Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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!

[Super Commitee] is prepped for fail.

2456712

Posts

  • dojangodojango Registered User regular
    also, his dad is bad at metaphors. Probably an engineer as opposed to an english major.

  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    shryke wrote:
    The Super Committee should get together and create an "Ultra Committee" to do the Super Committee's job for it. It could be a 4 member, 2 Dems 2 Pubs, panel with a set deadline and a deal that gets passed automatically if they don't get a deal done by the deadline!!!

    I'd rather go with a Mega-Ultra-Super-Committee that's 1 Democrat and 1 Republican slap-fighting each other live on C-SPAN.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    3lwap0 wrote:
    I blame Grover Norquist. His ATR group has the GOP caucus by the balls.

    I heard a story that as a kid, his dad would take him out for ice cream (his dad was a VP at polaroid). Then he'd take bites out of his ice cream, as a way to explain taxes. "That's the government, that's local taxes, that's state taxes".

    Which leads me to think Norquist had one fucked up childhood.
    Yeah. And Ronald Reagan's son saying that when he asked for a bigger allowance, his dad would say that his taxes were too high for that, but if the president cut his taxes, he'd be able to do it, which is why Ronald Reagan Jr. favors tax cuts. Fortunately, nobody gives a shit what Ronald Reagan Jr. says, particularly about lies his father told him.

  • 3lwap03lwap0 Registered User regular
    3lwap0 wrote:
    I blame Grover Norquist. His ATR group has the GOP caucus by the balls.

    I heard a story that as a kid, his dad would take him out for ice cream (his dad was a VP at polaroid). Then he'd take bites out of his ice cream, as a way to explain taxes. "That's the government, that's local taxes, that's state taxes".

    Which leads me to think Norquist had one fucked up childhood.
    Yeah. And Ronald Reagan's son saying that when he asked for a bigger allowance, his dad would say that his taxes were too high for that, but if the president cut his taxes, he'd be able to do it, which is why Ronald Reagan Jr. favors tax cuts. Fortunately, nobody gives a shit what Ronald Reagan Jr. says, particularly about lies his father told him.

    Which seems contradictory. Regan raised taxes quite a bit during his presidency, and even as governor of California.

    I think Pringles original intention was to make tennis balls... but on the day the rubber was supposed to show up a truckload of potatoes came. Pringles is a laid-back company, so they just said, "Fuck it, cut em up!".
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    The Ender wrote:
    You know what would be nice? An empirical politics.

    GOP: "These guys are being totally obstinate. They didn't wanna cut $1 of spending if it wasn't matched by $.50-1.00 in tax increases!"

    Dems: "That's right. Here's a chart and some graphs showing unequivocally that public sector spending (and specifically the spending in question in Hypothetical Cutting Proposal XYZ) is more stimulative to the larger economy than decreased taxes on the subset in question in this proposal. Therefore, the spending is from an economic stimulus perspective proportionally more valuable than the tax cuts."

    And then Multivac analyzes both proposals, and actually forces the adoption of the one that makes the most empirical sense.

    This will be the thing that drives Multivac to figure out how to self-terminate.

    MKR on
  • ChanusChanus Sugoi! ^_____^Registered User regular
    3lwap0 wrote:
    3lwap0 wrote:
    I blame Grover Norquist. His ATR group has the GOP caucus by the balls.

    I heard a story that as a kid, his dad would take him out for ice cream (his dad was a VP at polaroid). Then he'd take bites out of his ice cream, as a way to explain taxes. "That's the government, that's local taxes, that's state taxes".

    Which leads me to think Norquist had one fucked up childhood.
    Yeah. And Ronald Reagan's son saying that when he asked for a bigger allowance, his dad would say that his taxes were too high for that, but if the president cut his taxes, he'd be able to do it, which is why Ronald Reagan Jr. favors tax cuts. Fortunately, nobody gives a shit what Ronald Reagan Jr. says, particularly about lies his father told him.

    Which seems contradictory. Regan raised taxes quite a bit during his presidency, and even as governor of California.

    Look. What he did and what Sean Hannity says he did are two different things and only one is True American to believe.

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Hey look, the parties are different. In this case, the GOP is retarded, as usual. Fortunately, too, because the Democrats gave away the farm again.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • DistramDistram __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2011
    Hey look, the parties are different. In this case, the GOP is retarded, as usual. Fortunately, too, because the Democrats gave away the farm again.

    As I stated previously, it is our best interest to call the Republicans' bluff at every single turn. However, as the Democrats and Republicans are the left and right hands of Wall Street, that is unlikely; they'll keep putting on the show while working together to screw the middle-class.

    Distram on
  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    It's amazing how much dems can complain and blame Reps for a situation Dems created.
    "We have a super majority! Pass a budget? that seems like it would be a lot of work/ hurt us in the 2010 election."
    "OMG, we lost our super majority! The other party wants things that we don't want! HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED!?"


  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    When one side is willing to give up damn near everything and the other side won't give an inch, you place blame accurately.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    BSoB wrote:
    It's amazing how much dems can complain and blame Reps for a situation Dems created.
    "We have a super majority! Pass a budget? that seems like it would be a lot of work/ hurt us in the 2010 election."
    "OMG, we lost our super majority! The other party wants things that we don't want! HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED!?"

    It's amazing how terrible your understanding of the situation is.

    Like, seriously, one side was trying to destroy the world economy.

    shryke on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    BSoB wrote:
    It's amazing how much dems can complain and blame Reps for a situation Dems created.
    "We have a super majority! Pass a budget? that seems like it would be a lot of work/ hurt us in the 2010 election."
    "OMG, we lost our super majority! The other party wants things that we don't want! HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED!?"
    You realize that their "super majority" only existed for a handful of months, and included Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Mary Landrieu, who are about as Democratic as Mitt Romney, right?

    Also, that the Republicans were filibustering literally everything?

    Thanatos on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    BSoB wrote:
    It's amazing how much dems can complain and blame Reps for a situation Dems created.
    "We have a super majority! Pass a budget? that seems like it would be a lot of work/ hurt us in the 2010 election."
    "OMG, we lost our super majority! The other party wants things that we don't want! HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED!?"

    I like the implicit assumption that any member of congress not in the majority is utterly irrelevant and should be ignored.

  • CantelopeCantelope Registered User regular
    BSoB wrote:
    It's amazing how much dems can complain and blame Reps for a situation Dems created.
    "We have a super majority! Pass a budget? that seems like it would be a lot of work/ hurt us in the 2010 election."
    "OMG, we lost our super majority! The other party wants things that we don't want! HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED!?"

    I like the implicit assumption that any member of congress not in the majority is utterly irrelevant and should be ignored.

    It seems the biggest problem with the democratic party is that some of them actually believe in Democracy.

  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-obama-and-democrats-outsmarted.html?spref=fb

    Thought this was an interesting take on the whole deal. While a lot of people were quick to chalk this up as a failure for Obama originally, it's looking like this was really they best they could do when they Republicans were threatening to burn down the world.

    I've been saying for a while in the politics threads -- if you were required to come up with $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction measures, and you weren't allowed to raise taxes but could only cut spending, 50% of those cuts coming from DOD is the absolute best plan any Democrat could hope for, politically speaking. Discretionary defense spending constitutes around 15% of the overall Federal budget (minus debt service payments), so if you can force the 15% pie wedge to assume 50% of the cuts, that's a lot of cuts that aren't going to have to come from entitlement or domestic discretionary spending programs.

    I would have preferred to give back some of that defense spending in exchange for a little more domestic spending and some tax hikes, and that ought to have been an achievable plan if not for the anti-tax wing of the Republican party. But the automatic cuts are much, much better for us than they are for Republicans, which is why they're the ones clamoring to undo them.

    I see some people complaining that Dems rolled over on something or other, but in terms of which side lost more, we took Eric Cantor to the cleaners, and we're eating John Boehner's lunch.

    SammyF on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Well, the only reason we're getting the trigger (spoiler: we're not getting the trigger, Congress will remove DoD cuts) is because the GOP was obstinate is the point of the Democrats caved people.

    Now the GOP will run on the Democrats wanting to cut Medicare, Social Security, and raise taxes... without having to lie, except by omission (that they want to do all of those things too).

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • dbrock270dbrock270 Registered User regular
    I wonder how many people think that the GOP is actually trying to save the economy but the Dems and the big bad evil Obama are destroying any opportunity they have.

  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Well, the only reason we're getting the trigger (spoiler: we're not getting the trigger, Congress will remove DoD cuts) is because the GOP was obstinate is the point of the Democrats caved people.

    Now the GOP will run on the Democrats wanting to cut Medicare, Social Security, and raise taxes... without having to lie, except by omission (that they want to do all of those things too).

    Question: why do you believe a bill to remove DOD cuts will make it through the Senate without a rider to put in the tax increases we'd been trying to get them to agree to in the first place?

    Because that language is already being drafted. They can basically copy/paste it from the staff documents from the Super-Committee.

    SammyF on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Well, the only reason we're getting the trigger (spoiler: we're not getting the trigger, Congress will remove DoD cuts) is because the GOP was obstinate is the point of the Democrats caved people.

    Now the GOP will run on the Democrats wanting to cut Medicare, Social Security, and raise taxes... without having to lie, except by omission (that they want to do all of those things too).

    I don't think the automatic cuts can come from any of the programs you mentioned.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    shryke wrote:
    Well, the only reason we're getting the trigger (spoiler: we're not getting the trigger, Congress will remove DoD cuts) is because the GOP was obstinate is the point of the Democrats caved people.

    Now the GOP will run on the Democrats wanting to cut Medicare, Social Security, and raise taxes... without having to lie, except by omission (that they want to do all of those things too).

    I don't think the automatic cuts can come from any of the programs you mentioned.

    They don't, but the deal the Dems offered and the GOP rejected did.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote:
    Well, the only reason we're getting the trigger (spoiler: we're not getting the trigger, Congress will remove DoD cuts) is because the GOP was obstinate is the point of the Democrats caved people.

    Now the GOP will run on the Democrats wanting to cut Medicare, Social Security, and raise taxes... without having to lie, except by omission (that they want to do all of those things too).

    Question: why do you believe a bill to remove DOD cuts will make it through the Senate without a rider to put in the tax increases we'd been trying to get them to agree to in the first place?

    Because that language is already being drafted. They can basically copy/paste it from the staff documents from the Super-Committee.

    Because there are a bunch of Senate Democrats that suck?

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    shryke wrote:
    Well, the only reason we're getting the trigger (spoiler: we're not getting the trigger, Congress will remove DoD cuts) is because the GOP was obstinate is the point of the Democrats caved people.

    Now the GOP will run on the Democrats wanting to cut Medicare, Social Security, and raise taxes... without having to lie, except by omission (that they want to do all of those things too).

    I don't think the automatic cuts can come from any of the programs you mentioned.

    Not without a new law, which has to make it out of both chambers of Congress, including the Senate, and it has to be signed by the President, who isn't going to sign it.

    ...I know it's been a while since you've seen it, but rejoice, motherfuckers. This is what winning looks like. We won. Hug each other, you bastards.

  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    HeraldS wrote:
    Brought in through Mexico, produced in Columbia, grown in Peru and Bolivia. Definitely won't qualify for the "Made in America" sticker.

    But... All those places are America.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    They're a merica. Not the merica.

    And you don't see it often enough to know and remember, but stuff made in the USA says "Made in USA."

    MKR on
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    Did anyone not see this coming? The GOP does not fear the trigger because they know the Dems will cave and restore the defense spending in a heartbeat because they're spineless gutless rats and thats the only part of the cuts they don't like. The Dems don't fear the trigger because itdoesnt touch the big entitlements and they're such spineless gutless rats they don't care about even pretending to give a shit about anything else.

  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Well, the only reason we're getting the trigger (spoiler: we're not getting the trigger, Congress will remove DoD cuts) is because the GOP was obstinate is the point of the Democrats caved people.

    Now the GOP will run on the Democrats wanting to cut Medicare, Social Security, and raise taxes... without having to lie, except by omission (that they want to do all of those things too).

    I don't think the automatic cuts can come from any of the programs you mentioned.

    Not without a new law, which has to make it out of both chambers of Congress, including the Senate, and it has to be signed by the President, who isn't going to sign it.

    ...I know it's been a while since you've seen it, but rejoice, motherfuckers. This is what winning looks like. We won. Hug each other, you bastards.

    Yes, it's the reverse of this summer's debt-ceiling circus, where legislation had to be passed or else $bad_shit_happens. Back then the GOP could stall everything because we needed both houses to agree on a deal. The deal was, "put it off till November, and if no deal is reached, X cuts from $Stuff_Republicans_Love and X cuts from $Stuff_Democrats_Love."

    No deal was reached, so the only way to avoid those cuts is to pass a new bill and not get it vetoed, and whichever side tries to push a bill where only their pet projects are removed from the cuts comes out looking like the jackass who's reneging on the deal.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Well, the only reason we're getting the trigger (spoiler: we're not getting the trigger, Congress will remove DoD cuts) is because the GOP was obstinate is the point of the Democrats caved people.

    Now the GOP will run on the Democrats wanting to cut Medicare, Social Security, and raise taxes... without having to lie, except by omission (that they want to do all of those things too).

    I don't think the automatic cuts can come from any of the programs you mentioned.

    Not without a new law, which has to make it out of both chambers of Congress, including the Senate, and it has to be signed by the President, who isn't going to sign it.

    ...I know it's been a while since you've seen it, but rejoice, motherfuckers. This is what winning looks like. We won. Hug each other, you bastards.

    Yes, it's the reverse of this summer's debt-ceiling circus, where legislation had to be passed or else $bad_shit_happens. Back then the GOP could stall everything because we needed both houses to agree on a deal. The deal was, "put it off till November, and if no deal is reached, X cuts from $Stuff_Republicans_Love and X cuts from $Stuff_Democrats_Love."

    No deal was reached, so the only way to avoid those cuts is to pass a new bill and not get it vetoed, and whichever side tries to push a bill where only their pet projects are removed from the cuts comes out looking like the jackass who's reneging on the deal.

    Exactly! Also anyone who wants to eliminate one part of the cuts is going to have to open his bill up to a rider from every other member who wants another part of the cuts eliminated. A clean bill will never make it past a cloture vote in the Senate because once one Senator shows up to renegotiate the deal, everyone else is going to line up with their pie plate and fork in hand, expecting their own piece. And you aren't going to get 60 votes in favor until everyone's well and fully fed.

    And all they can do is whine and shriek about it the same way we whine and shriek whenever we get riders hung all over our bills or can't get any cross-over votes for cloture!

    Dance, fuckers, dance!

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    I just wish I thought the Democrats won intentionally here. Nice to get a win, buuuut...

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote:
    Well, the only reason we're getting the trigger (spoiler: we're not getting the trigger, Congress will remove DoD cuts) is because the GOP was obstinate is the point of the Democrats caved people.

    Now the GOP will run on the Democrats wanting to cut Medicare, Social Security, and raise taxes... without having to lie, except by omission (that they want to do all of those things too).
    Question: why do you believe a bill to remove DOD cuts will make it through the Senate without a rider to put in the tax increases we'd been trying to get them to agree to in the first place?

    Because that language is already being drafted. They can basically copy/paste it from the staff documents from the Super-Committee.
    Because there are a bunch of Senate Democrats that suck?
    Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with enlightenedbum. The Democrats will probably topple like a house of cards.

  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    I think we did, Bum. People who believe the Republicans aren't terrified right now don't know who Pat Toomey is. When No-Taxes-Over-My-Dead-Body Toomey starts with the Enron/Bear Stearns-style accounting to try and find a way that he can raise tax revenues while claiming that he's actually lowering tax rates across the board, everyone ought to know which side is winning.

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    I just wish I thought the Democrats won intentionally here. Nice to get a win, buuuut...
    Only when discussing Democratic politics is 'not surrendering unconditionally' the same thing as an actual victory. And that's even assuming they don't immediately cave on reversing the defense cuts, which I think is giving them way too much credit.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    JihadJesus wrote:
    I just wish I thought the Democrats won intentionally here. Nice to get a win, buuuut...
    Only when discussing Democratic politics is 'not surrendering unconditionally' the same thing as an actual victory. And that's even assuming they don't immediately cave on reversing the defense cuts, which I think is giving them way too much credit.

    No, even if they cave on defense cuts, it's better than the committee making anything.

    Preferences:
    1) Liberal utopia bill (tax hikes on rich, further stimulus, defense cuts, etc)
    2) DO NOTHING
    3) Trigger
    4) Trigger - defense cuts
    5) Anything the committee produces

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    The win here is that now the GOP has to be proactive. They've been forced into a position where they have to pass something or risk a big loss.

    For the rest of the Obama presidency, it's been the opposite. Which was a win for the GOP who are great at stalling shit.

  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    JihadJesus wrote:
    I just wish I thought the Democrats won intentionally here. Nice to get a win, buuuut...
    Only when discussing Democratic politics is 'not surrendering unconditionally' the same thing as an actual victory. And that's even assuming they don't immediately cave on reversing the defense cuts, which I think is giving them way too much credit.

    No, even if they cave on defense cuts, it's better than the committee making anything.

    Preferences:
    1) Liberal utopia bill (tax hikes on rich, further stimulus, defense cuts, etc)
    2) DO NOTHING
    3) Trigger
    4) Trigger - defense cuts
    5) Anything the committee produces

    This is all true. The consequence of restoring defense spending (which I don't think will happen for the reasons outlined above -- it's just too hard to find the cloture votes in the Senate to get that bill through) isn't automatic cuts to social security or something. The consequence is that you're only removing $600 billion from the economy and not $1,200 billion.

    I want to keep the number at $1,200 billion right now because that's just too fucking valuable as negotiating leverage to pass up for use in the future, but spending $600 billion to pay an American to weld airplane parts together isn't exactly the end of the world.

    There is no way here for us to lose unless you're prone to Thanatos's cynical view where Democrats lose because we're Democrats and that's what we're good at. If you happen to believe that, there's nothing I can do to persuade you otherwise, so I shall not bother. All I can do though is point out that we're holding a full house, aces over kings, and Republicans are holding a pair of threes.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote:
    There is no way here for us to lose unless you're prone to Thanatos's cynical view where Democrats lose because we're Democrats and that's what we're good at. If you happen to believe that, there's nothing I can do to persuade you otherwise, so I shall not bother. All I can do though is point out that we're holding a full house, aces over kings, and Republicans are holding a pair of threes.
    We were in the same situation with the debt ceiling, but folded anyway because the Republicans threatened to flip the table.

  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    Well now if they flip the table, they still have to deal with $600 billion in defense cuts.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote:
    SammyF wrote:
    There is no way here for us to lose unless you're prone to Thanatos's cynical view where Democrats lose because we're Democrats and that's what we're good at. If you happen to believe that, there's nothing I can do to persuade you otherwise, so I shall not bother. All I can do though is point out that we're holding a full house, aces over kings, and Republicans are holding a pair of threes.
    We were in the same situation with the debt ceiling, but folded anyway because the Republicans threatened to flip the table.

    How were the Dems in the same spot with the debt ceiling?

    The debt ceiling was something that needed to be done and the GOP was bound and determined to see it not happen. That's the opposite of this.

  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    I'm hesitant to call this a "win", but I think the Dems are coming out ahead.

    And Obama is getting plenty of ammo for a campaign against congress.

  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Thanatos wrote:
    SammyF wrote:
    There is no way here for us to lose unless you're prone to Thanatos's cynical view where Democrats lose because we're Democrats and that's what we're good at. If you happen to believe that, there's nothing I can do to persuade you otherwise, so I shall not bother. All I can do though is point out that we're holding a full house, aces over kings, and Republicans are holding a pair of threes.
    We were in the same situation with the debt ceiling, but folded anyway because the Republicans threatened to flip the table.

    You know what, I'm super glad you brought that up, Thanatos, because I have been predicting this exact outcome since your thread on the debt ceiling negotiations after the President signed the Budget Control Act of 2011, which codified into law exactly the terms of why we were able to hold the line on future cuts and how we're going to eventually win the public debate on new taxes. You characterized that as a loss and a surrender; I said that on the contrary, we were going to be able to create a scenario in which Republicans were forced to defend defense cuts against tax increases, which is exactly what happened.

    The OP asked if anyone was surprised the super-committee couldn't come to an agreement, and the universal answer has been "no." Exactly this outcome was fore-ordained because back when you thought we were losing, we were actually laying the groundwork for winning.

    SammyF on
  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    Yeah, really. You could make the case that the Democrats folded on the debt ceiling because they would rather not see the economy collapse.

    But now they have something that the GOP wants: they can stall, amend, or veto any bill that tries to exempt Defense from the agreed-upon automatic cuts. Why would they fold on that unless they were offered something of equal value (like, say, revenue increases or reduced cuts to social programs)?

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
This discussion has been closed.