55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 02:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Cicerone, the magnitude of a country's GDP per person is a consequence of that country's economic policies and practices. The personal income tax rates on a country's personal net income is but one of those economic policies.

To validly compare the effect of tax levels on GDP in several different countries, one must examine the HISTORY of tax rates, tax revenue per person, and GPD per person in those country's.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 02:07 pm
So ANYONE, if you are not afraid to do so, define whatever you think today's, contemporary, present, or existing liberalism actually is, and present arguments for why you think it superior to MAC (i.e., Modern American Conservativism).
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 02:11 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, How many times must we repeat something for you to understand it? There are definitions provided by many sources on past and current political parties. Most often, they even explain how the party politics have changed over the years.

There's no need to re-invent the wheel; all the support and explanations for the definitions are all there!

Here's a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 02:27 pm
Let's see if I have any better luck with c.i.

c.i....

...what do you think of the following comments:

American conservatism, whether the brand that actually exists in the real world or this delusional variety being sold here, is an absolute piece of ****...a political philosophy that spends most of its time trying to justify and rationalize greed and lack of empathy.

Without the inclusion of the most hypocritical type of Christians imaginable (Jesus was closer to being a communist than an American conservative)...and some of the most disgusting racists, misogynists, and miscreants on the face of the planet...

...American conservatism wouldn't be a force big enough to blow a decent fart.

Its adherents are mostly deluded knee-jerkers...unable to see they are steadying the hands of people trying to cut their throats. That...and plain garden variety racists who see the conservative agenda as an extension of their own.

The people conservatives bring to office are an insult to our nation...and the idea that they take so much pleasure in wrapping themselves in our flag...insults the memory and legacy of the founding fathers they dare to pretend they resemble.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 02:41 pm
@ican711nm,
When you explain how more than 50% of wage earners can be in the top 50% of wage earners then we can discuss your other use of percentages.

Until you can show you even have basic skills, I see no reason to accept any of your "estimates."
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 05:15 pm
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/

Who among you differs with this definition of liberalsim? What is your disagreement and why do you disagree?
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=liberalism&x=23&y=8
Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
...
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
1 : the quality or state of being liberal : as
a : lack of strictness or rigor ...
2 : principles, theories, or actions that are liberal ...
a : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity...
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint especially by government regulation in all economic activity and usually based upon free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard ...
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for tolerance and freedom for the individual from arbitrary authority in all spheres of life especially by the protection of political and civil liberties and for government under law with the consent of the governed ...
e : an attitude or philosophy favoring individual freedom for self-development and self-expression ...

I want: "individual freedom in all economic activity based upon free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard."
I also want: "freedom for the individual from arbitrary authority in all spheres of life especially by the protection of political and civil liberties and for government under law with the consent of the governed"


Who among you differs with this definition of conservatism? What is your disagreement and why do you disagree?
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=conservatism&x=21&y=10
Main Entry: con·serv·a·tism
...
Function: noun
...
1 a : the disposition in politics to preserve what is established ...
b : a political philosophy based on a strong sense of tradition and social stability, stressing the importance of established institutions (as religion, property, the family, and class structure), and preferring gradual development with preservation of the best elements of the past to abrupt change ...
2 ...
a : the principles and policies of the Conservative party in the United Kingdom
b : the Conservative party or its members ...
3 a : the tendency to accept an existing fact, order, situation, or phenomenon and to be cautious toward or suspicious of change : extreme wariness and caution in outlook ...
b : strong resistance to innovation : relative freedom from change ...; specifically : the tendency of certain plants or animal groups to remain narrowly adapted to a particular environment and undergo minimal evolutionary change or differentiation
...

I want conservation of our lawful support of our constitutional republic as defined by the Constitution of the USA as amended.
I also want: "development with preservation of the best elements of the past."


IN PARTICULAR I WANT!
I want terminated non-uniform tax rates that tax a thing (e.g., a dollar of income) differently depending on the number of those things received. I want a flat income tax with one tax rate without exemptions, deductions, or refunds. I want an end to all federal taxes on businesses and inheritances to be terminated.

I want the federal government to stop giving tax money it has collected to private individuals and organizations. I want the federal government to comply with all of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, plus Amendments IX and X.

I want federal courts to stop amending the Constitution and to terminate all such previous federal court amendments. I want federal courts to comply with Article VI, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the Constitution.

IN PARTICULAR WHAT DO YOU WANT?


Before, I will be willing to defend what I want, I want to compare it to what you want.

0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 05:16 pm
From that Wiki site, once you wade through all the gobbledegook and intellectual-speak, you come across this which is pretty good in at least MAC's views of what modern MAL's believe:

Quote:
Some positions associated with modern liberalism

The following are some ideas that many contemporary American liberals or progressives support:

The Constitution of the United States, unalienable rights, human rights, civil liberties, equal justice, equality of opportunity, and liberty under law;

Public leadership in guaranteeing a strong social safety net, including support for Medicare, unemployment benefits, health insurance, and the preservation of Social Security as well as programs to assist low-income working American families, such as food stamps;

Non-interference in private matters of conscience and belief, by the strong support of the fundamental American principle of separation of church and state;

A progressive tax system;

The right to health care; public leadership in the creation of a health care system of universal coverage supported by taxes;

Civil rights, including laws against discrimination based on gender, race, age, religion, sexual orientation, or disability;

A spirit of international cooperation and strong alliances, including through NATO and the United Nations; a reluctance to use military force before other alternatives are exhausted;

Public leadership in protecting the environment from pollution and ensuring the conservation of resources;

Public leadership in guaranteeing free and high-quality public education and free or low-cost public transportation;

Public leadership in the prevention, suppression, and punishment of abusive business practices, including through OSHA, child labor laws, anti-trust laws, and minimum wage laws;

Strong support of workers' rights to organize labor unions, and to bargain collectively with their employer, over their wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of employment;

Strong support for women's rights, reproductive rights, comprehensive sex education, free or low-cost contraception, and free or low-cost reproductive health care; many liberals also include a woman's right to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, though not all liberals share consensus on abortion, which is an issue of conscience. Those who do, believe that, in the words of Bill Clinton, "abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."

The following are some ideas that have some support among liberals, but on which there is no clear liberal consensus.

Government role in alternative energy development

Government responsibility to supervise ports and infrastructure in the public interest

Support for same-sex marriage

The elimination of the death penalty

The belief in the guarantee of abortion rights by Roe v. Wade standards

Advocacy of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and support of scientific study

Affirmative action

Transitional multi-lingual educational programs for children whose first language is not English

Gun control

Marijuana and hemp legalization for medical or industrial purposes

The right of the terminally ill to end their life

Animal welfare

On globalization, American liberals stand largely divided. Liberal members of the intelligentsia and the professional class tend to favor globalization, due to their cosmopolitan ideals. Members of organized labor, on the other hand, tend to be opposed to increased globalization:

"[Globalization] invites two responses from the Left. The first is to insist that the inequalities between nations need to be mitigated.... The second is to insist that the primary responsibility of each democratic nation-state is to its own least advantaged citizens... the first response suggests that the old democracies should open their borders, whereas the second suggests that they should close them. The first response comes naturally to academic leftists, who have always been internationally minded. The second comes naturally to members of trade unions, and to marginally employed people who can most easily be recruited into right-wing populist movements."[25]


The devil of course is often in the details and while MACs and MALs might easily embrace the same general principle, the implementation/methods may widely differ.

What role should government play in forcing/requiring people to accept and/or implement these principles?

Who should be required to pay for them and/or by what means are they financed?

Should anybody be condemned, ostracized, punished, or publicly criticized for holding a different point of view? Who decides that?

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 06:10 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxie, That's all fine and good; now name us all those republicans/conservatives in government, past and present, that lives(d) by those descriptives.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 07:19 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
explain how more than 50% of wage earners can be in the top 50% of wage earners then we can discuss your other use of percentages.

CORRECTION
... THE TOTAL WAGES OF more than 50% of wage earners can be in the top 50% of TOTAL wageS earneD ...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 07:30 pm
@Frank Apisa,
All confirmed by the posters here on a2k who advocates their "conservatism" without having one ounce of decency, humanity, and humility.

They supported Bush's war in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children; always demands tax cuts because they claim it's a wealth shift from the rich to the poor (even while our country's deficit grows); they push to teach creationism in science class in our schools (they haven't the slightest clue that we are a secular country), and they'd rather spend ten billion every month in Iraq than to provide health care to all of our children.

They think it's okay to torture for the security of our country even though it's against domestic and international laws. They were silent when Bush acted illegal on illegal wiretaps, ignored habeas corpus, and the attorney general's department used politics in their hiring practices (also against the law).

They continue to claim they are "compassionate conservatives, for small government, for the rule of law, and for self sufficiency." Their rhetoric belies their practice.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 07:36 pm
@ican711nm,
YOur original statement.
Quote:
THE MORE PEOPLE WHO EARN SALARIES IN THE TOP 50% OF INCOMES, THE MERRIER!


Your correction makes no sense as well..

The top wage earners earn more than the average. You can't include more than 50% of the wage earners in the top 50% of TOTAL wages earned. In the US the top 20% can make 50% of the income. (example only- I don't know if it is true) 80% of wage earners can make up the bottom 50% but 80% can't make up the TOP 50%.

ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 07:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Cicerone, the title of the article Foxfyre quoted is: "Some positions associated with modern liberalism." Wouldn't it make more sense if, instead of asking Foxfyre to "name us all those republicans/conservatives in government, past and present, that lives(d) by those descriptives," you asked Foxfyre to "name us all those democrats/liberals in government, past and present, that lives(d) by those descriptives.

However, since Foxfyre didn't write that article, but only quoted it, wouldn't it be more fair for YOU to "name us all those democrats/liberals in government, past and present, that lives(d) by those descriptives."

genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 07:37 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Bush's war in Iraq that killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN ????

What about Obama's war in Afghanistan that is killing tens of thousands of innocent, men, women and children as well as American Soldiers.

No war for oil!!!!! President Obama should get our troops out of Afghanistan immediately.

As usual, Cicerone Imposter provides NO evidence for his blatherings. Here is the evidence about the war in Afghanistan. It is President Obama's responsiblity to end that war immediately.

quote:

From A World to Win News Service

Death from above: the U.S.-led murder machine in Afghanistan
The following is from A World to Win News Service.

September 8, 2008. A World to Win News Service. On August 22 the U.S.-led coalition forces announced that in an operation the night before they had killed 30-35 Taleban fighters in the villages of Azizabad-Nawabad, Shindand district, in the north-western province of Herat, close to the Iran border. According to their statement, the clash started when coalition troops were ambushed as they were heading to arrest a Taleban commander called Mullah Saddiq. The American military authorities said their troops responded with light weapons and RPG fire and then called in "close air support" in self-defence. They called it a "successful operation," and even 24 hours later claimed they "remained confident" that there were no civilian casualties. (BBC, August 27)

But it didn't take long before this story proved to be a lie, as the next day relatives pulled the bodies of the dead and injured from the rubble. Among them were many children. The infuriated villagers expressed outrage, shouting "Death to America" and other slogans and threw stones at the U.S. and Nato-led Afghan army soldiers stationed in the area. Afghan Army troops shot and killed at least one demonstrator. Later, villagers showed journalists the demolished buildings and the belongings of the victims, mostly toys, teddy bears, children's clothing and others such items. As the news of the many dead and injured spread, the anger of the people grew and anti-occupier sentiment started to boil all over the country.

On other occasions in the past, Hamid Karzai, the Western-installed president of the puppet government, has criticized coalition forces and then set up a commission to investigate the matter, generally without a result. For instance, on July 6 Americans bombed a wedding party in Nangarhar province in the east, killing 47 people. Two months have passed, and the commission has still not issued a public report or even said when it will. With this new massacre dominating media coverage, he could not simply repeat this ploy. Pretending to be more serious, he dismissed two top commanders of the so-called Afghanistan National Army who had taken part in the operation with the coalition forces. Also he appointed a commission to investigate the matter and report quickly " and this time it did.

This Kabul commission said that the U.S. air attack had caused the deaths of as many as 96 people, among them "60 children aged from 3 months to 16 years olds, killed while they slept." (International Herald Tribune, August 27)

Still the U.S. authorities refused to admit the facts and shamelessly made indirect use of the discredit they themselves have helped bring on Karzai " as their flunky " to impugn this report, while Karzai, for his part, tried to use the report to distance himself from this operation and the occupiers.

The strongest challenge to the U.S.'s attempts to deny the whole thing, at least as far as the Western media and public opinion are concerned, came from the United Nations. On August 26, the UN Special Envoy to Afghanistan Kai Eide issued a statement based on a UN Mission on-the-scene investigation. Citing physical evidence, meticulous eyewitness interviews and video footage from mobile phones, the envoy, an internationally well-known Norwegian career diplomat, concluded that at least 60 children, 15 women and 15 men had been killed by an air strike during an operation in which coalition and Afghan army soldiers entered in the village. (Reuters, August 26)

Still the U.S. refused to accept this report. American military authorities eventually said that they had conducted an investigation and admitted that "five-seven" civilians had died. For the next two weeks they continued to insist that the villagers were "spreading Taleban propaganda": that they had "fabricated evidence" and "duped" the UN investigators. (The New York Times, September 8)

Finally, amid serious political turmoil in Afghanistan and rising discredit, in at least a few Western eyes, due to the circulation of the videos and the work of reporters who came to the scene in the wake of the UN report, the U.S. took a step in response. On September 7, the senior U.S. commander in Afghanistan, David McKiernan, asked that the American investigation be reopened.

What Afghan Sources Say
In fact masses and revolutionary forces inside Afghanistan believe that the number of people killed is far greater than reported by the Afghan government or the UN. A statement issued by the Revolutionary Youth Movement of Afghanistan August 28 describes what happened in the Shindand area, where the village is located:

"The bombardment started at 2 am on Friday morning August 22 and continued until 7 am. The result was enormous damage. As of 10 am that day, 120 bodies were taken out from under the ruined houses and this work continued until 3 pm that day. The extent of the destruction was so immense that people could not carry out these rescue efforts without the help of bulldozers and other mechanical equipment belonging to a construction company from the regional airport. Soldiers from the puppet regime's National Army and the imperialist occupiers completely surrounded the whole region. The army closed all entrances to the region. Nato and U.S. Special Forces troops blocked the roads to Shindand airport.

“In an interview, local people who had tirelessly helped their neighbors said that they were completely astounded by the number of villagers killed. According to the figures collected from the site, the known dead include 168 people, mainly children and women, and 240 were wounded…. However the puppet regime shamelessly announced the number of dead as 96."

Contradicting the claims by the U.S.-led coalition forces that the incident occurred while they were trying to capture a Taleban leader, this leaflet describes the circumstances as the following: "It was the first anniversary of the death of a local influential commander named Taimoor. Since the night before, his brother had been preparing that Friday as a day for his memorial. As the cooks and other aids and servants were preparing the commemoration, U.S. aircraft arrived and demolished the nearby houses."

The account later given by New York Times reporter Carlotta Gall, who visited the village, says substantially the same thing about the circumstances of the killings. (September 8). A villager told her that an Afghan civilian accompanying the American soldiers sought out and killed the brother. A man claiming to be Mullah Sadiq, the alleged target of the U.S.-led raid, called a radio station after the attack and said he had not been in the village. Since many relatives of the brother, "the most prominent family in the village," work for a private U.S. security firm and the Afghan police, an implied possible explanation is that the U.S. had taken sides against the family in a struggle between warlords. Her article concurs that almost all of the dead were asleep on rooftops or under mosquito netting in yards when they were hit by not just one but several airstrikes.

Karzai's Role
So many people have been killed in so many American air raids few people in Afghanistan believe U.S. and Nato claims that these are simply "mistakes" " as a Human Rights Watch report unfortunately put it " committed in the pursuit of Taleban fighters. Karzai himself knows that growing numbers of people have lost patience with the brutality of the occupiers, not only in the Pashtun areas of the south and east where the Taleban emerged, but also in other ethnic regions where the U.S. and its allies were counting on some popular support or at least tolerance for the occupation.

That is why Karzai and other Afghan government officials have been making critical gestures against American air raids and promising various sorts of measures to reduce the killing. For example, the Afghan government announced that it would hold talks to renegotiate the terms of the international presence in the country.

"'The presence of the international community in Afghanistan should be re-regulated based on bilateral agreements,' a statement said, adding that limits should be placed on military forces and 'air strikes on civilian targets, unilateral searches of homes and illegal detentions must be stopped immediately.'" (BBC, August 27)

But since Karzai's position depends on the guns of the U.S. and its allies, not much is likely to come of this. His government has little real authority: "The government commission met with the commander of the United States forces in Herat province but he declined to answer their questions, saying the United States military was conducting its own investigation." (International Herald Tribune, August 27).

There are over 70,000 foreign soldiers in Afghanistan from 40 countries. But if a soldier or officer does anything wrong even according to the occupiers' standards, let alone in violation of international law (such as the Geneva conventions), they will be tried according to the law of their own country. The overwhelming majority of cases have never reached the stage of any kind of trial. This is the real law of the occupation: the occupiers are the law. So Karzai is just barking.

Some Reasons for These Mounting Massacres
The U.S. and its allies in Afghanistan are killing civilians in horrendous numbers and at an accelerating rate. Civilian deaths from U.S. and Nato airstrikes nearly tripled in 2007 over the previous year, according to a September 8 report by Human Rights Watch, with 321 Afghan civilians killed in 22 bombings, "while hundreds more were injured." At least 119 civilians were killed in 12 airstrikes during the first seven months of this year, the group said, with another 54 civilians killed by U.S. and Nato ground troops. (hrw.org)

In July 2007, after similar though smaller-scale mass murders by bombing, the Karzai government also filed a complaint and the U.S. promised to change its "rules of engagement" governing combat operations to avoid such incidents. Instead, the killing is increasing. The Human Rights Watch report links the increased civilian deaths to the military strategy the U.S. is pursuing, called "economy of forces," in which relatively small ground units maraud around the countryside calling in air strikes, which are the main way the occupiers get their killing done, both of suspected Taleban and civilians. In fact, the use of this approach makes large numbers of civilian deaths inevitable. Since the U.S and its allies have announced plans to step up their war, many more such civilian deaths can be expected, even if the occupiers might prefer to limit civilian casualties so as to avoid rousing the people against them.

There are several factors pulling in that direction. Faced with a critical situation in Afghanistan, where the occupiers are losing control over many different regions to the Taleban who were hated by the people until recent years, the U.S. and its allies are in no position to step back. Further, some instability in Afghanistan would give the occupiers an excuse to stay there for years to come, but they want to have this instability under control and not allow it to spread into Pakistan, for example. None of the imperialist countries or governing factions are talking about reducing their forces there; in fact, most of the talk is about how much to increase them. In the U.S, the two presidential candidates accuse each other of not wanting enough war in Afghanistan, and the heads of the European governments are generally emphasizing the need for more war as well. This tendency can only gain momentum as tension between the West and Russia increases. This region has historically been an important battleground between the Western colonialists (notably the British Empire) their modern imperialist successors, and old and now new Russia.

So overall this is the kind of peace and prosperity the imperialist forces have brought for Afghanistan's people: More war, more killing, more poverty, and more misery and so on. And the only way people of Afghanistan can undo this is to drive out all these imperialist occupiers.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 07:40 pm
@genoves,
Quote:
What about Obama's war in Afghanistan that is killing tens of thousands of innocent, men, women and children as well as American Soldiers.

Tens of thousands of Afghanis have died since Jan 21?

Could you provide some evidence that your head isn't up your ass?
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 07:42 pm
@parados,
Parados- You are correct. I have tried to explain the concept to many who do not understand it. I use the concept when talking about achievement scores of children in the USA.

No matter what the scores are, 50% of them will be below the median and 50% above the median.

African-American children, despite the BILLIONS of dollars that have been thrown their way in the abysmally failing inner city schools STILL come out with an average which is far below the median and no amount of extra tutoring seems to do any good.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 07:45 pm
@genoves,
Define "far below" in your statement.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 07:46 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Cicerone, the title of the article Foxfyre quoted is: "Some positions associated with modern liberalism." Wouldn't it make more sense if, instead of asking Foxfyre to "name us all those republicans/conservatives in government, past and present, that lives(d) by those descriptives," you asked Foxfyre to "name us all those democrats/liberals in government, past and present, that lives(d) by those descriptives.

However, since Foxfyre didn't write that article, but only quoted it, wouldn't it be more fair for YOU to "name us all those democrats/liberals in government, past and present, that lives(d) by those descriptives."



Actually that portion I quoted came from C.I.'s link. So now, as I have long suspected, we know he not only doesn't read what other people post or follow the links others provide, he doesn't even read what HE posts or follow the links HE provides. Smile
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 07:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
They supported Bush's war in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

The total number off civilians killed in Iraq since March 20, 2003 is less than 100,000. Far more than half of them were killed by al-Qaeda and other Iraq terrorists.

Quote:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
Documented civilian deaths from violence
90,556 " 98,848
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 07:47 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm--There are few who have lived by those descriptives. But, they sure talk a good game. When they speechify, they are usually mouthing stock phrases which they do not believe--'

eg----All sides should be heard

We must be inclusive

All ideas are welcome in the marketplace of ideas

cicerone imposter and others like Cyclopitchorn are among the first make charges like:

"The Wall Street Journal"--"That's just garbage"

Their response is not to rebut, but, like children, to hurl adhominems.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 07:55 pm
@genoves,
genoves, I've asked you before; please cut and paste where I've done anything like you describe. Where and when did I say "The WSJ; that's just garbage."

If not to rebut with credible evidence, it's not ad hominem. Can't help it if your statements all turn out to be bogus according to credible sources. That's the reason why I call you guys "stupid or ignorant." The adjective is proper.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 04/19/2025 at 07:59:00