This moment. Bleh. Is he sending me the
lyrics from an "American Idol" finale song?
What if I told you
It was all meant to be
Would you believe me,
Would you agree
It's almost that feelin'
That we've met before
So tell me that you don't think I'm crazy
When I tell you love has come and now...
A moment like this...
Eh. Sorry, I don't believe you, Barack. The moment is over.
Ann --
When Michelle and I decided that I would run for President, it was because of a shared belief in the power of community and connection, a commitment to the idea that we are our brothers' keepers....
There are a lot of people out there who do not believe we can continue this work.
But we've defied the naysayers before. It was supporters like you who stood up and said...
Am I one of the people who are considered
the 8 million members of "Obama's Army" that seems to have melted back into the civilian population?
Posts
267 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 267 of 267I'm insulting you, Dribbler, for your inability to understand that a tax increase for people making $250,000 a year is not a tax solely on "the rich" and, in fact, negatively affects hundreds of thousands of business owners and hardworking people. These people are exactly the ones you do not want to stifle in economic downturns.
That's right. It's not just that, dipshit. It's also an effort to restore a sense of fiscal sanity that even Reagan wouldn't have had a problem with.
I'm through with you, Meadowlark, because you are a conversation-killing idiot. I will leave you with some homework, though: by what crazy coincidence is it that recessions and depressions always go along with raising taxes and erecting trade barriers and engaging in large-scale government spending?
By the crazy coincidence that this recession is a necessary correction of the housing bubble? And a necessary correction of your belief in other gimmicks?
You fixate on tax policy because you couldn't care less about solvency or the nation's status. All you give a shit about is short-term political "fixes".
Stop posing as someone who uses lessons in economics as anything other than a series of vote-catching bumper stickers.
You're a gimmick and a fraud and you will go down with this sinking ship you helped steer into the icebergs - no matter how many bags of cash you stuffed aboard with you.
Meadowlark -- How is not increasing taxes or even lowering them equal to reducing taxes to zero? Who is arguing for no taxes?
Life is hard, Curly. It's harder when you are stupid.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
Oh look, Ritmo stumbles into yet another thread, making no argument whatsoever and then claims that's what others are doing.
How *gasp* unexpected!
"I said that "citizen-plumbers who lie about their taxes... think... McCain can make them into a millionaire"."
Hey Sport, what about elected Democrats and Democrat appointees who lie about their taxes and then write the rules to make themselves millionaires?
You're known for your verbosity and tortuous logic old boy, but certainly you could tighten up your rhetorical skill as to prevent Mack trucks from barrelling through.
How is not increasing taxes or even lowering them equal to reducing taxes to zero? Who is arguing for no taxes?
Probably the person who thinks that the alternative is, um, taxing them:
So, of course, those people should be taxed.
Your words, Corn Flake. Not mine. The alternative to taxing people is not taxing them.
Life is hard, Curly. It's harder when you are stupid.
It's even harder when you think in sound bites and can't figure out how to say what you mean, ASSHOLE!!! Hahahahaha!!!
ritmo said: "Stop posing as someone who uses lessons in economics as anything other than a series of vote-catching bumper stickers."
Right after a comment by Fen about reducing arguments to bumper sticker length for you to wrap your little mind around.
It's like you're not even trying Ritty.
Ritmo wrote:
Behold 5 Horseshoes' stupendous argument at absolving any tax burden whatsoever for people making more money than the measly poor people he hates so much
THis is going to be the headline after the taxes are raised on the "rich" (meaning upwards of 250,000 income a year) - Poor people hardest hit. Because those earning 250,000 who are job creators will create fewer jobs, and those rich who are 30% of the economy will put less money there meaning other businesses will have to most likely cut back on their workers. 250,000 dollars a year is a tiny business, but
However, if we're going to talk about fairness and if we're going to screw the poor anyway, what say we raise the rich guys taxes but also make those earning under 50,000 pay their fare share too. Since they are after all the primary users of govt services.
I bet if we did, they'd complain about high taxes too.
what about elected Democrats and Democrat appointees who lie about their taxes and then write the rules to make themselves millionaires?
It sounds like they're doing better than "Joe the Plumber" TM, your hero and mine.
He's just an average, ordinary American, dontchaknow?
But Ashton Machos thinks he was just a prop for McCain - and not a Real American, even though the wild tiger he installed as Republican Successor in Chief, Palin, wouldn't hesitate to use him for a second before throwing back under that bus.
Right after a comment by Fen about reducing arguments to bumper sticker length for you to wrap your little mind around.
It's like you're not even trying Ritty.
Did you know it's possible for other comments to post before yours is actually published?
It's like you don't even have a clue.
Next you'll be arguing, a la "Fen", that we watch television shows together.
Ahhh, that's our Ritmo, master of the non-argument.
Good night pinhead.
I take it back, Schtickmo is the blog equivalent of two girls, one cup.
After all that has happened since 2008, after the Hoover-esque Obama presidency that has been defined by a series of disasters and disappointments, I find it hilarious that Ritmo Urban Dribbler is bringing up -- of all the things in the world -- some plumber who had his quaint 15 minutes of fame disagreeing with Candidate Obama.
I'm not a psychologist. I am a lawyer with an economics degree. But I do find it passing strange that of all the things in the world that angry Obama diehards could bring up, it would be this plumber scene. It must be comforting, somehow, to recall those days when people couldn't even disagree with Obama publicly, let alone criticize him.
Those were halcyon days, weren't they? Now, Obama's approval ranking is in the low 40s and sinking lower, and Democratic candidates won't even be seen with him.
To think back on Joe the Plumber must be sweet nostalgia indeed.
garage mahal said...
Future historians will be writing about this point in time as "Obama ruined country, in two years, somehow".
=================
Garage, even if he was the better choice given the awful McCain, based on what voters knew Nov 2008 - what a JOB Obama has managed to do in under 3 years on his Presidency!
Bush was a terrible President, but it seems Obama is one-upping Bush enough that Bush is no longer tied with Jimmy Carter in a nervous race to be the "worst modern President, ever".
The era of Dubya and Mr Hopey-Changey grown Federal Gov't at beyond LBJ levels is happening as China, Europe continue to gut the jobs of useless or impedimental state bureaucrats. As national hindrences and budget-breakers.
Even Raoul Castro announces he is going to be cutting 500,000 useless Federal government employees, especially the "heroes" in their version of Homeland Security.
Brother Fidel admits the Cuban model had many flaws and that Cuba's foreign adventures back in the 70s and 80s to bring "freedom and better institutions" to foreign lands came at Cuba's expense.
When Raoul and Fidel come out - along with a Euro-middle out to toss out useless government busybodies - it chills Obamites and Big Government Bushies.
THis is going to be the headline after the taxes are raised on the "rich" (meaning upwards of 250,000 income a year) - Poor people hardest hit. Because those earning 250,000 who are job creators will create fewer jobs, and those rich who are 30% of the economy will put less money there meaning other businesses will have to most likely cut back on their workers. 250,000 dollars a year is a tiny business, but
However, if we're going to talk about fairness and if we're going to screw the poor anyway, what say we raise the rich guys taxes but also make those earning under 50,000 pay their fare share too. Since they are after all the primary users of govt services.
I bet if we did, they'd complain about high taxes too.
Come on, man. Just admit your interest in those poor souls struggling to keep their hard-earned 250,000/years is about political patronage, and not economics.
The more honest cons on here at least have the balls to admit that Wall Street shouldn't have been bailed out - but ooooohhhhh!!! I'm sure the economic ramifications to that wouldn't have mattered either, right?
Make up yer fuckin' minds and get a coherent philosophy. The current version, Conservatism 2.0, is cracking under the stress of excessive political marketing.
Economic growth is not solely about tax policy, toots. You keep pretending that this is all some big simple machine that with just the right controls tweaked, will do everything you want it to.
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was more seriously conceived than your understanding of the way economies work.
Those were halcyon days, weren't they? Now, Obama's approval ranking is in the low 40s and sinking lower, and Democratic candidates won't even be seen with him.
To think back on Joe the Plumber must be sweet nostalgia indeed.
Not nostalgia, just a good reminder of the kind of idiocy that appeals to a side that can compare a Keynesian to Hoover while denying that Ronald Reagan's approval ratings were not disastrous.
What is wrong with you? Is the 1920s more memorable than the 1980s? It's like recent history goes more easily forgotten by 12 Corn Flakes than the distant past. Either way, you've fucked up on both observations.
But I love the comparison of Obama's policies to Hoover's.
What a dolt. As I said, the kid's just an image. So all he sees is what's on the surface.
Think in sound bites and never see below the surface. It's the motto for a degree earned at Machos University.
Conservatism 2.0, is cracking under the stress of excessive political marketing.
Rasmussen 9/6: Republican +12
I add also that it was largely Republicans who -- wrongly -- did not want to bail out Wall Street and that's one of the things that did them in in 2008. Wall Street provides money for small business and for small banks and home mortgages. When this money goes away, everything in the country goes to shit very, very quickly. The fancy word for this phenomenon is a liquidity crisis.
In 1982, the central bank in the United States had been ramping up interest rates to combat inflation. By 1984, inflation had been tamed, which people rightfully saw as good, and interest rates came down, which stimulated the economy. Voila! Awesome economic growth.
In 2010, interest rates are virtually zero, to combat deflation. The central bank is powerless at this point to effect monetary policy. Inflation has nowhere to go but up, and interest rates have nowhere to go but up. Both of these phenomena hurt an economy, especially an economy that is in recovery. Voila! Goodbye Obama.
Raoul Castro.....cutting 500,000 jobs is cutting 10% of employees in a government post.
In America, it would be like cutting 2.2 million of the 21.9 million in state and Fed jobs.
It is also what every sector of the private economy save perhaps heathcare has done at one time or another.
I mean, the government unions here and a Democrat Party beholden to them would go crazy if they thought a government job was a lifetime sinecure no matter what...but if Raoul Castro can do it, why can't we?
Raoul is also opening up Cuba to 99-year property leases for mining, tourist construction, oil leasing, and gold courses.
Conservatism 2.0, is cracking under the stress of excessive political marketing.
Rasmussen 9/6: Republican +12
You can find Rasmussen credible if you want to. But the fact of the matter is that if people who don't care about deficits get their way, and I rightly include Republicans in this, the politics will have no choice but to give way to a much harsher reality.
Deficits:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
Idiot.
In 2010, interest rates are virtually zero, to combat deflation. The central bank is powerless at this point to effect monetary policy. Inflation has nowhere to go but up, and interest rates have nowhere to go but up. Both of these phenomena hurt an economy, especially an economy that is in recovery. Voila! Goodbye Obama.
Machos must have an incredible sense of integrity to blame on Obama what is essentially only in Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's (a Bush nominee) hands, if even that.
Thanks for the integrity, Machos. You're a credit to an increasingly untrustworthy country.
Taking political hostages with the terrorism they wreak on the economy. It's like the right are a bunch of Economic Islamists.
"Not nostalgia, just a good reminder of the kind of idiocy that appeals to a side that can compare a Keynesian to Hoover while denying that Ronald Reagan's approval ratings were not disastrous."
Reagan's approval rating was measured in November, 1984. As I recall it measured 525 to 13 in the electoral college. And it was 58.8% approval.
I'd be willing to offer 1000 to 1 that Obama won't beat those marks. The only stipulation is that you'll have to wager a minimum of 10,000 US Dollars to get those odds. I'll come up with the 10 million USD for my side of the bet.
Hi! My name is Seven Machos and I don't know who Hank Paulson is or how much money he demanded with no liability for what he did with it in fall of 2008.
Where do you keep your pitchers of Kool Aid? I am quite thirsty.
Geez! These meetings sure are fun!
Dribbler -- So hope and change, unless the Fed chairman disagrees.
Is that your new thesis, Curly. Good luck in Ohio (and Pennsylvania, and the entire South, and Colorado, and Missouri, and Iowa...)
The relevant metric is Reagan's approval ratings in the fall of 1982, Birkel.
At that point, they mirror Obama's current ratings.
Administrations don't have arbitrary time lines.
Hope and change, unless a former Treasury Secretary from two years ago disagrees.
Good luck blaming Bush and, for whatever reason, Joe the Plumber this fall, Sweetwater. You are going to need it.
Is that your new thesis, Curly.
It's called objective reasoning, Ashton - and it's not contingent on what the punditocracy says or thinks.
But keep on keeping on with the Hoover as a Keynesian thing and Obama's ratings 2 years in meaning something different from Reagan's ratings 2 years in. Those are real keepers.
Administrations very much do have arbitrary time lines.
I think that putting Obama in such a terrible position and making him make such awful decisions has been a plot by Karl Rove (and, of course, Henry Paulson).
Good luck blaming Bush and, for whatever reason, Joe the Plumber this fall, Sweetwater. You are going to need it.
Just like you need integrity.
Hey, if people buy a bad argument, they will be stuck with the results. I don't think every good argument is a good political argument.
But then again, I'm not very Ashton Kutcher-like in my thinking about these things now. Am I?
My reference to Paulson was in response to your comment on deficit spending.
Of course, I'm not surprised you chose not to get it.
Deficits:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
Administrations very much do have arbitrary time lines.
Not when it comes to election cycles and approval ratings.
What is with you tonight? Have you tried to see what happens when you actually get sleep?
You piss me off, Curly, when you come on here with guns blaring insulting people. Your very first post was an insult. All posts since have been insults.
This is because you must be a fuck stick.
Hey. I'm just trying to speak your language.
Now what was this new word you taught me? "Fuck Stick"?
Is that some crude way of saying "dildo"?
You must harbor some real contempt for your one true purpose in life to describe such a thing so inartfully.
All posts since have been insults.
Not true. They've also been successful arguments, for the most part.
I think that is what pisses you off. You shouldn't take these things so damn personally, Machos.
So you voted for Obama, and now you're getting him good and hard. Surprise! I guess maybe someone should have warned you...
When I say "your language", I mean the language of the blog.
Machos might not think that insult is the primary mode of political argumentation on Althouse.
That must be because he is blind. And a fuck stick.
If insult were not the primary mode of political argumentation on Althouse, I daresay I would use it a lot less myself.
Wikipedia sez:
In late September 2008, Paulson, along with Bernanke, led the effort to help financial firms by agreeing to use US$700 billion dollars to purchase bad debt they had incurred.
That number sounds familiar to me. That's why I don't mind quoting the source. Too bad it wasn't spent until 2009.
But some people think in pictures and see a "big" bar in 2009. This leads them to believe that what that bar represents in 2009 had nothing to do with a decision made in 2008.
Oh well.
I'm insulting you, Dribbler, for your inability to understand that a tax increase for people making $250,000 a year is not a tax solely on "the rich" and, in fact, negatively affects hundreds of thousands of business owners and hardworking people. These people are exactly the ones you do not want to stifle in economic downturns.
I think that you need to rephrase that - that these are exactly the people you don't want to stifle if you want to get us out of the economic downturn. But you don't care about all the unemployment, lost value, etc., and are just worried about spreading the wealth around, regardless of the cost to society, then increasing taxes on small business owners is just what you want to do.
Seven Machos wrote:
You piss me off, Curly, when you come on here with guns blaring insulting people. Your very first post was an insult. All posts since have been insults.
This is because you must be a fuck stick.
He's just mad because after Breakfast Club and Saint Elmo's Fire he couldn't find any more work and Rob Lowe and Demi stopped returning his calls.
Seven Machos wrote:
You piss me off, Curly, when you come on here with guns blaring insulting people. Your very first post was an insult. All posts since have been insults.
This is because you must be a fuck stick.
He's just mad because after Breakfast Club and Saint Elmo's Fire he couldn't find any more work and Rob Lowe and Demi stopped returning his calls.
Your very first post was an insult. All posts since have been insults.
9/14/10 12:34 AM
Sunsong is shallow. There's really nothing more that needs to be said.
9/13/10 6:09 PM
Same thread.
Come on, man. Just admit your interest in those poor souls struggling to keep their hard-earned 250,000/years is about political patronage, and not economics.
Ok, I will also mention unfairness - that it isn't fair that those who create the most wealth, work the hardest, take the chances, are paying almost all of the income taxes in this country.
But the big reason is that it is stupid economically to raise taxes on their income in the midst of a major recession.
The more honest cons on here at least have the balls to admit that Wall Street shouldn't have been bailed out - but ooooohhhhh!!! I'm sure the economic ramifications to that wouldn't have mattered
either, right?
I will agree. A lot of the firms that were bailed out should have been liquidated. What was esp. egregious were the too-big-to-fail firms, which mostly came out of this smelling like roses, despite being primary culprits in the crash of the sub-prime mortgage market. And then, managed to bribe enough politicians to mostly exempt themselves from the recent financial reform legislation.
But did you notice, that the ones that survived tended to contribute more heavily to Democrats? Somewhat akin to which car dealerships weren't shut down?
Economic growth is not solely about tax policy, toots. You keep pretending that this is all some big simple machine that with just the right controls tweaked, will do everything you want it to.
That may be true, but what clearly doesn't work, never has, and never will, is Keynesian stimulus. The federal government cannot spend its way out of a recession. It didn't work in the 1930s, and it failed even more miserably this time. At least back then, the government wasn't wasting money in the midst of the Great Depression on green initiatives and mandating union labor. And trying to claim that all those state and local government (union) employees who got raises somehow constituted "jobs saved or created".
Face it - this Administration, along with the Democrats in Congress, has managed to flush better than a trillion dollars down the drain paying off their biggest supporters, while deepening the recession through their wantonly reckless borrowing.
If the Republicans manage to win at least one House of Congress in less than two months, there will be two reasons. One is that the Democrats greatly overreached and misread whatever their "mandate" was. But probably more importantly, the people wanted to take away their ability to squander so much of our money, with the only effect being a deeper recession (and a lot of union employees with higher salaries and more secure benefits).
My first post in this thread was:
Weird thread.
Jesus Christ, Dribbler. You can't get one fucking thing right.
I also apologize trying humor with you. I won't do it again.
November...
And Dribbler brings his awesome academic resource to the debate, again.
Hilarious, dude. Simply hilarious.
Face it - this Administration, along with the Democrats in Congress, has managed to flush better than a trillion dollars down the drain paying off their biggest supporters, while deepening the recession through their wantonly reckless borrowing.
I have no doubt that the Republicans will do a much more efficient job of not much more than paying off their biggest supporters - except for those poor, poor business owners - mustn't refer to them as a political interest group, now! - while avoiding any attention to the nation's long-term problems.
And the beat will go on.
And Dribbler brings his awesome academic resource to the debate, again.
Hilarious, dude. Simply hilarious.
What's funnier is that anyone will believe that it wasn't Bush's treasurer who demanded the $700 billion or that Republicans, were it not an election year, would have had a problem with it.
Well, you guys have some gullible guys on your side.
The gullibility goes hand-in-hand with the deceit and over-reliance on marketing, with nary a care for substance.
Not so hilarious. Sad, really.
(As Insta-Retard would say).
My first post in this thread was:
I wasn't referring to your first post. I was referring to the post that shows your inability to practice what you preach.
November...
Yeah yeah yeah, you're nothing but a political whore with no real principles beyond that. We hear you already, ok?
Bye, Meadowlark. See you in a couple weeks when, for your own esoteric reasons, you again decide to go and angrily insult the generally libertarian conservative crowd at Althouse. Make sure to use Wikipedia as your information source, and to make your first post a jerky insult. And blame Bush.
I bet you can do this twice a month until 2020 at least. Especially the Blame Bush part. That shit never gets old. And if it does, well, just bring up that Joe the Plumber guy. Because he's fresh and meaningful in the national memory.
Libtard: Next you'll be arguing, a la "Fen", that we watch television shows together.
Never said that. What I said was that you steal your "latin" from whatever West Wing episode is showing that day.
ie. you're a fraud.
The theme song of O! is actually "Everybody Loves Me Baby (What's The Matter With You?)
Checking in, still in Obamas army: Small businesses dont make more than 250K. Tired of that canard.
But really, keep voting that way-maybe just maybe you will one day be in the club, you know the 2 percenters.
Check out: http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz090610dAPR20100903064544.jpg
Ugh...Ritmo...a word of advice.*
I had a friend once - you remind me of him - who, when we would play catch, he would throw the ball far away from me, in the wrong direction, on the ground, whatever, so I would have to run after it and throw it back to him from wherever.
I believe he thought it made things more interesting but I had to explain to him that the game was CATCH - i.e.,
'Notice, Mike, how when I throw the ball, it always comes right to you so that you can reach out with your hands and pluck it from the air (if you can). That is, I throw it so you can CATCH it. Exercise that hand-eye coordination and so forth.
'Notice the ball/frisbee/whatever never comes TO me when you throw it. So aside from the workout I am getting, running and picking up, I don't get to do any CATCHING.
'We are playing CATCH, not FETCH. Mike, I would never be so impolite as to suggest that you can't throw worth a damn, but assuming you can, try to throw TO me not AWAY from me? Please?'
Ritmo, you may be having pleasure discommoding everyone else with your abrasive, nonresponsive word salad, but it's not really in the spirit of the game.
In the words of Malcolm X,
"We want to talk right down to earth in a language that everybody here can easily understand."
When you are commanding airtime, or rather blog-bits, there is sort of an obligation on you to communicate so that everyone can understand.
When you speak unclearly, it's like Mike throwing the ball in the wrong direction. Again, it raises the question, are you unable to communicate clearly, or are you refusing to do so for some malicious reason?
Not that it matters, perhaps, but keep it up and you may find that people don't want to play with you any more. They will just shake their heads and wonder "What's wrong with that guy?"
* several actually, to be pedantic
Sorry, I don't believe you, Barack.
There are a lot of us who didn't believe him then.
Well nice to see the marks wising up. Finally.
Obama also promised to "go over the budget line by line"
I believe what he really meant was
Obama also promised to "go over budget line by line"
WV: poran - yep.
master cylinder floated this one: "Small businesses dont make more than 250K. Tired of that canard."
No, you're apparently tired of facts.
Somewhere around 50-60% of people who make over 250k are small business owners. I'm buying a small sandwich store which grossed 380k last year.
Keep your fingers off the keyboard you ignorant fool.
Great for you GMay, Do you think that sandwich shop rev is average? I don't. Keep your fingers outta your pants you wanker.
Well, since this thread is spinning out into the ether, I'll add my irrelevant bit.
I think Obama could get some of his mojo back by proposing a national holiday that most intelligent Americans would applaud. How about a National Dick the Butcher Day. We would randomly select a lawyer from each state and hang them at high noon in their respective Capitals.
Let's face it. Most of our problems are government related. What is it that our government folks are forever spouting? We must be for the rule of law! So, government is nothing more than a set of laws and regulations written and enforced by lawyers. So, logic leads us to conclude most of our problems are lawyer related.
It'll be a popular holiday. Especially with any father whoever hummed a few bars of Jerry Reed's "She Got the Goldmine (I Got the Shaft)" as he left court.
Libtard: Next you'll be arguing, a la "Fen", that we watch television shows together.
Never said that. What I said was that you steal your "latin" from whatever West Wing episode is showing that day.
But I don't watch West Wing. Never have.
ie. you're a fraud.
And you're a flaming homosexual who fantasizes about watching your favorite teevee shows with me.
Nichevo, let's make a deal.
I won't criticize your poor vocabulary and capacity for understanding if you don't criticize my pedantry.
How does that sound?
I think there is a conspiracy at the Wikimedia foundation to lie about Hank Paulson and the $700 billion that he secured for the government.
Detective Machos is on the case.
@Bruce Hayden ,@Big Mike , @Joe ,
this guy agrees that the religious right is alive and well:
social conservatives stay in the fray
You go right ahead, Ritmo, if that is what you are still calling yourself, and try to live on the nits you can pick with respect to my vocabulary. I daresay you won't get fat.
You aspire/presume/pretend to the status of pedant, that is pellucidly, limpidly clear to all who trouble themselves to read you.
Whether you are equal to the role...I don't see that the shoes fit you so well, but since you haven't the feet to fit 'em, they at least don't pinch. It's not as if the words of man, woman or freemartin are going to change your mind or alter your opinions. When was the last time you changed your mind? You will do what you want to do, and that's OK.
But the best teacher is the one who can throw the ball straight and who can teach others to do the same. Don't presume to waste peoples' time, Ritmo, it's not right.
Incidentally - as I think it was raised earlier or elsewhere - let it be seen that you were the first to start with the insults. My criticisms were polite, constructive and relevant. I trust you won't attempt to assert your last post was sincere, I assume even your face would implode from the irony.
Since the writing shows the man inside I encourage you to let your freak flag fly. (In the same way I do not seek, usually, to suppress Cedarford.) Do your worst, and I for one will do my best.
Post a Comment