|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
"John McCain is right"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
singer 1910 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
07-07-08, 03:57 PM (EST)
|
12. "Balanced budget amendments..." |
as a means of creating fiscal responsibility will have no effect on policy outcomes. I've written a book about this.What will have an effect on fiscal responsibility is cutting runaway spending at the Pentagon and the funneling of money to Halliburton through that channel. The amount of money spent on social programs is a small part of the budget dollar compared to military line items. That being said, many social programs are not run efficiently. I can vouch for what I have seen up close in many government agencies, including the agency that oversees military spending. But balanced budget amendments to the Constitution and gimmicks like zero based budgeting do not work at the federal level, because the budget process is so baroquely complex that these mechanisms cannot work in one budget cycle as they do at the state level. Bill Clinton got it right budget-wise; Bush failed miserably because his tax policies are regressive toward working Americans. The bottom line is that trickle down economics does not work. What does work is budget cutting across agencies and a close monitoring of tax policy that takes the squeeze off of middle-class workers. Those steps can stimulate the economy and shield it from bust cycles like the one that we are currently in. It would also help if the government would stop putting us in hock to China and India.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
geg6 14941 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-07-08, 04:17 PM (EST)
|
14. "RE: John McCain is right" |
It >is very simply spending habits >that have to change. >There are two options - >the government spends less or >we have to spend less >because we are giving it >to the government in higher >taxes. Again, perhaps you can provide me with some numbers here, something McCain has not done. The McCain/Bush tax cuts, according to the Center for Tax Policy and working from communications from the McCain campaign, are estimated to cost about $195 billion per year(http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411702_CandidateTaxPlans_summary.pdf). Add in his proposal to eliminate the AMT (annual cost: $50 billion). Then there is his proposal to increase the army to 900,000 troops. The CBO has already done an estimate on increasing the army from around 680,000 to 750,000(http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/80xx/doc8004/04-16-MilitaryEndStrength.pdf) which would cost 108 billion over 7 years or about $15 billion a year. Assuming the costs of adding even more troops remains constant, we'd be looking at about another $40-50 a year. He's also proposing a bunch of new advanced weapons systems, for which we don't have any numbers whatsoever: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/054184f4-6b51-40dd-8964-54fcf66a1e68.htm His website also points out expenditures for clean coal technology ($2 billion a year), subsidies for nuclear power, and his plan for the housing crisis, among other things. So what do we have here? $410 billion a year plus $195 billion a year for tax cuts, $50 billion a year for eliminating the AMT, and $40 billion for increasing the size of the army comes to $695 billion a year. And that's not counting those new weapons systems, his plan to end the housing crisis, and all the other things for which I don't have figures at my fingertips. Oh, and he proposes a one-year pause in "non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending". Between FY2008 and 2009, a freeze in non-defense discretionary spending would save all of $1.3 billion dollars (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/summarytables.html), and that's before we subtract any part of that that would be spent on veterans. Forgive me if I giggle. And this is all without even going into his proposals on earmarks, greening federal office buildings, and on and on. "Not this time." Barack Obama 3-18-08
|
|
Top |
| |
|
geg6 14941 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-07-08, 03:23 PM (EST)
|
7. "RE: John McCain is right" |
LAST EDITED ON 07-07-08 AT 03:34 PM (EST)Since you apparently approve of this, can you please explain? 1) Why, in this position paper on an economic plan (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM103_jobsforamericashshs.html), are there no numbers, no math, no way to see how it would actually work? I've never seen an economic plan without a single column of numbers, no pie charts, no graphs, nothing that actually illustrates or proves that what he says will work will actually work? 2) How does he expect voters, especially those older voters to whom this is a real issue, to get past this: “In the long-term, the only way to keep the budget balanced is successful reform of the large spending pressures in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.” So the large spending pressures of the defense budget have no effect on the budget, only Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? And what about all those tax cuts he's proposing, for corporations and for high income individuals? He's going to cut Social Security and Medicare to pay for corporate and top 1% income tax cuts? There's a real electoral winner. 3) In this statement: "The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction." there is a huge logical fallacy. First and foremost, since the wars have been funded through deficit spending, how does he expect there to be any savings, should by some miracle both wars end within his first term? If they were off the budget to begin with, how could there be any savings from them other than not growing the deficit any larger than it already is (assuming no interest accrual on that debt)? And secondly, how does he expect both wars to be ended and there be no costs forevermore in Iraq and Afghanistan even if, miraculously, peace suddenly breaks out? No troops there at all? No military bases there at all? No rebuilding of Iraq or Afghani infrastructure? No expenditures in either place whatsoever? The deficit is currently projected to be about $410 billion. How exactly does McCain expect to pay for all those tax cuts plus pay off that deficit? Perhaps you can explain it because your boy McCain certainly doesn't. Edited to add: Funnily enough, I'm not the only person to wonder about no numbers and how, exactly, does ending the wars end the deficit. Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo contacted the McCain campaign to get some clarification on exactly that. This was the response from the campaign: It's pretty straightforward, as we win, costs will go down with a smaller footprint over time, and those savings will go to deficit reduction. It's really the logical extension of Senator McCain's position as articulated in the 2013 speech. Achieving success in Iraq would obviously lead to reduced expenditures on the effort." Obviously. *rolls eyes* "Not this time." Barack Obama 3-18-08
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
IceCat 17415 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-07-08, 04:35 PM (EST)
|
18. "I've asked this before" |
Which is worse?Tax and spend? or... Borrow and spend?
|
|
Top |
| |
|
IceCat 17415 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-07-08, 04:48 PM (EST)
|
20. "The curse of" |
... context.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
IceCat 17415 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-07-08, 04:57 PM (EST)
|
23. "Pssssst" |
Um... The tax payers pay for the loan... with interest. So really Borrow and spend really is... Borrow and spend and tax and repay with interest. Sorry... it was a trick question.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
singer 1910 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
07-08-08, 08:59 PM (EST)
|
47. "Budget experts of many stripes agree..." |
that balanced budget amendments are gimmicks."I disagree vehemently with the Marxist idea that the government belongs to the money and not the people. A BBA is the best and only way to force legislators to spend only what they have, despite singer's protestations to the contrary." One thing budget experts don't do is to speak in absolutes and they certainly don't call each other names when they try to tease out viable policy approaches, because the budget process is, in its essence, a moving target. The fact that it is moving does not mean that budgeteers (budget watchers) are criminals. "Marxist idea that the government belongs to the money and not to the people"? What in Sam Hell are you talking about? Comments like that sound just plain idiotic, and they make me think that whoever hires you needs to let you stay in the broom closet all day making xeroxes where you are safely removed from any serious discussions vaguely related to policy. There, I said it. Far too often your comments are not thoughtful about most things that I've seen you write here. You simply regurgitate talking points--poorly conceived ones for that matter. I've seen other comments from posters who have different opinions, but they are almost to the person thoughtful in their construction of ideas, even when they are cracking jokes. You, on the other hand, engage in name calling on issues even related to budgetary policy, of which you apparently know nothing. Who are you to suggest that you have to "force" a legislator to do anything? In case you have not looked, we are operating under a democracy, and unless you do in fact embrace the idea of our having a bona fide police state, you will think of less inflammatory ways to address serious policy problems. I have worked at the most conservative think tanks in Washington, and I have NEVER in all of my years of policy writing heard one Republican economist refer to a colleague from the left or from the middle as a Marxist. And these folks have the right to say something about what they believe, because they have spent decades constructing theories about how to guard the public purse. Do we have cost over runs in government? Yes. Do we need to constrain spending? Yes. The fact that Congress, especially under the current administration, has not succeeded in doing that does not mean that legislative actors are Marxist or somehow unpatriotic. It means that they are undisciplined. It also means that they cannot predict how markets will perform, even within quarters. Read my lips: Legislators are people too, even if they are lousy at balancing budgets. This doesn't mean that they need to be sent to the stockade for being unpatriotic. Oh, and I forgot. Screwing up the budget process is not an actionable offence under the Constitution, nor under public law. Nor should it be. I just thought you should know that while you continue to formulate your lofty ideas about how to make our government work better.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-08-08, 11:48 PM (EST)
|
60. "Alerted" |
>that balanced budget amendments are gimmicks. > > >"I disagree vehemently with the Marxist >idea that the government belongs >to the money and not >the people. A BBA is >the best and only >way to force >legislators to spend only what >they have, despite singer's protestations >to the contrary." > >One thing budget experts don't do >is to speak in absolutes >and they certainly don't call >each other names when they >try to tease out viable >policy approaches, because the budget >process is, in its essence, >a moving target. The >fact that it is moving >does not mean that budgeteers >(budget watchers) are criminals. > >"Marxist idea that the government belongs >to the money and not >to the people"? What >in Sam Hell are you >talking about? > >Comments like that sound just plain >idiotic, and they make me >think that whoever hires you >needs to let you stay >in the broom closet all >day making xeroxes where you >are safely removed from any >serious discussions vaguely related to >policy. > >There, I said it. Far >too often your comments are >not thoughtful about most things >that I've seen you write >here. You simply regurgitate talking >points--poorly conceived ones for that >matter. I've seen other >comments from posters who have >different opinions, but they are >almost to the person thoughtful >in their construction of ideas, >even when they are cracking >jokes. > >You, on the other hand, engage >in name calling on issues >even related to budgetary policy, >of which you apparently know >nothing. > >Who are you to suggest that >you have to "force" a >legislator to do anything? >In case you have not >looked, we are operating under >a democracy, and unless you >do in fact embrace the >idea of our having a >bona fide police state, you >will think of less inflammatory >ways to address serious policy >problems. > >I have worked at the most >conservative think tanks in Washington, >and I have NEVER in >all of my years of >policy writing heard one Republican >economist refer to a colleague >from the left or from >the middle as a Marxist. > And these folks have >the right to say something >about what they believe, because >they have spent decades constructing >theories about how to guard >the public purse. > >Do we have cost over runs >in government? Yes. Do >we need to constrain spending? >Yes. > >The fact that Congress, especially under >the current administration, has not >succeeded in doing that does >not mean that legislative actors >are Marxist or somehow unpatriotic. >It means that they are >undisciplined. It also means that >they cannot predict how markets >will perform, even within quarters. > > >Read my lips: Legislators are >people too, even if they >are lousy at balancing budgets. >This doesn't mean that they >need to be sent to >the stockade for being unpatriotic. >Oh, and I forgot. >Screwing up the budget process >is not an actionable offence >under the Constitution, nor under >public law. Nor should >it be. > >I just thought you should know >that while you continue to >formulate your lofty ideas about >how to make our government >work better. >You may have noticed that I've stopped long ago responding in any constructive way to your post as I find them intensely personal, divisive, aggressive and instigatory. I will not respond to future posts, but I did want to let you know that I was alerting this one and have had other posters specifically ask me WTF. I won't comment any further as I have no interest in being banned or in vigilante moderating. It is impossible to contemplate the fabric of the world without recognizing the admirable order of its arrangement and the certain manifestation of God in the perfection of its correlations. Reason, when once it had considered and admired so much beauty and so much perfection, feels a just indignation at the dauntless folly which dares ascribe all this to chance and happy accident. it must be that the Highest wisdom conceived the plan and Infinite power carried it into execution....The starry sky above me and the moral law within me are two things which fill the soul with ever increasing admiration and reverence. Emmanuel Kant
|
|
Top |
| |
|
singer 1910 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
07-09-08, 07:13 AM (EST)
|
62. "OK, OK..." |
I retract the part about making xeroxes.What about these points on process, which are substantive? 1. What specifically about the budget process would make it work better? (the time table) 2. What specifically is there about the strange interplay between process, politics, and economics that creates legislative logjams each cycle? (time tables, rulesmaking approaches, balance of power within the legislative branch--in committee and in chambers, boom-bust cycles, structural deficits, etc.) If you get these functional questions right, you can figure out how to balance the budget. It beats calling political actors Marxist. Despite your protestations to the contrary, Bill Clinton got it right. The only thing Congress and the president need to do now is to take a page out of that play book and follow the instructions. How they set national priorities within that decision-making process is what you appear to quibble with here. On my part, I quibble with numbers, rather than line items, at least 90% of the time. That is how I can be socially progressive and fiscally conservative. That is also how I would never see the people involved these processes as villains who have to be forced in a punitive manner to do anything. Rather, I would create incentives that encourage them to make smart economic decisions.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Prof_ Wagstaff 4196 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"
|
07-09-08, 00:09 AM (EST)
|
61. "RE: Budget experts of many stripes agree..." |
Hey Singer, see your red flaggy thingie.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
samboohoo 17173 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-08, 08:27 AM (EST)
|
63. "RE: Budget experts of many stripes agree..." |
LAST EDITED ON 07-09-08 AT 08:28 AM (EST)"Comments like that sound just plain idiotic, and they make me think that whoever hires you needs to let you stay in the broom closet all day making xeroxes where you are safely removed from any serious discussions vaguely related to policy." Pot meet kettle. Bolded for emphasis. surfkitten summer sigshop 2008
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-08, 05:04 PM (EST)
|
98. "WARNING to singer" |
>they make me think that whoever hires you >needs to let you stay in the broom closet all >day making xeroxes where you are safely removed from any >serious discussions vaguely related to policy. singer, this goes beyond the pale and turns into a personal attack. Please refrain from personal attacks on this board. I know it's a fine line that we walk sometimes as to what is a personal attack and what is not, but the highlighted discussion above clearly singles out one particular poster, which is not permitted. I'm not planning on taking any other action with regard to this post. Although I disagree with both singer and PRE on a number of issues, I would hate to lose either of them from this board, because I enjoy reading both of their posts, and so I'd like to de-escalate this conflict. One approach to de-escalation is to threaten everyone and then ban the people who violate my pronouncements. But I don't feel that I have such special insight that I can do that and be certain that I get the desired result. Another approach, and the one I'm opting for now, is simply to explain where the line is and trust that it will be respected from now on. For those of you who think that my response is inadequate, feel free to e-mail me. I've made mistakes before, and I'll make them again, but my thought is that I really don't want partisan conflicts to turn into banning events if I can help it.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
Estee 57126 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-07-08, 05:05 PM (EST)
|
26. "RE: I've asked this before" |
Excuse me. I just established that finding a cure for cancer would irreversibly damage the economy. Try to keep up.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Estee 57126 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-07-08, 05:15 PM (EST)
|
31. "RE: I've asked this before" |
Should we be looking for a cure, or would that do even more damage to the economy?
|
|
Top |
| |
IceCat 17415 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-07-08, 03:12 PM (EST)
|
5. "Troop withdrawal timetable?" |
Balanced budget by the end of his first term by using cost savings from victory in Iraq?Can't have 'savings' until the troops are pulled out... Hmmmm... McCain basically just said troops out of Iraq by the end of his first term. Mind you, he said the same thing during his stirring sunshine and lollypops speech from some weeks back. McCain is a lousy stinkin' emboldenerer of the evil doers! Has the Bush administration been alerted? If he ever bashes the Dems about troop withdrawal schedules again, I hope someone demands that the old buzzard gets tested for Alzheimers.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IceCat 17415 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-07-08, 04:21 PM (EST)
|
15. "The true secret plan" |
McCain, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc are all members of a race of pan-dimensional beings called the Deceptive Conservatives or Decepticons.The Decepticons have been stranded here and are desperately trying to get back to their dimension. An odd twisted dimension where fear = safety and deficit = surplus. The Decepticon War Chief Redrum (earth code name: Rumsfeld) has been taken out of the public eye so that he can begin work on building a Stargate to create a portal back to the Decepticon alternate dimension and their planet which they call Homeland. The Decepticons have a problem in their dimension in that they have too much money - a surplus. If deficit = surplus then surplus = deficit and the Decepticons desperately need to open a portal to our universe to dispose of the surplus cash that is poisoning their economy in the alternate universe. Once the Stargate is completed, they will engage the Alternate Spacial System (A.S.S.) drive units and the Decepticons will literally have money coming out of their A.S.S. They will use this money to bring victory and prosperity to our dimension. Prosperity = peace... The war brought the deficit... The deficit brought the Stargate... The Stargate brought prosperity... War = Peace. I have photographic evidence showing McCain and Rumsfeld at the secret base where the Stargate is being constructed:
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IceCat 17415 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-08-08, 11:28 PM (EST)
|
58. "I know about the death stars too" |
You should see the deathstar photosThey've built an entire fleet of them and named them after GOP first ladies. The flag ship is the USDS Barbara Bush or "Old Iron Bush" as the crew likes to refer to her. The rest of the fleet includes: USDS Cindy McCain (underconstruction) which is subject to re-naming if McCain decides to trade in for a younger model again. USDS Lynne Cheney which is a special model of the death star class with extended stealth capabilities. USDS Nancy Regan or "The Bonzo" as she referred to by pretty much everyone in the fleet. It's a small fleet but remember, the Star Wars program didn't begin until the RayGun Administration
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
IceCat 17415 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-08, 01:43 PM (EST)
|
89. "Yup" |
Stephen Harper is muuuuuuch more bush league than even Bush. He don't get no respect!At the G8 conference, your president wanted to get the Canadian Prime Minister's attention so he says... get this: "Yo! Harper!"
|
|
Top |
| |
|
IceCat 17415 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-08-08, 08:06 AM (EST)
|
39. "I'd bet good money" |
... that there is at least one name that appears on both this economic plan list and the list of 'scientists' that deny global warming is caused by human activity.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
J Slice 13166 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-08-08, 10:39 PM (EST)
|
54. "RE: I'd bet good money" |
Look.You know I'm not a person who likes to headbutt. But you should probably drop this one. Totally debunked? Debunked by whom? All the magical scientists in the world? My conservative-leaning physics-scientist buddies, f'r example, don't agree with you. Kurt Vonnegut says: So it goes for Slice's blog.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
geg6 14941 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-08-08, 07:59 AM (EST)
|
38. "RE: What I've learned from this thread..." |
LAST EDITED ON 07-08-08 AT 08:18 AM (EST)Um, a McCain campaign press release does not a proven point make. But then, perhaps you, like your candidate, are just too old to remember what proof means. 300 conservative economists are supporting McCain's campaign. So what? There are hundreds of liberal economists who support Obama's. I notice no one has chosen to speak to the numbers, so I will take that as having proved my point. Edited to add: After having read the actual statement signed by these economists, I have to just laugh my azz off. Two of the major McCain arguments are completely left out: the gas tax holiday and the idea that he can balance the budget by the end of his first term. There is literally nothing that mentions either the deficit or national debt. So what they've actually endorsed is not his actual economic plan. They only endorsed it after taking out two of the major centerpiece ideas of the plan. And, besides the major stupidity of his plan, McMaverick once again flip flops completely. Just last month he was talking about how economists shouldn't be trusted: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/14/mccain-lashes-out-at-economists/ Now, suddenly they are the smartest people evah! It's so easy with this guy. He apparently still hasn't figured that whole YouTube thing. Of course, he refuses to use email, so.... "Not this time." Barack Obama 3-18-08
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
Ahtumbreez 10456 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-08-08, 03:19 PM (EST)
|
45. "RE: What I've learned from this thread..." |
LAST EDITED ON 07-08-08 AT 03:20 PM (EST)This is where if Ayak wasn't Ayak, Bebo would be stepping in with "Warning" there are a bunch of Obamaniacs on this board and we do not attack other posters. You may attack the idea but not the posters. Of course Ayak is Ayak, so....... Agman took me to the islands eta that I totally paraphrased a Bebo Warning
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Prof_ Wagstaff 4196 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"
|
07-08-08, 09:55 PM (EST)
|
48. "RE: What I've learned from this thread..." |
You know I love you Tummy, but I think that you are comparing apples to oranges.Moderating a RTVW topic and moderating OT are two very different things. I believe that OT deserves a bit more latitude. That's the whole point of OT. I'm sure that there are some calls that AyaK wishes he could take back, but most of the time I think he is right on. In this case he said; ...is that Obamaniacs are dumber than a box of rocks ... and they're proud of their ignorance. Let him say it. That pretty much covers my opinion of The McCain Assylum. It's an election year, let's have some fun. IMO you'd have to be old, fat and crazy to moderate OT. And yet somehow Webby was still able to find AyaK. Surfkitten Summer Sigshop 2008
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prof_ Wagstaff 4196 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"
|
07-08-08, 11:19 PM (EST)
|
57. "John McCain is like that REALLY old uncle..." |
...at the family reunion that makes everyone gringe when he opens his mouth.Sen. John McCain hasn't had good luck joking about Iran. But he tried it again Tuesday. Responding to a question about a survey that shows increased exports to Iran, mainly from cigarettes, McCain said, "Maybe thats a way of killing them." He quickly caught himself, saying "I meant that as a joke" as his wife, Cindy, poked him in the back. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/08/mccains_latest_iran_joke.html "LOL Uncle John, that's sooo funny. What a diplomat! What a leader!" Surfkitten Summer Sigshop 2008 "Dammit! If I've told you once I've told to a thousand times, NO BOOZE for Uncle John!"
|
|
Top |
| |
foonermints 14531 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-08, 10:26 AM (EST)
|
68. "*boink*" |
forgery by foonermints
|
|
Top |
| |
Estee 57126 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-08, 10:35 AM (EST)
|
69. "I don't know nothin' 'bout no --" |
-- swoop blocks.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
foonermints 14531 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-08, 10:59 AM (EST)
|
70. "*sigh*" |
I'm starting to lose faith. forgery by foonermints
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Estee 57126 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-08, 11:03 AM (EST)
|
71. "RE: *sigh*" |
I have that effect on people.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Estee 57126 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-08, 11:41 AM (EST)
|
76. "RE: Umm..." |
It's a white ballot. What did you expect?
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Estee 57126 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-08, 11:50 AM (EST)
|
78. "RE: Umm..." |
And I'm sure you'll say the same thing when the national results come back as McCain 120,000,000 -- Obama 0.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
foonermints 14531 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-08, 11:59 AM (EST)
|
79. "RE: Umm..." |
..and THAT is just in Peru
|
|
Top |
| |
|
foonermints 14531 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-08, 01:12 PM (EST)
|
86. "RE: Umm..." |
You trying to smear Ohio?
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Scuba Steve 1644 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Peanut Festival Grand Marshall"
|
07-09-08, 01:52 PM (EST)
|
90. "RE: Umm..." |
Michigan is always trying to smear Ohio. It's a conspiracy.
Don't put me under McCain. I'd rather do a write-in for Hillary.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
foonermints 14531 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-08, 03:38 PM (EST)
|
94. "O.K.by me" |
|
|
Top |
| |
|
singer 1910 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
07-09-08, 01:15 PM (EST)
|
87. "LOL at all of the previous comments..." |
|
|
Top |
| |
geg6 14941 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-08, 02:30 PM (EST)
|
93. "Oh, AyaK? " |
Seems there's a little glitch in that whole "300 economists support John McCain's plan" thing.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11618.html BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! This stuff just writes itself. "Not this time." Barack Obama 3-18-08
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
Snidget 44369 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-10-08, 07:38 AM (EST)
|
100. "RE: John McCain is right" |
Swoop block?
|
|
Top |
| |
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|