive growth.

How many more Trillions should we poor down the sewer called BO's economic and social programs?

How long would that $5 Trillion cover healthcare and free college education? Not even five years.

Teri, 14 months, really? I didn't know BO made the budget that long. I'd love an explanation how that realy works, but unfortunately, it can't come from you, because you OBVIOUSLY don't know how anything works.

America is irretrievably broken teri, and its uninformed twits like you that allowed it happen.

Horrible Form,

You are correct that America is broke; however, BO is not the handyman we need to fix it.

I'm not talking budget numbers, I'm talking about ACTUAL expenditures. Do you know the difference between forecasted expenditures and actual expenditures? The $2 Trillion is the actual expenditures while BO has been in office. Keep blaming that on President Bush also.

Let's take a look at the difference between Bush's actual expenditures and BO's projections.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Do you think BO has the right answers?

Teri, if you believe projections from the heritage organization, I've got some snow to sell you too. I especially liked the adendum at the bottom of the article that talks about the 09 budget being shared between the GB and BO.....like it is 50/50 or something. GB crafted it and owns it.

Teri, if you believe projections from the heritage organization, I've got some snow to sell you too. I especially liked the adendum at the bottom of the article that talks about the 09 budget being shared between the GB and BO.....like it is 50/50 or something. GB crafted it and owns it.

Horrible Form,

I guess reading isn't one of your strong suits:

If you opened the link you would read "The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s."

If the source of the link is you only contention, then I guess you have no beef with the numbers. BO, Nancy, and Harry make Bush and the GOP Congress look like Scrooge (and that is some trick).

Quit while your behind.

great article,, ,
motivation of supreme person will result the better something