Teachers manipulate kids to protest!!

Scrubking

Scrubking

CAGiversary!
Today, young rainforest heroes from around the world are reminding JP Morgan Chase that its most important stakeholders are future generations,” said Tracy Solum from Rainforest Action Network (RAN). “This is education in action, and these are kids the Earth can count on. These posters represent the wisdom and creativity of a new generation inspired to protect the Earth,

This is what the activist group said about the kids. And the link is to the only place I could find that said anything on the net.

Fox just reported on this (the liberal networks obviously don't care), and the TEACHERS were there taking the kids to protest and hold up signs in front of this Chase bank.

Liberals go crazy if someone mentions God in school or teaching why God is in the founding documents, but you are fine with teachers taking their kids to protest some activist agenda. The poor 2nd grade kids probably didn't know why the hell they were there while these slimy activists used them for their purposes.

I can only wonder how much of an uproar there would be if they kids were protesting against something liberal.
 
[quote name='jmcc']What conservative cause would you have them get the kids involved in?[/quote]

How about learning. No more of this touchy feely shit. Teach kids how to deal. Kids dont need to be tought on how to express themselves, they need to learn discipline and respect.
 
[quote name='bignick'][quote name='jmcc']What conservative cause would you have them get the kids involved in?[/quote]

How about learning. No more of this touchy feely shit. Teach kids how to deal. Kids dont need to be tought on how to express themselves, they need to learn discipline and respect.[/quote]

So why not respect for the environment?
 
[quote name='Scrubking']So why not respect for the religious history of the country?[/quote]
Do you mean the REAL religious history of the country, or the pretend one that Christians like to push? If you mean the real one, I agree with you. If you mean the pretend one, where all the bad stuff that people have done in the name of religion is cut out so Christians look better and to pretend that America is a "Christian Nation' despite the fact that many of our founding fathers specifically went out of their way to say that it ISN'T, then I disagree.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']
So why not respect for the environment?
Click to expand...

So why not respect for the religious history of the country?[/quote]

You mean how the country was founded by people who were being persecuted in their own country so they came here to get away from it? Kids do learn that, at least I did.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='Scrubking']So why not respect for the religious history of the country?[/quote]
Do you mean the REAL religious history of the country, or the pretend one that Christians like to push? If you mean the real one, I agree with you. If you mean the pretend one, where all the bad stuff that people have done in the name of religion is cut out so Christians look better and to pretend that America is a "Christian Nation' despite the fact that many of our founding fathers specifically went out of their way to say that it ISN'T, then I disagree.[/quote]

I have always gotten a fairly accurate version of history from my public schools, thank you very much.

Columbus cut the hands off of "Native Americans", the "Native Americans" cut the scalps off of settlers. You can't justify one without justifying the other. Does it matter what you call yourself? "I am not a crook" coming from one of the biggest corrupt officals of all times. We are based on Christian morals (city on a hill et al) and ideals. Saying that most of America isn't/wasn't Christian would be just as bad as saying that Christians are perfect.
 
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='Drocket'][quote name='Scrubking']So why not respect for the religious history of the country?[/quote]
Do you mean the REAL religious history of the country, or the pretend one that Christians like to push? If you mean the real one, I agree with you. If you mean the pretend one, where all the bad stuff that people have done in the name of religion is cut out so Christians look better and to pretend that America is a "Christian Nation' despite the fact that many of our founding fathers specifically went out of their way to say that it ISN'T, then I disagree.[/quote]

I have always gotten a fairly accurate version of history from my public schools, thank you very much.

Columbus cut the hands off of "Native Americans", the "Native Americans" cut the scalps off of settlers. You can't justify one without justifying the other. Does it matter what you call yourself? "I am not a crook" coming from one of the biggest corrupt officals of all times. We are based on Christian morals (city on a hill et al) and ideals. Saying that most of America isn't/wasn't Christian would be just as bad as saying that Christians are perfect.[/quote]

The founding fathers were Deists. As in, they didn't believe that Jesus Christ was a god.

It is true that some American Indian tribes would scalp their enemies/war prisoners. However I don't think that can be reasonably compared to the way in which the manifest destiny crew decimated the American Indians occuping this land by systematically murdering their men, women, and children using firearms and germ warfare.

One may be able to defend the morality of Jesus Christ and the christian god, however it is a much more tenable position to try and defend the overall historical impact of those who have called themselves Christians throughout the ages.
 
Gamefreak, where did you go to school? My school taught about the valiant settlers and the sometimes nice, sometimes vicious natives. I was helping at a school a few years ago and they were still teaching this. Also, columbus was treated the same as settlers when I was younger. Sadly it seems it's more important to protect our heroes than accurate history, whatever those heroes really were. I can understand omitting the faults of otherwise good people (lincoln, washington, martin luther king), but it bothers me when they do it with people such as columbus and custer.

Though I don't understand what the problem with this article is, we have children sending letters and having drives for the troops, but I don't see you complaining about that. Schools are not value neutral, they teach tolerance, respect for diversity, and respect for the environment and nature. This was a contest, if students wanted to write they could, they didn't have to, letters to troops aren't always optional. We had a letter writing project in my class during the first iraq war and later the oklahoma city bombing, and it wasn't optional. We are you when our children are being forced to write to soldiers? I'm not complaining here, I just find it odd that you complain about a voluntary contest denouncing pollution, but don't complained about forced assignments to help soldiers. I also find it sad when being against pollution is a liberal cause, the level of support seemed to distinguish between liberal and conservative, but the concept itself is not really just liberal. And as for comparing it to encouraging a particular religion, child often get ostracized, humiliated, and mocked for being of a different religion. When I was in 1st grade, everyone used to make fun of this jehovahs witness kid, saying he ate worms and such. Later it was making fun of muslim and jewish kids in junior high and high school (not much diversity in my town, so not many kids to make fun of). There is a world of difference in supporting one religion over another than supporting one cause (environment) over another (corporations).

Also, the founding fathers had no interest in making a christian nation, and most were deists. They founded a nation dominated by christians, but not a christian nation. To assume that they founded a christian nation because of the referrence to god fails to realize the obvious, that god is not just a christian concept.
 
Teachers manipulate kids to acknowledge god! Odds are good that god is christian!! Pledge of allegiance excerpt: "One nation, under god...". Film at 11!! Will somebody please think of the children!!1!!!1!

 
Since they aren't teaching them to read, write, perform arithmetic, or formulate coherent sentences, they have to fill the time with something.

They could at least teach them about the political process instead of wasting time with 'picket' protesting, which serves no useful purpose in and of itself, except perhaps to look like an idiot. Teach them about coersion, bribery, and extortion - those are the things that fuel the political process, not chanting and being a general nuisance.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Since they aren't teaching them to read, write, perform arithmetic, or formulate coherent sentences, they have to fill the time with something.

They could at least teach them about the political process instead of wasting time with 'picket' protesting, which serves no useful purpose in and of itself, except perhaps to look like an idiot. Teach them about coersion, bribery, and extortion - those are the things that fuel the political process, not chanting and being a general nuisance.[/quote]

Well, they are teaching the kids about issues, and teaching them that they should get involved in things that are important to them. Teaching children to get involved and try to change things (not that this would do it, but it all depends on how the kids percieve it) is just as important as teaching them about other aspects of politics. Though, I really wouldn't go teaching children that aspect of politics (the corrupt side) until later when you actually start teaching political and government courses. Though if you want to look at how being a nuisance can change things, just look at the janet jackson nipple fiasco. Animal rights activists and other groups effectively use this tactic as well. Often, being a nuisance does work.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Today, young rainforest heroes from around the world are reminding JP Morgan Chase that its most important stakeholders are future generations,” said Tracy Solum from Rainforest Action Network (RAN). “This is education in action, and these are kids the Earth can count on. These posters represent the wisdom and creativity of a new generation inspired to protect the Earth,

This is what the activist group said about the kids. And the link is to the only place I could find that said anything on the net.

Fox just reported on this (the liberal networks obviously don't care), and the TEACHERS were there taking the kids to protest and hold up signs in front of this Chase bank.

Liberals go crazy if someone mentions God in school or teaching why God is in the founding documents, but you are fine with teachers taking their kids to protest some activist agenda. The poor 2nd grade kids probably didn't know why the hell they were there while these slimy activists used them for their purposes.

I can only wonder how much of an uproar there would be if they kids were protesting against something liberal.[/quote]


I've got news for you Scrubking, the media isn't liberal, its lazy. If you are getting your news from FOX cable, then you are are routinely misinformed, since it was proven by a study that people who got most of their news from FOX tend to be more misinformed.
 
I remember in 2nd grade learning such concepts as "littering is bad" and how pollution is bad for plants and fish.

Now-a-days my teacher would be accused of teaching an activist agenda by knuckleheads like Srubby.
 
I remember when kids looked up to fictional characters representing good such as "Captain Planet" instead of drug dealers, wrestlers, and dirty politicians.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']I remember when kids looked up to fictional characters representing good such as "Captain Planet" instead of drug dealers, wrestlers, and dirty politicians.[/quote]

You looked up to Captain Planet? AHAHAHAAAA :lol: :lol: :lol:

That made my day.
 
[quote name='usickenme']I remember in 2nd grade learning such concepts as "littering is bad" and how pollution is bad for plants and fish.

Now-a-days my teacher would be accused of teaching an activist agenda by knuckleheads like Srubby.[/quote]

Kids, especially kids as young as the ones I saw on TV, are in school to learn basic skills. They are not supposed to be taught the morality of littering, that's the parents' job. We parents have responsibilities, remember? It's not up to the State to indoctrine our children to causes, politics, or sexual behavior either.

Kids that young also don't need political injection, they should be learning long division, how to spell, and basic grammar. When little Johnny gets out of the public school system and can barely read, write, or articulate a thought except on a misspelled posterboard and through a bull horn, we're all in big trouble.

This was obviously a staged media event. The kids were standing around with their thumbs up their asses while teacher and associated Greenthumb Activist made the media rounds advancing their cause to the nearest TV camera. Then they all got hugs. Lovey, lovey, nice, nice. Thanks for being pawns in our propaganda adventure. Now get back to school where you belong.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='usickenme']I remember in 2nd grade learning such concepts as "littering is bad" and how pollution is bad for plants and fish.

Now-a-days my teacher would be accused of teaching an activist agenda by knuckleheads like Srubby.[/quote]

They are not supposed to be taught the morality of littering, that's the parents' job. We parents have responsibilities, remember? It's not up to the State to indoctrine our children to causes, politics, or sexual behavior either.[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh mercy!

edit: to address the rest of your point, though, how much English and math do you think a second grader capable of absorbing in a day? I'd put it at an hour of each, at most. So to round things out you throw in an hour of history, too. So you're left with probably 2 or 3 hours to fill, depending on the school. I'd rather have them learning about social and environmental resposibility than having nap-time, myself, and I don't think it out of the question to start teaching kids about it at a young age.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']They are not supposed to be taught the morality of littering, that's the parents' job.[/quote]

I wasn't aware that there was any moral ambiguity to littering. Is there a case to be made for littering?
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='usickenme']I remember in 2nd grade learning such concepts as "littering is bad" and how pollution is bad for plants and fish.

Now-a-days my teacher would be accused of teaching an activist agenda by knuckleheads like Srubby.[/quote]

Kids, especially kids as young as the ones I saw on TV, are in school to learn basic skills. They are not supposed to be taught the morality of littering, that's the parents' job. We parents have responsibilities, remember? It's not up to the State to indoctrine our children to causes, politics, or sexual behavior either.

Kids that young also don't need political injection, they should be learning long division, how to spell, and basic grammar. When little Johnny gets out of the public school system and can barely read, write, or articulate a thought except on a misspelled posterboard and through a bull horn, we're all in big trouble.

This was obviously a staged media event. The kids were standing around with their thumbs up their asses while teacher and associated Greenthumb Activist made the media rounds advancing their cause to the nearest TV camera. Then they all got hugs. Lovey, lovey, nice, nice. Thanks for being pawns in our propaganda adventure. Now get back to school where you belong.[/quote]

Give me a break. There is an ethical component to all teaching whether you like it or not. While parents are the primary sources of these things, there is nothing wrong with reinforcement at school. Hell, even the declaration of independance calls us to "promote the general welfare". Judging from a few response here, It looks like the ONLY place such responsibilty is taught to some is the school. Education is actually about many things. Kids can actually learn the basics as well as other social issues.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='bmulligan']They are not supposed to be taught the morality of littering, that's the parents' job.[/quote]

I wasn't aware that there was any moral ambiguity to littering. Is there a case to be made for littering?[/quote]

How selfish! When you don't litter, how is someone supposed to get a job cleaning up after your mess. Come on man, we're in a recession, start that littering.

For the record, more logging in wetlands should be done, more pipelines should be sent through Alaska, and we should keep on burning that fossil fuels. It all means jobs and money, and that is the key to this economy. What has the enviornment done for you lately?

/parody
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']The sad part is that many people make that argument for real.

What good is the economy if we are all dead?[/quote]

Yes, don't allow drilling in ANWR, don't burn any coal, don't use any fossil fuels. After all, they will kill us sooner or later.

*drives off in car to go home, cook with a microwave, use a compter, play video games, etc. etc.*
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='Quackzilla']The sad part is that many people make that argument for real.

What good is the economy if we are all dead?[/quote]

Yes, don't allow drilling in ANWR, don't burn any coal, don't use any fossil fuels. After all, they will kill us sooner or later.

*drives off in car to go home, cook with a microwave, use a compter, play video games, etc. etc.*[/quote]

Gee, maybe there's some middle ground.

You know, like not federally subsidizing the sales of SUVs (via classifying them as pickups) and maintaining high enviornmental standards on huge chemical corporations.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='Quackzilla']The sad part is that many people make that argument for real.

What good is the economy if we are all dead?[/quote]

Yes, don't allow drilling in ANWR, don't burn any coal, don't use any fossil fuels. After all, they will kill us sooner or later.

*drives off in car to go home, cook with a microwave, use a compter, play video games, etc. etc.*[/quote]

Gee, maybe there's some middle ground.

You know, like not federally subsidizing the sales of SUVs (via classifying them as pickups) and maintaining high enviornmental standards on huge chemical corporations.[/quote]

I'm in 100% agreement on the SUV thing. What a joke that they get classified as trucks and not passenger vehicles.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']How exactly is classifying an SUV as a truck as opposed to a passenger vehicle a federal subsidy ?[/quote]

Pickup trucks are federally subsidized because they are used in farming, construction, carpentry, and many other trades. Putting SUVs under that "pickup truck" classification allows all the dads in mid-age crisis and gravitationally-disadvantaged soccer moms to buy a cheap SUV at the expense of the average american taxpayer.
 
Im sorry but the difference, scrubking, between God and Rainforests is that: who gets offended by the rainforest? I mean really.

Are anyone's parents gonna call up and say "A teacher at school today told my son/daughter to protect the rainforest, which our family belives IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!"

Since when did protecting the rainforest become a bad thing...I'm sorry but relating this to the Jebus issue is too much of a stretch.
 
[quote name='spyhunterk19'] rainforest, which our family belives IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!".[/quote]

Ha...didn't even relize i made a bad pun :lol:
 
[quote name='spyhunterk19']
Since when did protecting the rainforest become a bad thing...I'm sorry but relating this to the Jebus issue is too much of a stretch.[/quote]

By teaching children to protest against the destruction of the rainforest you limit thier ability to fully understand the situation by only showing them one side. The rainforest is being destoryed beacuase people need to eat and populations require room to expand and because we need lumber.

Its the same reason the Great forests of Europe, the middle east, and N. Africa were cut down by the our ancestors (primarily the Romans) they needed space to expand to, lumber, and fertile soil for crops.

By telling children that the rainforest must be saved without mentioning why it is being destroyed won't solve anything. If you really want to save the rainforest you need to distribute fertilizers and help on city planning so the need to destroy the rain forests for habitation and farming needs is reduced.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='bmulligan']How exactly is classifying an SUV as a truck as opposed to a passenger vehicle a federal subsidy ?[/quote]

Pickup trucks are federally subsidized because they are used in farming, construction, carpentry, and many other trades. Putting SUVs under that "pickup truck" classification allows all the dads in mid-age crisis and gravitationally-disadvantaged soccer moms to buy a cheap SUV at the expense of the average american taxpayer.[/quote]

Facts, please. You're saying the Government pays auto makers to make SUV's instead of passenger vehicles ? Last I checked, SUV's were not cheap.
 
This is not a subsidy. It is allowing a business owner to depreciate the value of a vehicle in the same callendar year it was purchased instead of straight-lining it over five years or amortizing it over seven. There is no added tax benefit. The value is still the same, it just takes a shorter time (1 year) for it to be realized, thereby giving incentive to purchase since it can be deducted from earnings in the same year. This is not a subsidy, or a "credit". Business owners always get to write off 100% of the cost of a vehicle. You might as well say that all tax deductions due to 'costs of doing business' are subsidies.

I doubt very few of you even have experience with itemizing your deductions in the first place.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']This is not a subsidy. It is allowing a business owner to depreciate the value of a vehicle in the same callendar year it was purchased instead of straight-lining it over five years or amortizing it over seven. There is no added tax benefit. The value is still the same, it just takes a shorter time (1 year) for it to be realized, thereby giving incentive to purchase since it can be deducted from earnings in the same year. This is not a subsidy, or a "credit". Business owners always get to write off 100% of the cost of a vehicle. You might as well say that all tax deductions due to 'costs of doing business' are subsidies.

I doubt very few of you even have experience with itemizing your deductions in the first place.[/quote]

Except it's being used extensively by people who aren't business owners, if I'm reading that article right, so while it's not an official subsidy it's certainly providing an incentive to drive SUVs instead of more economical, ecologically friendly vehicles.
 
The article is misleading. They write that it is a "tax break", but it isn't. And, it does not apply to ordinary wage earners, only to "small business owners" who depreciate business property and itemize their business deductions. Only vehicles used for business are given the full depreciation value in the current tax year. If any business owner decides to buy Navigator and deduct it as a business expense but uses the vehicle for personal reasons, he would be in a heap of trouble if the IRS decides to audit. I seem to remember that there were many provisions in this bill that allowed larger equipment and machinery deductions as well.
 
Here is a more detailed paper on the "business SUV" tax break:

http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/whitepapers/SUVtaxbreak.htm

And here is one on mileage standards, which should also be considered (considered a joke that is):

http://www.platinum.matthey.com/media_room/1059647403.html

In short, passenger vehicles in the US have to average 27.5 miles per gallon, but SUVs, trucks and minivans are only required to average 22.2 mpg. This means that SUVs have the cost to make them cut since they don't have to worry about improving fuel efficiency. Why does some idiot driving a Hummer around the city get a break on the cost of his tank while someone driving a compact or hybrid car get no break? It's a joke.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='bmulligan']They are not supposed to be taught the morality of littering, that's the parents' job.[/quote]

I wasn't aware that there was any moral ambiguity to littering. Is there a case to be made for littering?[/quote]

How selfish! When you don't litter, how is someone supposed to get a job cleaning up after your mess. Come on man, we're in a recession, start that littering.

/parody[/quote]


My Landscaping professor throw a tissue paper napkin out the window of the van and my other teacher was freaking out. She's like "Calm down. They make those things so damn small it will decompose in a day. It's only paper, we use paper in landscaping so calm down." It was great.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'] This means that SUVs have the cost to make them cut since they don't have to worry about improving fuel efficiency. Why does some idiot driving a Hummer around the city get a break on the cost of his tank while someone driving a compact or hybrid car get no break? [/quote]
Who gets a break, exactly? SUV owners have to pay more to drive 300 miles than people who own passenger cars. They also end up paying more gas tax for road improvements since they use more gas. Who's getting a "break" here, and from whom ?

And there still is a tax deduction for regular wage earners (not business owners) for buying a hybrid or electric car which is not availible for regular gas burning vehicles.

Can we please get this straight, that the deduction allowance bill is NOT a 'tax break' ? It's mroe of an accounting shift and is not giving anyone anything for free.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='elprincipe'] This means that SUVs have the cost to make them cut since they don't have to worry about improving fuel efficiency. Why does some idiot driving a Hummer around the city get a break on the cost of his tank while someone driving a compact or hybrid car get no break? [/quote]
Who gets a break, exactly? SUV owners have to pay more to drive 300 miles than people who own passenger cars. They also end up paying more gas tax for road improvements since they use more gas. Who's getting a "break" here, and from whom ?[/quote]

So by your logic, because SUV owners have to buy more gas to go the same distance, they deserve a subsidy to the purchase price of their vehicles and perhaps deductions if they use the SUV for business. That seems fair and makes sense. :roll:

[quote name='bmulligan']Can we please get this straight, that the deduction allowance bill is NOT a 'tax break' ? It's mroe of an accounting shift and is not giving anyone anything for free.[/quote]

Allowing tax deductions is a tax break because it reduces taxes. The part about SUVs having more lax MPG standards isn't technically a tax break, more of a subsidy for SUV buyers.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So by your logic, because SUV owners have to buy more gas to go the same distance, they deserve a subsidy to the purchase price of their vehicles and perhaps deductions if they use the SUV for business. That seems fair and makes sense. :roll:[/quote]
Actually, it DOES make sense if they're legitimately buying the SUV because they need it for their business. The problem is just the loopholes in the tax laws that make it profitably for a number of individuals to buy SUVs when they really SHOULD be buying smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Allowing tax deductions is a tax break because it reduces taxes. The part about SUVs having more lax MPG standards isn't technically a tax break, more of a subsidy for SUV buyers.
Click to expand...
For SUV makers, actually. The buyers wind up paying extra for gas, the makers get off cheap because they don't have to put the work in to make the vehicles fuel-efficient.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='elprincipe'] This means that SUVs have the cost to make them cut since they don't have to worry about improving fuel efficiency. Why does some idiot driving a Hummer around the city get a break on the cost of his tank while someone driving a compact or hybrid car get no break? [/quote]
Who gets a break, exactly? SUV owners have to pay more to drive 300 miles than people who own passenger cars. They also end up paying more gas tax for road improvements since they use more gas. Who's getting a "break" here, and from whom ?[/quote]

So by your logic, because SUV owners have to buy more gas to go the same distance, they deserve a subsidy to the purchase price of their vehicles and perhaps deductions if they use the SUV for business. That seems fair and makes sense. :roll:

[quote name='bmulligan']Can we please get this straight, that the deduction allowance bill is NOT a 'tax break' ? It's mroe of an accounting shift and is not giving anyone anything for free.[/quote]

Allowing tax deductions is a tax break because it reduces taxes. The part about SUVs having more lax MPG standards isn't technically a tax break, more of a subsidy for SUV buyers.[/quote]

They are NOT getting a subsidy. They are not receiving a payment from the government to purchase the SUV's. They are purchasing them with profits from their company and depreciating (deducting) their value in one year instead of five. Any business owner can deduct the full value of any machinery, tool or vehicle used for business purposes. This law allows them to make the deduction in 1 year, not five or seven. They still pay full price for the vehicle, full price for all the fuel for the vehicle. You need to learn a little more about business and how they operate before you can understand the intent and practice of this law, becuase you don't seem to understand the diferences between tax break, tax deduction, or subsidy.

A tax break example:

joe business pays 32% income tax on their profits. The government reduces the rate to 30%. This is a tax break.

A tax deduction example:

Joe businessman pays $42 for the latest videogame and sells it for $50.
Joe doesn't pay taxes on $50 worth of income, he pays tax on the $8 profit he made from the sale of the game. That $42 deduction from income is the cost of doing business and is 'written off' from gross receipts before paying taxes.

A subsidy:

Joe Businessman Buys an SUV for his business. The government pays him $2000 to purchase the vehicle.
Click to expand...

The government is NOT doing #3. They're doing #2 and allowing Joe to deduct the cost of his new delivery truck in the same year he purchased it instead of having to spread it out over time. Therefore Joe decides to buy the truck this year instead of never.
 
Well, I hope you're all happy. You had your fun with your continued and baffling use of the word subsidy. Well, I'll tell you something that's not so funny. Right now, bmulligan is at home crying like a little girl!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top