The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='UncleBob']Only spending can cause deficit spending.[/QUOTE]

So let's say my spending increases commensurate with my salary increase (i.e., not much at all). I am not suddenly "running a deficit," yet my spending has gone up. That is, if you want to continue to use stupid analogues and metaphors like "we're runnin' up the credit card, herp derp."

Deficits are an effect of the *combination* of revenues and expenditures not matching. To argue that one or the other is responsible is foolhardy. Remember, I'm the hardcore ultra leftist liberal, and you probably fancy yourself a "moderate" or somesuch. You are staunchly and dogmatically opposed to any tax increase or loophole change that might make General Electric pay *something, anything* in taxes, and I'm the one willing to consider increases in revenues and spending cuts. Think about how that makes you look; I, the hardcore partisan, evoke agreement on the need to compromise on issues; you cling to your brand of religion, unwilling to budge and unwilling to see the harm you bring to politics, but would dare place yourself in the middle of the political spectrum.

This is why we can't have nice things, because one side will not budge on the issue at all and thinks they are presenting themselves as willing to work to solve an issue. This is why we have candidates running for one party, who *uniformly* opposed, during a debate to impress their base (i.e., you), a hypothetical bill with a 10:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases.

This is why you and your side are not to be taken seriously.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So let's say my spending increases commensurate with my salary increase (i.e., not much at all). I am not suddenly "running a deficit," yet my spending has gone up. That is, if you want to continue to use stupid analogues and metaphors like "we're runnin' up the credit card, herp derp."

.[/QUOTE]

If your salary increases you are running a surplus until you adjust your spending to match it.

Like I said, it is irresponsible to cut taxes without adjusting for the drop in revenue through spending. However letting people keep THEIR money is not the government spending money.
 
While I agree that we need more revenues and while I would increase taxes a large amount, I do not believe that tax cuts = spending. If we have zero revenue we can have zero spending. Since we can not have zero spending we obviously need some kind of taxes. However, you cant argue that there is an exact number we need to make a goverment function and thus a necessity for exactly X in taxes and anything below that then is akin to spending and thus I see the argument as invalid.

As I said I am all for tax increases and I think that deficits are indeed a mix of tax cuts and spending. I just dont think that it magically makes tax cuts a form of spending, it just means that spending and taxation are out of wack in this case.

Edit - And god dammit Myke I hate you for making me agree with Knoell......
 
[quote name='Knoell']However letting people keep THEIR money is not the government spending money.[/QUOTE]

such an argument inherently makes two emotional assumptions:
1) government spending = bad
2) people not paying taxes = good

since it's a wholly emotional claim, it loses its footing in any kind of logical policy argument.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Oh hey look, bullshit semantics.[/QUOTE]

Its not semantics if you have people saying the only reason we have a deficit is because of tax cuts.

Again like I said before if someone came out with a solid plan that raises taxes and cuts spending to get rid of the deficit, I would be all for it. The problem is that either side won't budge. Democrats won't put the big ticket social programs on the table because we are "bankrupting" them, and republicans won't put loopholes, subsidies, and upper class tax increases on the table because it wouldnt be "fair".

When we are running this kind of a deficit these things don't matter and they should be working for a bi partison solution. Problem is neither side will budge.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']such an argument inherently makes two emotional assumptions:
1) government spending = bad
2) people not paying taxes = good

since it's a wholly emotional claim, it loses its footing in any kind of logical policy argument.[/QUOTE]

And the rich paying less taxes was never an emotional argument. Ha!

such an argument inherently makes two emotional assumptions:
1) rich people paying less taxes = bad
2) government spending = good
 
your #2 is a flagrant strawman.

the rich paying more in taxes is rooted in the fact that the bush cuts were temporary because they were intended to be temporary; extending them is futile.

you're approaching unclebob territory with the quality of your posts.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']your #2 is a flagrant strawman.

the rich paying more in taxes is rooted in the fact that the bush cuts were temporary because they were intended to be temporary; extending them is futile.

you're approaching unclebob territory with the quality of your posts.[/QUOTE]

Quality of my posts? 90% of it was mimicking and mocking your post. That is interesting.

Anyways the bush tax cuts cut taxes across the board. You can argue that the rich get to keep more money from it, but that is ignoring proportions. If taxes are progressive, why should tax cuts be different?
 
if you want to argue proportions, you're barking up the wrong tree, my friend.

you are then, in fact, arguing for an increase solely on the taxes of the top 10% of income earners.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']if you want to argue proportions, you're barking up the wrong tree, my friend.

you are then, in fact, arguing for an increase solely on the taxes of the top 10% of income earners.[/QUOTE]

I am all for the top 10% paying their taxes. 35% is plenty if they actually pay it. I wouldnt be opposed to letting the Bush tax cuts expire either, so long as the economy is doing better.
 
Taxes were cut during multiple wars, I don't know what point knoell thinks he is making and I don't care.

The economy did pretty damn good when taxes were higher on rich people.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

On the real tip. Hey spmahn, you're a bit more on the level than the other blundering fools who fancy themselves GOP/conservatives around here. I have a challenge for you:

1) explain the difference between a RINO and a moderate Republican
2) identify an example of each, citing the votes or policy stances they took that would place them into each category.[/QUOTE]

I actually hate terms like RINO because it serves nothing more than to drive away dissenting opinion and force blind loyalty. To me however a moderate as opposed to a Republican or a RINO is someone who mostly adheres to the party line but is willing to admit that most issues aren't black and white and opinions on such can't be reduced to 10 second soundbites. Abortions for some, miniature American Flags for others!

Amongst Republicans the term RINO seems to be used to separate the Libertarian types like Olympia Snowe or Ron Paul from the Bible Thumpers like Mike Huckabee or Rick Perry.

I'm the wrong person to ask about party politics however, I can't stand them. I usually vote Republican using faulty lesser of two evils reasoning, but really I'm more of an uncompassionate ideolouge than anything else.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I never claimed that last post was brilliant or any different from what I was accusing you guys off. The difference is that I on a regular basis elaborate on my views and why I hold them. The other day I was discussing something with someone else when dohdoh came in and asked me to expand on something I said, I did, he asked me to further expand, I did and one more time he asked and I did. No response from him came, no debate, no putting his own theory on the table and defintly no facts or links to back anything up. A few days later in a different topic he took a cheap little pot shot relating to something I said days before. So apparently he had made a judgement and disagreed, yet was too cowardly to actually do anything.

This is the way you both tend to act. While many members of the board like Myke or Feeding the Abscess put their thoughts out and then right or wrong at least try to stand behind them/debate , you and dohdoh just pop in, make snippy/snide little comments and then duck out. Even when you stay involved you bounce back and forth across different subjects with every post being a quick childish jab that often has nothing to do with the debate at hand(thus changing the subject). The only time I have seen either of you actually truly communicate and try and have a real discussion is Dohdoh on race since again for some reason thats the trigger that sets him off. Real quick, the other thing is that when one of you does raise a good point the other just brushes it off, neither of you have the ability to concede when someone makes a good point if its something you dong agree with.

Anyways ill duck out/drop it now. I just found it amusing watching the two of you go at it these last two pages in the same way I find a dog chasing his tail amusing. It went round and round, never went anywhere and the only purpose it served was to amuse me ;)[/QUOTE]
You also said that we somehow both made "good points," which would mean that somehow, his lack of being critical is the exact same as me adding nuance. And excuse me if I don't respond to every post I agree/disagree with. It's not like you address all my points when I engage you either. The only reason why we're similar to you is because bob generally goes no deeper into an issue than you do.

Or how about you read this editorial and reflect on it a little:
http://exiledonline.com/the-rally-t...brates-its-homeric-struggle-against-lameness/
 
[quote name='camoor']You got it! Yay![/QUOTE]

+1 Why don't some of the usual suspects explain to the non-koolaid drinkers why cutting taxes for the mega-rich is a good idea and how it benefits anyone.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Pointing out the Democratic Party's inability to work together as a team doesn't really go very far into helping you establish an argument against my statement degrading the Democratic Party's (lack of) ability to get anything meaningful done.[/quote]
If their inability to act cohesively doesn't prove why they couldn't get anything done, then wtf is your explanation for it other than they just couldn't get anything done while crossing your arms and looking smug?

This is an interesting statement. Are you saying citizens on the "left" elect people to office that don't reflect their views/concerns?
Click to expand...
Yes. There's much more inconsistency on the left than the right.

Somehow, the "right" is evil/stupid because the citizens elect people who - on a vast majority of issues - actually reflect their political and social agenda (i.e.: what the politicians are saying reflects what the people who vote for/support them want)... but the "left" is wholesome/good/awesome because they constantly elect people who can't get their acts together and don't support what their constituents want, therefore don't have any kind of unified message that their voters can get behind?
Click to expand...
I never said the left is "good." I only assert that it is on a sliding scale of better. And yes, leftist messaging sucks. Not to mention that many democrats aren't classic liberals, but neo-liberals. And no, they're not the same thing and neo-liberalism isn't some form of super-liberalism.

As for you point about the right, well...polls show that people are more left than they think they are. Especially when it comes to Gini index and on healthcare, but hey, marketing works or else companies wouldn't be spending billions of dollars on it. Why do you think elections are so expensive? It's not because the best candidates get the most money.

Besides, a party who's philosophy is "take, take, take" shouldn't be expected to understand what teamwork and cooperation means.
Click to expand...
Oh the irony! We all want nice things, but those on the right don't want to pay for them, whereas those on the left, want to make it easier to have nice things, but understand that you HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM.
 
Someone explain to me which party best represents the "takers".

For some reason I believe the clown car crowd has it upside down.

The usual suspects will bitch endlessly about an infusion of cash to a corporation to keep tens of thousands of jobs (in this case the auto industry) and then fight to the death against reforms that take away revenue from an "industry" that is nothing but a middle man and kills people with its inefficiencies.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Someone explain to me which party best represents the "takers".

For some reason I believe the clown car crowd has it upside down.

The usual suspects will bitch endlessly about an infusion of cash to a corporation to keep tens of thousands of jobs (in this case the auto industry) and then fight to the death against reforms that take away revenue from an "industry" that is nothing but a middle man and kills people with its inefficiencies.[/QUOTE]

Good point. Personally speaking, I can get so lost in the politics that I lose sight of just how horrific the philosophy of modern conservatism has become.
 
[quote name='camoor']Good point. Personally speaking, I can get so lost in the politics that I lose sight of just how horrific the philosophy of modern conservatism has become.[/QUOTE]

It is why I don't respond to the cons when they bring up tax cuts/the deficit, they blow massive holes in the budget to reach their stated goal of bringing us back to the gilded age.

Relatively few people would vote for them if they came right out and said it, so they need to lie and blur reality.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Taxes were cut during multiple wars, I don't know what point knoell thinks he is making and I don't care.

The economy did pretty damn good when taxes were higher on rich people.[/QUOTE]

the economy did pretty damn good because of the bubbles you dunce. The 4 and a half % had little to do with it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Deficits are an effect of the *combination* of revenues and expenditures not matching.[/QUOTE]

Deficits are caused by spending more than you take in. Yes.

However, we could, in theory, cut tax rates to zero or raise them to 100% for everyone - and if we don't adjust spending to a rate lower than tax incomes, we have deficit spending.

Until we understand - and apply - that, it doesn't matter what tax rates are.

And, for the record, I'm not against tax increases - so long as they're done in a way that makes sense and they're accompanied by spending cuts as well. I mean real spending cuts. Not "We spent $100 last year and planned to spend $110 this year, but, instead, we'll only spend $108." I'm talking about cutting it down to $98 or $95. Unless it's military spending... then we could go to $75 or lower.

[quote name='dohdough']If their inability to act cohesively doesn't prove why they couldn't get anything done, then wtf is your explanation for it other than they just couldn't get anything done while crossing your arms and looking smug?[/quote]

It *does* help to show that the Democrats can't get anything done. Which is my point. Whine and gripe about the "obstructionist" Republicans all you want, but the Democratic party has no clear path, goal, plan or agenda with no organization and no structure.

Not to mention that many democrats aren't classic liberals, but neo-liberals. And no, they're not the same thing and neo-liberalism isn't some form of super-liberalism.
Click to expand...

Correct! With your "left-wing" folks, you've got your "classic liberals", your Socialists, your Communists, etc. Lumping all these people into the same group is a bit folly.

Likewise, with the "conservative" or "right-wing" side of things, you have your hard-core Republicans, your Libertarians, your Constitutionalists, and, to some extent, your "Tea Party" members. Is it fair or does it make sense to lump these guys into the same group?

Oh the irony! We all want nice things, but those on the right don't want to pay for them, whereas those on the left, want to make it easier to have nice things, but understand that you HAVE TO MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PAY FOR THEM FOR YOU.
Click to expand...

ftfy.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It *does* help to show that the Democrats can't get anything done. Which is my point. Whine and gripe about the "obstructionist" Republicans all you want, but the Democratic party has no clear path, goal, plan or agenda with no organization and no structure.[/QUOTE]
No. Your point was to show that the Democrats had the ability to act unilaterally in the Senate and in Congress despite the fact that an unprecedented record number of filibusters were filed and the filibuster-proof majority was only held for a matter of weeks(per Msut77). The fact that Democrats are fractured is basically irrelevant in the light of obstructionism. Without the obstructionism, much more could've been done. Instead, we had birthers, death panels, and PPACA=white slavery.

Correct! With your "left-wing" folks, you've got your "classic liberals", your Socialists, your Communists, etc. Lumping all these people into the same group is a bit folly.
Click to expand...
Socialists and communists aren't democrats and largely marginalized on the left. The same can't be said for the right.

Likewise, with the "conservative" or "right-wing" side of things, you have your hard-core Republicans, your Libertarians, your Constitutionalists, and, to some extent, your "Tea Party" members. Is it fair or does it make sense to lump these guys into the same group?
Click to expand...
Of course you can lump them together. The right gives them a disproportianate voice! Have you looked at your potential presidential candidates?

ftfy.
Click to expand...
Oh for fucks sake. You DO realize that what you fixed doesn't negate the fact that the right still doesn't want to pay for the nice things it still wants, right?
 
[quote name='dohdough']No. Your point was to show that the Democrats had the ability to act unilaterally in the Senate and in Congress despite the fact that an unprecedented record number of filibusters were filed and the filibuster-proof majority was only held for a matter of weeks(per Msut77). The fact that Democrats are fractured is basically irrelevant in the light of obstructionism. Without the obstructionism, much more could've been done. Instead, we had birthers, death panels, and PPACA=white slavery.[/quote]

My point was - and still is - that the Democratic Party had majority control of the House, the Senate and held the White House and was unable to get anything done.

You're the one that attempted to infuse the "it's the Republican's fault" argument, then tried to back that up with the fact that the Democratic Party is so unorganized and un-unified that they can't get anything done.

Socialists and communists aren't democrats and largely marginalized on the left.
Click to expand...
Really? I guess that's why the Democrats caucus with a self-proclaimed Socialist Senator?

Oh for fucks sake. You DO realize that what you fixed doesn't negate the fact that the right still doesn't want to pay for the nice things it still wants, right?
Click to expand...

I was fixing that for /you/.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']My point was - and still is - that the Democratic Party had majority control of the House, the Senate and held the White House and was unable to get anything done.

You're the one that attempted to infuse the "it's the Republican's fault" argument, then tried to back that up with the fact that the Democratic Party is so unorganized and un-unified that they can't get anything done.[/QUOTE]
HAVING A MAJORITY DOES NOT EQUAL FILIBUSTER PROOF.

There were literally 59 Democrats in the Senate. Sanders the Socialist and Lieberman the crypto-Republican DOES NOT MAGICALLY GIVE THEM 60 DEMOCRATS. I've given at least 3 reasons why nothing was done and you've given shit while talking in circles, while shifting the Democrats from being a monolithic entity to factions.

Show your goddamned work.

How the fuck do you propose the Democrats get past the filibuster and if there IS a way, would you then support its use? Of course you don't. That's why your argument is worthless. You're more than happy that nothing got shoved down your throat and that the Republicans filibustered every chance they got.

Even WITH the fractured Democrats, their legislation could've passed if there weren't filibusters up the arse. You saying that it was all on the Democrats is an outright lie when it's painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain that the Republicans filibustered the hell out of AT LEAST the last 3 years.

Really? I guess that's why the Democrats caucus with a self-proclaimed Socialist Senator?
Click to expand...
Are you fucking dense? Wanting his support is different from supporting him en masse. Which they DON'T. He made an 8 hour speech on the Senate floor, you know who paid attention to the things he said? Nobody.

I was fixing that for /you/.
Click to expand...
Are you autistic or developmentally challenged? Seriously, if you are, let me know and I'll tone it down. Cause you know what kind of people use these types of jabs? Children...and you seem to have the mind of one.
 
The Republicans are much more ideologically pure and they vote as more or less a uniform bloc. Anyone who says differently is a liar, troll or lunatic. FYI the dems did get a fair amount of things passed but everything took ten times longer or was watered down horrendously.
 
[quote name='dohdough']HAVING A MAJORITY DOES NOT EQUAL FILIBUSTER PROOF.

There were literally 59 Democrats in the Senate. Sanders the Socialist and Lieberman the crypto-Republican DOES NOT MAGICALLY GIVE THEM 60 DEMOCRATS. I've given at least 3 reasons why nothing was done and you've given shit while talking in circles, while shifting the Democrats from being a monolithic entity to factions.[/quote]

Fine. You're right. I concede. In spite of the fact that Democrats did have a filibuster-proof majority (again, counting those who caucus with them), in spite of the fact that they controlled the House, Senate and the White House and in spite of the fact that they rolled in on a huge wave of support from their energized base (what percentage did Obama win by again?), it's all the Republican's fault that they got nothing of substance done.

How the fuck do you propose the Democrats get past the filibuster and if there IS a way, would you then support its use? Of course you don't. That's why your argument is worthless. You're more than happy that nothing got shoved down your throat and that the Republicans filibustered every chance they got.
Click to expand...

Show your work. Show me a single time that the Republicans actually filibustered. Hint Threat of Filibuster does not equal Filibuster.

And you are, for the most part, correct. I am happy nothing got shoved down my throat. Though it would have been nice to see some cuts in military spending, hard deadlines set for a withdraw from Iraq, an end to the PATRIOT Act (oh, wait... most of them ended up voting for that), an end to DOMA, some major changes on the "Drug War" front... All kinds of things that Democrats supposedly support...

Even WITH the fractured Democrats, their legislation could've passed if there weren't filibusters up the arse. You saying that it was all on the Democrats is an outright lie when it's painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain that the Republicans filibustered the hell out of AT LEAST the last 3 years.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. Apparently, it's okay that some Democrats are "fractured" and don't agree with the Democratic "agenda", but the Republicans are evil jerks because they didn't fall in line with the Democratic "agenda".

Are you fucking dense? Wanting his support is different from supporting him en masse. Which they DON'T. He made an 8 hour speech on the Senate floor, you know who paid attention to the things he said? Nobody.
Click to expand...

Show your work. When was the last time any Senator rambled on the floor for 8 hours where anyone hung on his every word?

An 8-Hour speech? Man, that sounds like a filibuster.

Are you autistic or developmentally challenged? Seriously, if you are, let me know and I'll tone it down. Cause you know what kind of people use these types of jabs? Children...and you seem to have the mind of one.
Click to expand...

...says the guy who can't make a single post without throwing out insults at anyone who dares disagree with him.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Fine. You're right. I concede... it's all the Republican's fault that they got nothing of substance done.[/QUOTE]

Democrats share a little of the blame but this is still the most factual thing you have ever said.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Fine. You're right. I concede. In spite of the fact that Democrats did have a filibuster-proof majority (again, counting those who caucus with them), in spite of the fact that they controlled the House, Senate and the White House and in spite of the fact that they rolled in on a huge wave of support from their energized base (what percentage did Obama win by again?), it's all the Republican's fault that they got nothing of substance done.[/QUOTE]
Majority in numbers DOES NOT EQUAL majority control. If it did, filibusters wouldn't matter. Funny how that works and has been proven time and time again! We're you working doubles at Walmart when all this was going down or something?

Show your work. Show me a single time that the Republicans actually filibustered. Hint Threat of Filibuster does not equal Filibuster.
Click to expand...
Senate culture actually dictates that the threat is enough and has been for decades. You've clearly used a cheatsheet. Oh and "work" doesn't mean what you think it means.

And you are, for the most part, correct. I am happy nothing got shoved down my throat. Though it would have been nice to see some cuts in military spending, hard deadlines set for a withdraw from Iraq, an end to the PATRIOT Act (oh, wait... most of them ended up voting for that), an end to DOMA, some major changes on the "Drug War" front... All kinds of things that Democrats supposedly support...
Click to expand...
If you're so glad you weren't sodomized, then you've lost your moral standing on the ability to criticize the Democrats for not getting anything done when the Republicans were the main contributing factor. The Republicans are complicit no matter how you cut it.

This is interesting. Apparently, it's okay that some Democrats are "fractured" and don't agree with the Democratic "agenda", but the Republicans are evil jerks because they didn't fall in line with the Democratic "agenda".
Click to expand...
Was there an all out smear campaign from the Democrats that labeled Republicans as promoting death panels, 2nd Amendment solutions, and the Republican's equivalent of "Obama, Reid, Pelosi are destroying the country?"

Show your work. When was the last time any Senator rambled on the floor for 8 hours where anyone hung on his every word?
Click to expand...
Shifting of the goal posts eh? What does the Democrats caucusing, therefore implying that they go along with his bills more than occasionally, have to do with listening to his speech? Absolutely nothing.

An 8-Hour speech? Man, that sounds like a filibuster.
Click to expand...
You do not know what a filibuster is and there were no votes that day. Mr Smith Goes to Washington was a fucking movie, not real life.

...says the guy who can't make a single post without throwing out insults at anyone who dares disagree with him.
Click to expand...
I can tolerate disagree and even a little ignorance. In matter of fact, I can actually respect creative insults. What I don't tolerate is outright dishonesty, lazy quips, and a blatant lack of any critical thought, of which you have all three in spades. Not only that, but I often purposely leave holes in my arguments to see if someone I'm arguing is critical enough to catch them. Clearly you've shown that you aren't. Don't blame me for your lack of reasoning skills. Take responsibility for your stupidity and ignorance.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-spars-tea-party-activist-023527637.html

Stay classy some dick in Iowa

Here's one thing that just needs to stop: It's ok because you did it to us
That line of thinking is just absurd. Just because some people called Bush II a nincompoop does not give you free reign to call the next guy even worse if he's not on your team. ESPECIALLY given the call to "respect the office" if not necessarily the man that was during the Bush II era.

I asked my folks the other day if things have ever been this ugly. Politics just sucks now.
 
[quote name='nasum']http://news.yahoo.com/obama-spars-tea-party-activist-023527637.html

Stay classy some dick in Iowa

Here's one thing that just needs to stop: It's ok because you did it to us
That line of thinking is just absurd. Just because some people called Bush II a nincompoop does not give you free reign to call the next guy even worse if he's not on your team. ESPECIALLY given the call to "respect the office" if not necessarily the man that was during the Bush II era.

I asked my folks the other day if things have ever been this ugly. Politics just sucks now.[/QUOTE]

That nagging harpy who jumps in needs to get a life. And try decaf. Jesus.
 
Interesting video. I like the part where Obama tried to invoke Timothy McVeigh to support individuals in his administration calling Tea Party members "terrorists".
 
All hail Mary Queen of Scots!

I have to say I've grown fond of the Queen avatar. It really brings out your feminine side compared to the brooding rogue of yesteryear.
 
;)

EDIT: anyone got some sauce on the '90% of domestic terrorism is left wing' claim?

[quote name='UncleBob']I like the part where Obama tried to invoke Timothy McVeigh to support individuals in his administration calling Tea Party members "terrorists".[/QUOTE]

I don't think that's why he brought up Tim McVeigh. The girl brought up that report DHS put out in early 2009 (started by Bush's lefty-pinko DHS) that said to watch out for right wing extremists, and how Napolitano supposedly said that 'right wingers were extremists that need to be watched out for'. In that context he brought up Tim McVeigh. She then deflected with the 90% claim for which I need sauce.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From his CAG profile:

General Information
  • Last Activity: 09-11-2010 10:46 PM
  • Join Date: 05-13-2005
Click to expand...
From his ebay profile:

iconPos_16x16.gif
Good buyer, prompt payment, valued customer, highly recommended.Seller: Member id depotcn ( Feedback Score Of 245
iconTealStar_25x25.gif
)
Jan-06-11 06:53
Click to expand...

So he's around, somewhere out there.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Ran out of trees to hump.

For this year.[/QUOTE]
Don't lie to us you motherfucker treefucker.
 
I can think of a few groups of people in the US I hate more than self-identified tea party members.

people who comment on yahoo new articles damn near tops that list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top