Reply Tue 11 Jun, 2019 09:38 pm
Oh, it causes me to weep copious amounts of tears

It is sad, at that, and you have no one to cut onions for you is sad too.
Reply Tue 11 Jun, 2019 09:46 pm
I quite enjoy slicing and dicing onions. Chewing a few pieces actually reduces the tears.
Reply Tue 11 Jun, 2019 09:54 pm
I quite enjoy slicing and dicing onions.

It is nice to do things you enjoy. More idiots like AOC and things you enjoy better be enjoyed by the government, too.
0 Replies
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2019 12:02 am
Sturgis wrote:

I quite enjoy slicing and dicing onions. Chewing a few pieces actually reduces the tears.

Didn't know that. My trick is to breath by the mouth when chopping onions. It works.
Walter Hinteler
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2019 10:45 am
What Is Democratic Socialism? Whose Version Are We Talking About?
Democratic socialism has a definition …
Political theory isn’t exactly a crowd-pleaser on the campaign trail, but you need some of it to understand why “democratic socialism” means so many things to so many people.

Leftist political theory encompasses a wide range of ideologies, which can be divided roughly into three categories.

Communism is what existed in the Soviet Union and still exists in China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam. It isn’t monolithic, but the common thread is a fully centralized economy achieved through revolution.

This is the image some critics evoke against less radical ideologies, as the “Fox & Friends” co-host Pete Hegseth did when he called Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s $15 minimum wage for her staff “socialism and communism on display.” In reality, no federal official or Democratic candidate advocates communism.

At the other end is social democracy, which is common in Europe. It preserves capitalism, but with stricter regulations and government programs to distribute resources more evenly. Consider Elizabeth Warren: She supports capitalism, but her proposals would remake the American economy in an effort to reduce inequality and guarantee basic needs.

Democratic socialism falls in between.
Unlike communists, however, democratic socialists believe socialism should be achieved, well, democratically. This requires a long-term outlook, because they know theirs is a minority position. Their goal is to convince a majority, but in the meantime, they support many social-democratic policies.

Ultimately, though, Sweden isn’t what democratic socialists like Bhaskar Sunkara, editor of Jacobin magazine, a quarterly socialist journal, are looking for. “We come from the same tradition,” he said of democratic socialists and social democrats. But generally, he added, social democrats see a role for private capital in their ideal system, and democratic socialists do not.

… but Americans use it to mean a lot of things
In countries that have multiple leftist parties, these distinctions are commonly understood. In the United States, they aren’t.

Because a binary view of “liberals” and “conservatives” dominates American politics, ideologies to the left of mainstream Democrats tend to get lumped together — which often means the left conflates democratic socialism and social democracy, and the right casts all of it as socialism or communism.

“Here in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country,” President Trump said in his State of the Union address this year. “Tonight, we resolve that America will never be a socialist country.”

Mr. Sanders identifies as a democratic socialist, but when asked on Tuesday how he defined that, he described something closer to social democracy.

“What democratic socialism essentially means to me is completing the vision that Franklin Delano Roosevelt started some 85 years ago, and that is to go forward in the wealthiest country in the history of the world and guarantee a decent economic standard of living in life for all of our people,” he said. “And to do that, obviously we have to combat oligarchy and the incredibly unfair and unequal distribution of wealth and income, and to take on the incredible political power that the 1 percent have.”

The policies Mr. Sanders supports — like single-payer health care, free public college, and higher taxes on the wealthy to fund safety-net programs — are also standard in social democracies.

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer
A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

“His practical program is a program that would be pretty comfortable within the confines of any European country,” said Sheri Berman, a professor of political science at Barnard College. “As far as the policies he’s advocating, those are probably better viewed as social democratic — that’s what they would be in another place in which there are more left options.”

But “because we don’t have a social-democratic party in this country,” Professor Berman said, “the only way to indicate that you want to go further than the Democratic Party — that you are more critical of capitalism than the Democratic Party has been — has been to identify yourself as a democratic socialist.”
... ... ...

Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2019 10:56 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Looking forward to Bernie’s explanation of his view of Democratic Socialism today at 2PM EST.
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2019 01:08 pm
“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt
0 Replies
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2019 02:08 pm
Aren't we all.
Of course one must wonder why he hasn't presented this before now. You know, like at least 3 years back.
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2019 03:39 pm
He did flesh out DemSoc in smaller speeches earlier. People who were sort of making it their business to follow him heard those speeches, but he took pains to publicize this one.

Did you hear it?
0 Replies
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2019 05:46 pm

The speech at George Washington.
Walter Hinteler
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2019 10:43 pm
It doesn't differ from Social-Democracy.
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2019 06:10 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Good to know.
I’m guessing FDR doesn’t figure prominently in the description, though.

Maybe this is the reason he draws a distinction:

This practical program is a program that would be pretty comfortable within the confines of any European country,” said Sheri Berman, a professor of political science at Barnard College. “As far as the policies he’s advocating, those are probably better viewed as social democratic — that’s what they would be in another place in which there are more left options.”
Walter Hinteler
Reply Thu 13 Jun, 2019 06:42 am
Actually, we do have some progressives within in the European Social-Democratic parties - and some progressive-left parties as well (like "Die Linke" ['The Left'] in Germany, in the UK it would be "People Before Profit" (active mainly in NI [and Ireland, I think]).
0 Replies
Real Music
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 01:00 am
D.N.C. Announces Who Made The First Debates | All In | MSNBC .

Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez on who made it, who didn't, and why.

Published June 13, 2019
0 Replies
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 03:16 am
Bernie Sanders just made a brilliant defense of democratic socialism
Bhaskar Sunkara
In a speech yesterday, the 2020 contender’s message was crystal clear: ‘Political freedom in the absence of economic freedom is not real freedom’

Thu 13 Jun 2019 11.16 EDT

In a speech yesterday at George Washington University in Washington DC, the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders brilliantly articulated what he means when he calls himself a democratic socialist.
With characteristic concision, he decried the rule of “a small number of incredibly wealthy and powerful billionaires”, and argued that the future belongs to either rightwing nationalism or democratic socialism, which he defined as a bedrock set of economic and social rights.

Even for many sympathizers, Sanders’ decision to call himself a socialist has always been controversial. The label strikes some as an anachronism – or even a liability, distracting from a broadly popular progressive vision. Americans, we are told, still fear the S-word and imagine breadlines and gulags when it’s invoked.

But Sanders isn’t among the most popular politicians in America despite his socialist past and identity – but because of it.
Sanders first found his ideology and political voice in the Young People’s Socialist League, the youth section of the ailing Socialist Party of America. When Sanders joined in the 1960s, the party was a shell of what it was in the early 20th century, when Eugene V Debs got almost a million votes for president and the party had hundreds of elected officials.

Even in its weakened state, however, American socialism was able to nurture and train Sanders. Through the movement, he came to an understanding of the world from which he has never departed: the rich aren’t misguided; they have a vested interest in protecting their wealth and power and keeping millions of others at their mercy. We can’t just design better policy – to build a more just world, we need to take power from the control of the rich and democratize it. With this awareness, Sanders, then a University of Chicago student, committed himself to the civil rights and labor struggles of the era.
Sanders’ first forays into electoral politics were still on the fringes of American political life – as a 1972 Senate candidate for Vermont’s leftwing Liberty Union party, he won just 2.2% of the vote. But his simple message reflected the moral clarity and vision of the old Socialist party: Richard Nixon represented “millionaires and billionaires”, as Sanders said at the time, and propped up a “world of the 2% of the population that owns more than one-third of the personally held wealth in America”.
We’re used to politicians that vacillate, triangulate, “evolve”. Sanders has done none of these things – he has maintained astounding message discipline for half a century. Inequality is undermining the promise of America, he has always argued, and a coalition of working people organizing against millionaires and billionaires can change things for the better.

Sanders still has a portrait of Debs in his Washington DC office, and in the 1980s he curated an album of the legendary socialist orator’s speeches. But yesterday’s address was a reminder that even though he still embodies much of the old socialist spirit, he has found ways to soften its edges and make it more accessible to ordinary Americans.
At George Washington University, Sanders once again railed against the billionaire class and “the profit-taking gatekeepers of our healthcare, our technology, our finance system, our food supply and almost all of the other basic necessities of life”. But instead of citing his hero Debs, he drew on Franklin Delano Roosevelt – a president who saw himself as the liberal savior of the capitalist system. Yet in 1944, shortly before his death, Roosevelt put forth a sweeping manifesto he called the Second Bill of Rights. Existing political rights alone haven’t given us “equality in the pursuit of happiness”, Roosevelt argued; we need to complement those political rights by guaranteeing access to employment, housing, healthcare, education and more.
It was not socialism per se, but a blueprint for a social democratic safety net in the US – one that sadly never came to fruition.

By pointing to this history, Sanders is signaling that he’s running to win the Democratic primary and the presidency. He aims to be the candidate of a party of governing power – the party of Roosevelt, not the party of Debs.
Yet beneath that signaling is a familiar appeal. Sanders’ speech rooted democratic socialism in American soil, in popular desires for peace and security. He tied his analysis of the world – a coming conflict between the forces of rightwing populism and the progressive left, with no middle ground – with concrete demands for policies such as Medicare for All, a living wage and affordable housing.
For Democratic politicians like Joe Biden, social problems are complex and difficult to resolve. More often than not, there aren’t any clearcut villains. As Biden put it recently: “The folks at the top aren’t bad guys.” For Sanders, they are – and they have names that he is unafraid to utter, such as the Walton and Trump families.
In his public speeches, Sanders criticizes the unequal present, identifies the people responsible for it, sketches out a more egalitarian future and specifies an agent of change (“working people”) who can get us there. It’s a simple socialist formula, communicated in simple language: Sanders was by far the most repetitive Democratic candidate in 2016 and continues to be today. He avoids jargon, and presents his socialism as common sense: a political revolution to take away power and wealth from the few and provide basic economic and social rights to the many.
Where do the 2020 Democratic candidates stand on the key issues?
Even if Sanders is still polling behind Biden, the message may be starting to resonate. Fifty-seven per cent of Democrats view socialism positively, along with 61% of those aged 18 to 24.
Yesterday, Sanders expanded his democratic socialist vision further, using the rhetoric of freedom that’s a regular trope in American politics, but giving it a socialist gloss. “Political freedom in the absence of economic freedom is not real freedom.”

Hardened socialists might scoff at Sanders’s summoning of Roosevelt as a proto-socialist. But the core of his call for democracy and justice is true to the spirit of Debs and his successors Norm Thomas and Michael Harrington, and resonates with millions. Sanders isn’t just campaigning, he’s spearheading the recovery of an American tradition of democratic socialism that insists we expand our definition of freedom to include our most basic material needs.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 03:21 am
Jun 13
Bernie is the heir to FDR and, on economic rights, the heir to MLK.

No other major politician or serious presidential candidate has been this clear and outspoken on economic rights and what freedom really means.

Finishing the work of the New Deal is a good flag to plant.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 04:08 am
Holy ****. Look. Somebody wrote the truth about Elizabeth Warren and her rise against Bernie Sanders.

Back in 2009, I called for Elizabeth Warren to run for president. I may have been the first media figure to do so. This was early in the Obama presidency, when he was beginning to renege on some of his progressive campaign promises (closing Gitmo, drug re-importation, etc.), but more importantly already showing an unwillingness to take on Wall Street after the crash.
Warren, a rare high-finance literate among national politicians, seemed like the person needed to lead an economic reform effort after the crash:
“We need someone … to re-seize the Party from the Wall Street interests that have come to dominate it … [Someone] who will know the difference between real regulatory reform and a dog-and-pony show, and will not be likely to fill a cabinet with bankers from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.”

I believed that then and now. I’d happily vote for Warren. When she was about to launch her campaign and a string of editorialists came out with pre-emptive broadsides warning she would “not enjoy an easy path” to the nomination because of a “darkening cloud” of controversy around her, I called it out as the cheap Beltway-press manipulation it was.
Now Warren is the beneficiary of positive headlines, all cheering a recent rise in the polls — on average, she’s jumped about 6 points overall since hitting a low of just over 4 percent in February. The substance of these stories is preposterous, and I’ll get to why in a moment. But first, it’s worth talking about the real reasons Warren is doing well.
The strength of Warren’s campaign is a series of detailed policy proposals aimed at correcting a series of corrupting inequities in American life. The first major proposal she released, on January 24th, was aimed at perhaps the biggest problem in American society: the wealth gap.
While working people almost all live off highly-taxed “income,” high net worth individuals mostly live off other revenue streams: carried interest, capital gains, inheritance, etc. Warren’s plan would create a net worth calculation that would hit households worth between $50 million and $1 billion with a 2% annual “ultra-millionaires tax.”
She has a similar plan for corporate tax, one that would wipe away the maze of loopholes big companies currently use, and force any firm that makes over $100 million in profits to pay a new 7 percent tax. “Amazon would pay $698 million instead of zero,” she says. “Occidental Petroleum would pay $280 million … instead of zero.”

Other proposals include a Too Big To Fail breakup program for Silicon Valley that would designate internet firms that “offer an online marketplace” and have annual revenues of $25 billion or more as “Platform Utilities.” Under the plan, “Google’s ad exchange and businesses on the exchange would be split apart,” and “Google Search would have to be spun off as well.”
Warren has also unveiled ambitious plans for cancelation of student debt and free college, universal child care and a new corporate accountability plan that would force high-ranking corporate executives to certify they’d conducted a “due diligence” inquiry, making it easier to prosecute them for misdeeds conducted under their watch.
She even created an “economic patriotism” plan that overtly targets many of the excuses for domestic job loss offered by her own party — automation, a “skills gap” or just blunt economic reality when trying to compete with cheaper labor abroad. She calls bull on it all. “No,” she writes, “America chose to pursue a trade policy that prioritized the interests of capital over the interests of American workers.”

She then laid out a series of plans that create “aggressive intervention on behalf of American workers,” create a “Department of Economic Development” and put an end to practices like corporations using public money for R&D, then eating the benefits in stock buybacks while exporting jobs. Her plan would give taxpayers an equity stake in publicly developed enterprises.
This idea has such broad appeal that it even had Tucker Carlson talking it up last week as he denounced companies that “wave the flag, but have no loyalty or allegiance to America.” She even got Carlson to rip Republicans, saying, “Republicans in Congress can’t promise to protect American industries. They wouldn’t dare. It might violate some principle of Austrian economics…”
Warren’s platform has a lot in common with some rivals — especially Bernie Sanders, who would also offer free college tuition, force the very wealthy to pay substantial new taxes, and create domestic jobs through a “Green New Deal” (Warren’s plan is called “Green Manufacturing”).

The two politicians do have some important differences, many of which were elucidated in a speech Sanders just gave on Wednesday at George Washington University. In it, Sanders explained why he calls himself a “Democratic Socialist,” a term Warren has not embraced. (She went out of her way in March to say, “I am a capitalist. Come on. I believe in markets.”)
Those inside the Sanders campaign would say the speech he gave this week — which explained his policies as a continuation of FDR’s “New Deal” — outlined the main difference between the two candidates.
An oversimplified view might describe Warren’s campaign as an effort to correct and more aggressively regulate the flaws of American capitalism, while also preserving the market-based system in which she does seem to genuinely believe.
Sanders, meanwhile, believes in “guaranteed economic rights for all Americans,” and is faster to place the solutions to problems he and Warren both identify in the hands of government. He believes health care, for instance, should be completely divorced from market considerations, and is less squeamish about disenfranchising private health insurance and other powerful lobbies. In fact, his campaign believes that any candidate who isn’t creating enemies is probably not proposing real change — as Sanders says, a Biden-esque “middle ground” platform “antagonizes no one, stands up to nobody, and changes nothing.”
But both the Sanders and Warren campaigns essentially have the same critique of the corruption of modern American capitalism. In fact, a lot of the Democrats are campaigning on promises to alleviate inequities and injustices built into our current laissez-faire, corporate-backed Stupidocracy, from Andrew Yang’s Universal Basic Income scheme to Tulsi Gabbard’s plan to end regime change wars.
They’ve all got good ideas, and this is exactly what primary season is for: debating which ones are best. That, however, is not what the campaign press is doing. When Warren burst into the news this week, the headlines almost all carried the same theme:
Newsweek: Elizabeth Warren Ahead of Bernie Sanders for First Time in Two New 2020 Election Polls
Politico: Warren Leapfrogs Sanders in Pair of 2020 Polls
New York magazine: Elizabeth Warren Edges Past Sanders in New 2020 Polls
Mediaite: Bern-Out: Elizabeth Warren Knocks Bernie Sanders Down a Peg in New National Poll
None of these stories features a lead like, “Surging on a blistering anti-corporate message, Warren…” Frankly the coverage of her rise is an insult to the work she’s put in at crafting a plan to take on American systemic corruption that voters find plausible.
Instead, Warren’s obvious appeal to the conga line of think-tankers and DC political consultants currently swooning over her campaign is her perceived utility in helping remove Sanders from the race. It’s why Bernie’s in almost every headline about her rise.

The Sanders campaign has come to expect the doomsaying headlines, even taking them as validation. Echoing the famous FDR quote, “We welcome their hatred,” Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir suggested it’s all par for the course.
“This isn’t bean-bag politics,” he said. “It’s a war for what vision of the country you believe in.”
As I wrote earlier this week, even if they’re true, poll-watching horse race stories like this are almost unavoidably idiotic so early in the race. But these stories are dumber than usual. They’re based on two data points: a Monmouth Nevada state poll of 370 likely caucus-goers that shows Biden at 36 points, Warren at 19 points and Sanders at 13. The second is a YouGov national poll that shows Biden at 26 percent, Warren at 16 percent and Sanders at 12 percent.
Again, I have no dog in this fight. I like both Sanders and Warren and have no idea how I’d vote right now because, among other things, I haven’t seen all the candidates yet. (I’m anxious to check out Yang, for instance.)

But these latest stories praying for signs of a Sanders demise are as clearly absurd as all the ones that came before, and there have almost been too many to count — from Salon’s “The Sanders Revolution is Probably Doomed From the Start” in January, to RealClearPolitics’ “Bernie Sanders, It’s Over” in February, to the Chicago Tribune’s “The Case Against Bernie Sanders” that same month, to Yahoo’s “Why Medicare For All is Doomed’” and on and on.
Lauren Alaina Covers Cheap Trick’s classic hit, "Surrender" in the bathroom
Branded Content by
Alaina recorded her rendition of the song in the same location as the original — Sound City Studio’s bathroom. Watch here.
Some of the stories are preposterous on their face. The Week, for instance, ran a piece called, “Bernie Sanders’ socialism speech might have been more about Elizabeth Warren than about Trump.” It quoted former White House communications director Jen Psaki, saying the address “is a pretty clear indication he is feeling the heat from Elizabeth Warren’s recent momentum.”
Does she mean the momentum from yesterday? The day before? The speech was scheduled six weeks ago, when Sanders was ahead of Warren by fifteen points. There’s silly, and then there’s really silly.
A different way to read the same polls is that both Warren and Sanders are rising right now, and the campaign that’s actually declining is Joe Biden’s. Even MSNBC cited just this week a new Quinnipiac Poll showing Biden at 30, Sanders 19, and Warren 15. Biden was down five points since May, while Sanders was up 3 and Warren was up 2.

The RealClearPolitics average of all the major polls, which is what I go by in the rare instances when I actually care enough to look, shows a clear picture: at the time Biden announced in late April, he was leading Sanders 29-23 percent, with everyone else below 10 percent. Biden then shot up to a high of 41 percent, with Sanders dropping to a low of 14.6 percent nationally.
Since then Biden has been steadily dropping (though he’s still well ahead at 32.2 percent). Sanders has crept back up to 16.8 percent, while Warren (10.8 percent) and Buttigieg (7.2 percent) have gained.
You can read these numbers any way you like. Has Sanders gained 2.2 percent since May 14th (14.6 percent), or dropped 2 percent since May 20th (18.8 percent)? Is Biden up 2.9 percent since April 27th (29.3 percent) or down 9.2 percent since May 9th (41.4 percent)? It’s moronic. Polls at this stage are just toys for pundits to serve up hot takes whose lives will be shorter than most ants or house flies. “There’s a reason why we’re not talking about President John Edwards, President Ben Carson, President Rick Perry,” says Shakir. “It’s a long campaign.”

The observation about the Democratic race that’s sure to be relevant when real bullets start flying in primaries is that Democratic voters are in schism: there is a corporate-funded, centrist wing and an oppositional/anti-corporate/anti-war wing.
Warren has smartly marketed herself as having a foot in both camps. She may very well prove a unifying figure — if that is possible, given how fierce the resistance would inevitably be to any real attempt to reorganize the banking, pharmaceutical and tech industries. A lot will depend on how much credibility she’ll muster with hardcore progressive voters, some of whom are already grumbling, for instance, about her unwillingness (to date) to confront the health sector via Medicare-for-All. (<—I can tell you progressives see her! Lash)
If she does win over those voters, she’ll quickly end up with the opposite problem, i.e. Bernie’s current problem. If Warren is beating Biden by next January, and Sanders has fallen off, bet on this: the candidate who wants to tightly regulate banks, break up Amazon and Google and tax the hell out of the party’s biggest donors will once again find herself besieged by negative press, and questions about what the Times has already called her “difficult path to winning over moderates.”

Horse race coverage exists so commercial news can cover presidential races without talking about issues. It’s why outlets would rather report on Biden responding to being called “mentally weak,” a “sleepy guy” and a “dummy” by Trump (this was on the front page of both the Times and the Post this week) than run stories asking which candidate has the best plan for getting Amazon, IBM and other companies to pay above zero in taxes.
If Elizabeth Warren is rising in the polls, it’s not because people are tired of Sanders. It’s because they’re pissed at Amazon and Facebook, Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase, Dow-Dupont, Monsanto, Syngenta and countless other soulless, nationless, money-sucking companies — along with their overpaid, under-prosecuted, deviant scum executives who’ve had outsized influence with both parties for too long.

By an amazing coincidence, this is also why Sanders is still very much in contention. Don’t let anyone tell you that anything else is going on. Polls are noise. Fights over issues are real.

Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 05:42 am
Polls shmolls. Waste of time and a dangerous diversion of focus. What and where should we put our energy and focus?

This sort of info you posted at this time is basically an exercise in futility and a bunch of hand waving. When the government and election process is so disabled ... the system is broken beyond repair that POTUS can flagrantly and arrogantly brag and invite foreign intervention in our election and no one scream for him to step down, then it is fucked beyond all hope.

I’m seriously considering applying for political asylum. I’d be foolish NOT to. Why would I care to get more involved and help anyone’s campaign for election if the government that would be presiding over is so non-functional so as to allow such treasonous actions to prevail.

Remove the whole lot of spineless jellyfish.
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 05:59 am
That’s exactly how I feel —with the added resolve to vote for the one guy who can turn it around for people. ❤️🎉👩‍🏫
0 Replies
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 06:06 am
I can't disagree with anything in there. Warren is a substantive, thoughtful candidate with good ideas and her heart is in the right place. And yes, it stands to reason that a certain demographic of money-leeching aspiring journalists is scared of Bernie, of his bluntness, of his honesty, and thus that they would try to divide the left, so to speak, that is to use Warren against Sanders, and then drop Warren later on once she served their purpose.

All this is quite true or at least probable, i think, and more useful than taking issue with her voice.

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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 12:13:42