Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Election 2012: DNC Week

15758606263106

Posts

  • KingofMadCowsKingofMadCows Registered User regular
    Wait, how often was 9/11 mentioned during the Republican Convention?

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Wait, how often was 9/11 mentioned during the Republican Convention?

    I think once by Condi and maybe once by McCain? Not often.

    If you watched the convention, you might be forgiven for thinking the years 2001-2009 never existed. Or perhaps that they were run by a Democratic super-majority.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Romney wants us to look at his record. Well, his record in government is making his state 47th in job creation.

    So, there's that.

    What was it prior to Romney's governorship?

    I haven't a clue. But even if he took them for 50 to 47, that's not a very strong record to be flopping around on stage with. Like Chris Christie and his 48th place finish.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    I recognize a disturbing number of those speakers. And I like a lot of them.

    I'm weirdly kind of bummed Hillary's not speaking considering my feelings about her four years ago around now. I know she's busy doing useful stuff, but other cabinet secretaries are!

    My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
    fugacity
  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    So do we know for sure Obama will get the nod at the DNC, or is there a chance for an upset?
    Spoiler:

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    At some point someone just needs to say, "I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of Romney outsourcing more jobs to China."

    Fartacus_the_Mighty
  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    So do we know for sure Obama will get the nod at the DNC, or is there a chance for an upset?
    Spoiler:

    Has an incumbent president ever not secured the nomination?

    Honestly curious.

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Behemoth wrote: »
    So do we know for sure Obama will get the nod at the DNC, or is there a chance for an upset?
    Spoiler:

    Has an incumbent president ever not secured the nomination?

    Honestly curious.

    LBJ sort of. He would have lost so badly he didn't even run. Before that... Andrew Johnson, I think.

    Carter, Ford, and Taft faced very strong challengers (Ted Kennedy, Reagan, and TR respectively) and held on. Of course, TR ran anyway and gave us Wilson, so thanks for that Teddy.

    My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    White boy issues ↑
    MKRtapeslinger
  • Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    Grover Cleveland lost it at the 1896 convention. Badly.

  • TheLawinatorTheLawinator Registered User regular
    edited September 2012
    Behemoth wrote: »
    So do we know for sure Obama will get the nod at the DNC, or is there a chance for an upset?
    Spoiler:

    Has an incumbent president ever not secured the nomination?

    Honestly curious.

    LBJ sort of. He would have lost so badly he didn't even run. Before that... Andrew Johnson, I think.

    Carter, Ford, and Taft faced very strong challengers (Ted Kennedy, Reagan, and TR respectively) and held on. Of course, TR ran anyway and gave us Wilson, so thanks for that Teddy.

    If we had the alternative vote, that wouldn't have happened!

    TheLawinator on
    My SteamID Gamertag and PSN: TheLawinator
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    "He looks beaten down, that's what disturbs me," Maher said, in response to a question about how Obama is handling his mid-term defeat. "I thought, when we elected the first black president, as a comedian, I thought in two years that I'd be making jokes about what a gangsta he was. Not that he's President Wayne Brady, but I thought we were getting Suge Knight."
    Isn’t Obama’s big problem that he does everything half-assed? Maybe it’s because he’s only half black … If he was fully black, I’m telling you, he would be a better president. There’s a white man inside him holding him back because everything is half-assed. The stimulus was half-assed, healthcare is half-assed …

    I cannot stand him.

    My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
  • GimGim Registered User regular
    edited September 2012
    Absalon wrote: »

    I had never heard of Dinesh D’Souza before seeing this interview and, from what I experienced, I haven't been missing anything of substance or consequence.

    Gim on
  • Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    Speaking of D'Souza, if you're a fan of the "inside weird conservative colleges" minigenre of magazine articles, this one's good.

    It's really bizarre that anyone still uses "anticolonial" as a pejorative.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Grover Cleveland lost it at the 1896 convention. Badly.

    He was never put into nomination really. And refused to run for a third term on the third party the subset of Democrats he led created. So I'm not sure he counts.

    My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited September 2012
    That would be the most selfish thing anyone at that convention did, and two people launched their 2016 campaigns.

    Then again that might just be the single most Republican thing someone could do.
    Gim wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »

    I had never heard of Dinesh D’Souza before seeing this interview and, from what I experienced, I haven't been missing anything of substance or consequence.

    Everything I know about him is based on the wikipedia article on his movie 2016:The NObamaing (or the Obummering?) and he sounds fucking crazy. Not like, loony toons, but speculates and then draws odd conclusions from his odd speculations. It basically boils down to Im an immigrant and I love America! He spent time outside the US and now he hates it! and then he draws conclusions from there.

    EDIT: After watching the Maher clip D'Souza appears to be a total dickbag and I dont think my analysis was totally off the mark.

    And D'Souza saying Dreams of my Father actually means Obama was writing a book about his fathers dreams is fucking crazy. You know, because if you get past the cover you find out its a book about a kid seeking to learn about the father he never knew.

    emp123 on
    camo_sig2.png
    Harry Dresden
  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Paranoiac Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    Catching up on The Daily Show. OH. MY. GOD. Herman Cain.

    How was he a nominee anyway? "Well Blacks are polling 0% for Romney because they didn't bother to interview anybody that wasn't a degenerate unemployed stereotype."

    Herman Cain, you are BLACK.

    Also "Well I don't disagree with the intent or wording of the law regarding the Welfare Waivers but there is def something wrong with it because...OBAMA"

  • ShadowenShadowen Registered User regular
    Hey, it's like he said: some people, deliberately or involuntarily, partially or completely, pull the reins on their personality...and Herman Cain does not do that.

    Bored in the Morning
  • GimGim Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    EDIT: After watching the Maher clip D'Souza appears to be a total dickbag and I dont think my analysis was totally off the mark.

    And D'Souza saying Dreams of my Father actually means Obama was writing a book about his fathers dreams is fucking crazy. You know, because if you get past the cover you find out its a book about a kid seeking to learn about the father he never knew.

    I was kind of curious what he meant by Obama's "rage".

    And as mentioned above, yeah, I just can't take someone seriously who bandies about "anti-colonialism" as though it was a damning character trait.

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    Gim wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    EDIT: After watching the Maher clip D'Souza appears to be a total dickbag and I dont think my analysis was totally off the mark.

    And D'Souza saying Dreams of my Father actually means Obama was writing a book about his fathers dreams is fucking crazy. You know, because if you get past the cover you find out its a book about a kid seeking to learn about the father he never knew.

    I was kind of curious what he meant by Obama's "rage".

    And as mentioned above, yeah, I just can't take someone seriously who bandies about "anti-colonialism" as though it was a damning character trait.

    Well see, hes black therefore rage.

    He gets all Charles Bronson up in the White House you see.

    I have no idea what the fuck that guy was talking about.

    camo_sig2.png
  • ArchArch Trust me, I'm a scientist Registered User regular
    So, I was looking at Romney's energy plan in the news and got curious about US and North America oil production/consumption and crunched some numbers.
    North American energy independence by 2020,

    So, concluding all of these countries as North America: US, Canada, and Mexico. We have 74.3 billion barrels of proven reserves between the three of us. And roughly 20.68 billion barrels here in the US (2011). Estimates of proven reserves in in 2010 were 30.9 billion in the US, but that number has been decreasing from 33.3 billion in 1990.

    The US used roughly 19.15 millions of barrels a day in 2010 (an increase in 2.0% from 2009) and roughly 18.84 millions of barrels a day in 2011 (1.6% decrease).

    Since Romney wants to get rid of laws for car effeciency, we'll stick with the 2010 numbers for consumption, not including any dramatic changes such as climate, wars, advances in effeciency or market increases on cars or other oil consuming products. We'll just keep it simple and stick with past trends. So, doing some math we use roughly 6.99 billionbarrels a year in the US alone (number one in the world USA USA!)If we became truely energy independant, we would use up all of our reserves by 2022, maybe 2023. This numbers are the US consumption number alone, while counting all of NA proven reserves!

    Lowering to the 2011 consumption numbers (6.88 billion barrels per year, lower number, so oil lasts longer) and if we count just the US's reserves, we run out of oil in three years.

    End State: Do it with all of North America and we use a total of 23.16 millions of barrels per day or 8.45 billion a year (2011). Numbers say NA goes dry in just under 9 years.

    Conclusion: Mitt Romney's energy plan is full of horse shit, unless when he says independence by 2020, he means out of fucking oil.


    Thank Baby Jesus he wants to cut back on those usless near infinite energy sources like wind and the fucking Sun! Really glad that he wants to deregulate fuel efficiency standards! But don't worry, free market will fix it!

    This post did not get the love it deserves, and sir i think you are not as confused as your forum handle would have us believe

    VariableMKRtapeslingerJust_Bri_ThanksShadowenBehemothCalixtusMalReynolds
  • Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    Grover Cleveland lost it at the 1896 convention. Badly.

    He was never put into nomination really. And refused to run for a third term on the third party the subset of Democrats he led created. So I'm not sure he counts.

    True, but it seems to me that he and his allies were planning to put him in until it became clear that he was never winning the nomination (which was early in the convention with the adoption of a plank condemning the Cleveland admin for its role in breaking up the Pullman strike). Nomination hopefuls typically didn't attend the convention during this time period (Jennings broke with that tradition). His (unsuccessful) attempt to regain labor's support with the declaration of labor day also speaks to his plans for reelection, in my view.

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    The article from The Stranger raised a good point without taking it to a more logical conclusion.

    Patriotism, as the far-right would champion it, is arguably a virtue of collective action and communality. One isn't a supporter of his or her nation in the terms of an individual relationship, because that is not what a nation is and that is not what any meaning of patriotism could possibly support. Patriotism is the pride and faith in one's country and their fellow countrymen; the latter is a communal association that hopefully need not be further delineated, while the former, once examined at even a cursory level, recalls an affiliation and cooperation bound by the rule of law.

    Patriotism is the antithesis of individualism.

    shrykeBehemoth
  • VariableVariable Therasys AnustartRegistered User regular
    Catching up on The Daily Show. OH. MY. GOD. Herman Cain.

    How was he a nominee anyway? "Well Blacks are polling 0% for Romney because they didn't bother to interview anybody that wasn't a degenerate unemployed stereotype."

    Herman Cain, you are BLACK.

    Also "Well I don't disagree with the intent or wording of the law regarding the Welfare Waivers but there is def something wrong with it because...OBAMA"

    at least he apologized for that at the end

    the thing about not answering phones was embarrassing and also obviously dumb. like even if you concede the incredibly racist point he was going for... what about all these other polls that somehow manage to contact people with jobs

    I'm afraid I just blue myself
    Sig%20-%20Blue%20Myself.jpg
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Registered User regular
    Slightly off-topic here but: there are so many nukes that - after countries assign them to major military, industrial and population centers - there are plenty left over to make sure you can specifically target any business of somewhat significant size.

    This assumes any country would willingly start a nuclear war with the United States. The only potential nuclear threat would be a dirty bomb from a terrorist, and I doubt they'd have enough to go through the all the major military, industrial, and population centers. Those target lists have a cold war mentality that just doesn't apply to the modern world.

    IMO, if I was a terrorist and figured I couldn't hit New York with a dirty bomb, I'd aim for some place like Bangor or Shreveport. In some ways, that'd be worse than hitting one of the megacities - it wouldn't be possible for people to say "I'm safe here in small town America."
    So, I was looking at Romney's energy plan in the news and got curious about US and North America oil production/consumption and crunched some numbers.
    North American energy independence by 2020,

    So, concluding all of these countries as North America: US, Canada, and Mexico. We have 74.3 billion barrels of proven reserves between the three of us. And roughly 20.68 billion barrels here in the US (2011). Estimates of proven reserves in in 2010 were 30.9 billion in the US, but that number has been decreasing from 33.3 billion in 1990.

    The US used roughly 19.15 millions of barrels a day in 2010 (an increase in 2.0% from 2009) and roughly 18.84 millions of barrels a day in 2011 (1.6% decrease).

    Since Romney wants to get rid of laws for car effeciency, we'll stick with the 2010 numbers for consumption, not including any dramatic changes such as climate, wars, advances in effeciency or market increases on cars or other oil consuming products. We'll just keep it simple and stick with past trends. So, doing some math we use roughly 6.99 billionbarrels a year in the US alone (number one in the world USA USA!)If we became truely energy independant, we would use up all of our reserves by 2022, maybe 2023. This numbers are the US consumption number alone, while counting all of NA proven reserves!

    Lowering to the 2011 consumption numbers (6.88 billion barrels per year, lower number, so oil lasts longer) and if we count just the US's reserves, we run out of oil in three years.

    End State: Do it with all of North America and we use a total of 23.16 millions of barrels per day or 8.45 billion a year (2011). Numbers say NA goes dry in just under 9 years.

    Conclusion: Mitt Romney's energy plan is full of horse shit, unless when he says independence by 2020, he means out of fucking oil.


    Thank Baby Jesus he wants to cut back on those usless near infinite energy sources like wind and the fucking Sun! Really glad that he wants to deregulate fuel efficiency standards! But don't worry, free market will fix it!

    I'd also like to point out that though this looks at all NA reserves, there's no guarantee that we Canadians are willing to sell you all of our oil. In some ways, it makes more sense for Canada to build the Northern Gateway Pipelines to British Columbia, so we wouldn't be held hostage to the America market.

    Unless of course Romney plans to annex Canada.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    The only appropriate reactions have already been made: Maddow's WTF and OFA's "This Seat's Taken"

    This doesn't meant I'll be upset if Matt Damon comes out and gives a speech about education but Eastwood's speech is not worth the time and bandwidth to talk about it. It was sad, rambly, and a perfect representation of the GOP (an old man yelling at an empty chair).

    Man, Matt Damon giving a speech on education at the DNC would be awesome. And not because of the celebrity factor.

    I'm annoyed that the DNC keynote speaker is Bill Clinton. The party needs to build its bench, give it to someone new. Preferably Elizabeth Warren.

    The DNC keynote speaker isn't Bill Clinton its Julian Castro the mayor of San Antonio. Its generally thought he got the spot because he's Latino and because this could launch him as a much bigger figure. Warren is also speaking just before Clinton.

    Total speaker list
    Spoiler:

    Eva Longoria is an Obama campaign co-chair?

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Inertiatic Dynamo Lawtonok, TexomaRegistered User regular
    She can co-chair my campaign anyday. :winky:

    Spoiler:
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    I was talking to my wife today about a Clinton commercial cause she thought it was odd that there were no Bush commercials. She doesn't follow too, much, but it did remind me again how badly Romney and co are running from Bush and blaiming Obama.

    Clinton speaking is a reminder that no former president is endorsing Romney. You show GWB and it reminds people of 2000 to 2008, you show GHWB and it reminds people of GWB. You show Clinton and it reminds people of who came next.

    So I think Clinton is a strategically sound move. Remind voters how far we've come.

    Dubya did endorse Romney (what a surprise). The difference is he's not doing it on the national stage, unlike Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. Which you're right, is very telling about how Romney wants to keep a distance from him.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Hey, it's like he said: some people, deliberately or involuntarily, partially or completely, pull the reins on their personality...and Herman Cain does not do that.

    Cain has no reason to do that anymore. Not when he was no longer a contender in the Republican primaries. Now he's cashing in on his fame and having fun rubbing it in to the GOP who rejected him.

  • NocrenNocren Still AwesomeRegistered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    The only appropriate reactions have already been made: Maddow's WTF and OFA's "This Seat's Taken"

    This doesn't meant I'll be upset if Matt Damon comes out and gives a speech about education but Eastwood's speech is not worth the time and bandwidth to talk about it. It was sad, rambly, and a perfect representation of the GOP (an old man yelling at an empty chair).

    Man, Matt Damon giving a speech on education at the DNC would be awesome. And not because of the celebrity factor.

    I'm annoyed that the DNC keynote speaker is Bill Clinton. The party needs to build its bench, give it to someone new. Preferably Elizabeth Warren.

    The DNC keynote speaker isn't Bill Clinton its Julian Castro the mayor of San Antonio. Its generally thought he got the spot because he's Latino and because this could launch him as a much bigger figure. Warren is also speaking just before Clinton.

    Total speaker list
    Spoiler:

    Eva Longoria is an Obama campaign co-chair?

    I had this same thought but then remembered that Kal Penn quit acting (for the most part) to join Obama's staff a couple years back.

    newSig.jpg
  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    Wait, how often was 9/11 mentioned during the Republican Convention?

    I think once by Condi and maybe once by McCain? Not often.

    If you watched the convention, you might be forgiven for thinking the years 2001-2009 never existed. Or perhaps that they were run by a Democratic super-majority.

    Obama is the 13th Regeneration of The Doctor, and used the TARDIS to ruin America by pulling a full Kazran on the noble President Bush.

    that's it, I'm shutting this entire forum down, everyone thank buttcleft
  • YogoYogo Registered User regular
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited September 2012
    Behemoth wrote: »
    So do we know for sure Obama will get the nod at the DNC, or is there a chance for an upset?
    Spoiler:

    Has an incumbent president ever not secured the nomination?

    Honestly curious.

    I see a lot of people answering this question with kindasorta and almosts, but I don't think I saw anyone mention Willard Fillmore, who really and truly actually was an incumbent President (from 1850 through 1853) and failed to secure the nomination of his party (the Whigs, who were deeply divided over the issue of slavery and decided to nominate some guy who got blown out of the water by Franklin Pierce). It was the death knell of the Whig Party and eventually gave way to the rise of the Republicans.

    SammyF on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    This is a good thing to read: http://pressthink.org/2012/08/presspushback/

    It's an overview of critical coverage of the "our campaign won't be run by fact checkers" thing.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Romney wants us to look at his record. Well, his record in government is making his state 47th in job creation.

    So, there's that.

    To be fair to Romney, you can't blame everything on him as Governor. He was a bad Governor, don't get me wrong. He literally spent most of the last year, year and a half of his single term outside the state running for President.

    But the Governor in Massachusetts is among the weakest executives at the state level in the country, and it was more so when Romney was running things. A lot of executive power has been removed to independent commissions or the independently elected Governor's Council. And the Dems in the Legislature have veto proof majorities easily (80% in both chambers).

    Romney's record was middling in terms of how the state did at that time. When he came in, 9/11 and the dot-com bubble had hurt the state. By the time he left it was normalized but it didn't have much to do with him. So the 47th in job creation is completely accurate but a bit harsh. I think it was about that level when he started, and right in the middle when he ended(like 25th), but the combined ranking over those four years was 47th. Romneycare was something he was much more a key player in than most of matters of government at the time, but even that was modified fairly heavily by the Legislature (if not any of the primary controversial components that passed to the ACA we hear about today). And he supported the overall law, although he did veto several parts (Republican vetoes were almost always overridden as they were here).

    Romney had very little power to stop the Legislature when they wanted something
    In a television ad for his presidential campaign[2007], Romney asserts, ''I know how to veto. I like vetoes. I've vetoed hundreds of spending appropriations as governor.''

    What he doesn't say is the Legislature overrode those vetoes almost at will. When the House decided to challenge him, Romney was overridden 99.6 percent of the time: 775 to 3, according to the House minority leader's office. In the Senate, Romney was overridden every time, often unanimously.

    In more than 100 instances, Democrats did not contest Romney and the vetoes stood.

    He won a few victories. In 2004, the Legislature let stand Romney's veto of in-state tuition discounts at state colleges for illegal immigrants and sustained his veto of a one-year moratorium on publicly funded charter schools.

    On budget line items, the vast majority of his vetoes, Romney's success waned - in his first year, lawmakers let stand 21 percent of his cuts; in his last, they restored all of them. ''As the financial condition of the state improved, the Legislature was more inclined to override and spend more money,'' Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's spokesman, said.

    But DiMasi, the Democratic speaker, pointed to dwindling Republican support: ''You didn't even have to debate ..... Even the Republicans voted against him.''

    Of 283 budget veto overrides in 2006, Romney failed to attract a single Republican vote on 81 roll calls in the Senate and 60 in the House, records show.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    MSNBC is reporting (vis a vis the NY Times) that Eastwood's speech was unwritten, improvised, and thought up at the very last minute. The inclusion of the empty chair was something that he told no one about and the actual chair itself was taken from a grip backstage, apparently completely unprepared for in advance.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    MSNBC is reporting (vis a vis the NY Times) that Eastwood's speech was unwritten, improvised, and thought up at the very last minute. The inclusion of the empty chair was something that he told no one about and the actual chair itself was taken from a grip backstage, apparently completely unprepared for in advance.
    Allowing an unwritten and improvised speech would require the GOP to be completely retarded and so bad at this that they should never be allowed anywhere near the presidency.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    MSNBC is reporting (vis a vis the NY Times) that Eastwood's speech was unwritten, improvised, and thought up at the very last minute. The inclusion of the empty chair was something that he told no one about and the actual chair itself was taken from a grip backstage, apparently completely unprepared for in advance.
    Allowing an unwritten and improvised speech would require the GOP to be completely retarded and so bad at this that they should never be allowed anywhere near the presidency.

    Yeah not planning it doesn't make it substantially better than planning something bad.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    Particularly since they've been hyping a "mystery speaker" for a couple of weeks, I would be stunned if they hadn't put at least a little bit of preparation into it.

    Like I would be less stunned to learn that Toy Story 3 was a documentary.

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    "Ladies and gentlemen, our next speaker is a famous celebrity we paid a lot of money to come here in hopes that our primary demographic, the old and crotchety, will get even more wound up than they are right now. Experts tell us that's not possible, but we literally got nothing else to go on. Now, with completely unseen and unvetted remarks based on his personal philosophy of social objectivism that's at direct odds with the party platform, I give you the inane ramblings of . . . . Clint Eastwood!!"


    Later


    "I have no idea how that could have gone so poorly."

    tapeslingerMKRKid PresentableBehemoth
This discussion has been closed.