Update: Hallmark also interested in bringing out a line of cards for women with botched abortions. It goes something like, Sorry Barack didn't succeed in blocking the law to allow your baby born alive to receive medical help, since you have to keep that "mistake" we send our condolences.
Hallmark has lost a customer. Actually now that I think about it I always try and buy the cheapest decent looking card in the aisle, which probably isn't a Hallmark Card. But when I graduate, and am willing to frivolously spend money it won't be on Hallmark Cards.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Last Veep Thoughts
Obama can't pick Biden because he looks like a crook, and at the same time looks like he should be on the top of the ticket instead of Obama.
He can't be Sebelius, because any woman except Hillary would send Democrat women into a frenzy, plus she gave the response to the state of the Union that could have been given by a skeleton robot.
He shouldn't pick a General or Sam Nunn because the overwhelming compensation for his lack of experience will shine through.
He can pick Kaine, but it would be a big mistake because it would in a no experience ticket.
Bayh or Jack Reed seem most logical. Both have experience but don't come off as Washington insiders. Though I don't think Reed offers and electoral help, while Bayh could get Clinton's people on board, which could translate into Clinton voters for Obama.
Hillary? At this point, why not?
Darkhorse pick that would make a lot of sense. Senator Ken Salazaar from Colorado. Why? He is from a swing state that Obama needs, plus Salazaar won there in 2004 not the best Democrat year. He is Hispanic which could instantly increase Obama's Hispanic support. His brother is a Congressman from another Colorado district to help win CO. And finally he has been in the Senate for since 2004 so while he doesn't have an abundance of experience he is not a newcomer, and he was Attorney General for 6 years of Colorado. Experience without D.C. He won't pick him most likely but all and all and interesting choice.
Finally, its probably going to be Bayh
He can't be Sebelius, because any woman except Hillary would send Democrat women into a frenzy, plus she gave the response to the state of the Union that could have been given by a skeleton robot.
He shouldn't pick a General or Sam Nunn because the overwhelming compensation for his lack of experience will shine through.
He can pick Kaine, but it would be a big mistake because it would in a no experience ticket.
Bayh or Jack Reed seem most logical. Both have experience but don't come off as Washington insiders. Though I don't think Reed offers and electoral help, while Bayh could get Clinton's people on board, which could translate into Clinton voters for Obama.
Hillary? At this point, why not?
Darkhorse pick that would make a lot of sense. Senator Ken Salazaar from Colorado. Why? He is from a swing state that Obama needs, plus Salazaar won there in 2004 not the best Democrat year. He is Hispanic which could instantly increase Obama's Hispanic support. His brother is a Congressman from another Colorado district to help win CO. And finally he has been in the Senate for since 2004 so while he doesn't have an abundance of experience he is not a newcomer, and he was Attorney General for 6 years of Colorado. Experience without D.C. He won't pick him most likely but all and all and interesting choice.
Finally, its probably going to be Bayh
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
A Reason to Vote for McCain and Not Against Obama
Second Update: If you want to hear the abortion answer without the judges part just watch below.
Update: if you follow the link below you then have to go to McCain Part 1, thats what the time below references.
Usually I cringe when McCain talks about global warming, hurricane Katrina, or "Big Oil" but when he says things like this the begining stages of excitement for this campagin start to stir inside me a little.
Watch from 13:45-1503 of the video.
Not only does he give a good Pro-life answer, but then seems passionate about talking about nominating Judges that will end the ugly practice.
Right On!
Update: if you follow the link below you then have to go to McCain Part 1, thats what the time below references.
Usually I cringe when McCain talks about global warming, hurricane Katrina, or "Big Oil" but when he says things like this the begining stages of excitement for this campagin start to stir inside me a little.
Watch from 13:45-1503 of the video.
Not only does he give a good Pro-life answer, but then seems passionate about talking about nominating Judges that will end the ugly practice.
Right On!
Monday, August 18, 2008
Obama's Team is Delusional about Evangelicals: But Barry Could Win the Evangelical Vote!
I posted back on June 19th that Obama was wrong in thinking he had a chance to win Mississippi in November because his argument was based on false facts. He claimed that Mississippi was 40% black but only voted as 25% of the population. This was his rationale for putting the state in play; if he could just get African Americans to vote their proportion of the population he would have a 40% built in head start. The problem was, and is, that Mississippi is only 36% black and made up 34% of the voting population in 2004. Meaning Obama's plan to turn them out to vote their proportion would mean just a 2% increase, hardly enough to flip a 20 point Bush State.
Moving on to Evangelicals Obama's team encounters the same problem; he claims he can win over many evangelicals but by definition these people he intends to win over hardly seem to be the evangelicals he needs, if evangelicals at all.
Obama's National Director of Religious Affairs, Joshua Dubois said
Now call me crazy but a person who is concerned about climate change and Darfur so much so to vote for Obama sounds more like a 23 year old, blue haired kid, from Seattle drinking a Starbucks, than it does a church going family man in Georgia.
And I don't know if a group of voters that is identified by their religion would put Barry's vague energy plan (which as a astute political observer I could not fully explain to you) above moral, family, and life issues which are directly affected by their religious belief.
So because Barry is a little confused about what evangelicals are concerned about I'll try and help him out. Evangelicals are Pro-life, they are for traditional marriage, they go to church (even when their not feeling bitter), and a lot of them also share other conservative beliefs such as low taxes, and support for the War on Terror. Most importantly they believe in God and look for His guidance through life, while trying to be true to Him and their families along the way.
Obama can't just define Evangelicals as his current voting bloc and then run around claiming he has so much Evangelical support. That would be like McCain saying that he is going to win liberals over by appealing to their pro-life views, and their support of the war. If that is what liberals believed then maybe McCain would have a shot.
So I guess if Obama sees a college aged hippie, who belongs to NARAL, protests against the war, who eats only organic products, while driving around a Prius; and says "Ohh let me try persuade that Evangelical to vote for me". He will probably win 100% of the Evangelical vote. In his delusional little mind.
Moving on to Evangelicals Obama's team encounters the same problem; he claims he can win over many evangelicals but by definition these people he intends to win over hardly seem to be the evangelicals he needs, if evangelicals at all.
Obama's National Director of Religious Affairs, Joshua Dubois said
I think a lot of evangelicals are concerned with climate change, they’re concerned with genocide in Darfur, they’re concerned with our troops in Iraq and what we’re going to do about our energy crisis.
Now call me crazy but a person who is concerned about climate change and Darfur so much so to vote for Obama sounds more like a 23 year old, blue haired kid, from Seattle drinking a Starbucks, than it does a church going family man in Georgia.
And I don't know if a group of voters that is identified by their religion would put Barry's vague energy plan (which as a astute political observer I could not fully explain to you) above moral, family, and life issues which are directly affected by their religious belief.
So because Barry is a little confused about what evangelicals are concerned about I'll try and help him out. Evangelicals are Pro-life, they are for traditional marriage, they go to church (even when their not feeling bitter), and a lot of them also share other conservative beliefs such as low taxes, and support for the War on Terror. Most importantly they believe in God and look for His guidance through life, while trying to be true to Him and their families along the way.
Obama can't just define Evangelicals as his current voting bloc and then run around claiming he has so much Evangelical support. That would be like McCain saying that he is going to win liberals over by appealing to their pro-life views, and their support of the war. If that is what liberals believed then maybe McCain would have a shot.
So I guess if Obama sees a college aged hippie, who belongs to NARAL, protests against the war, who eats only organic products, while driving around a Prius; and says "Ohh let me try persuade that Evangelical to vote for me". He will probably win 100% of the Evangelical vote. In his delusional little mind.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Dumb Cop
As a dog owner this is a sad story for me, but at the same time I can't help to be completely infuriated. A young man and his girlfriend were speeding down a highway in Texas trying to rush their dying dog to a vet clinic in time to save his or her life. Well, along came the highway patrol to pull them over for speeding (which is completely reasonable) after the car pulled over at the police's request the man driving jumped out of the car screaming and explained to the officer that their dog was choking and he needed to get him to the vet hospital.
Now while using the reason and logic not quite at the level of a 1st grader, the officer detained them for 20 minutes!! While the dog died.
Instead of the officer writing a quick ticket and instructing them to drive the speed limit to the hospital, or even giving them a pass and allowing them to obey the speed limit and proceed to the hospital, or even follow the frantic dog owner's suggestion of detaining the driver while letting the girlfriend leave with the dog, the officer instead took the classy route and exclaimed
"Chill out, it's just a dog, you can buy another one."
Nice. Real Professional.
I have always held the view as a law student that the police officers who serve should get just as much education with the law as I am required to receive (A Bachelor's, and a 3 Year Doctorate of Law) mainly because while lawyers get to sit back a their desk with all the paperwork on a case and then get to consult others, and research the situation before deciding a course of action, police officers actually have to tap into a vast knowledge of law and make decisions that are life or death in a split second. And Hell, the government even supplies them firearms in the process, even more reason for them to be educated at a law degree level. If not that then at least at a 1st grade teacher level, which in New York requires 6 years of schooling after high school and 2 degrees. If the proper schooling was in place this particular officer would have not be on the force since he probably would not have passed the SATs to get into college. You need a working brain to pass those kind of tests.
One other point is that in the article, it states that the brilliant officer discussed the situation with two other officers while detaining them as the couple watched their dog die. The other officers must also be the cream of the crop for Texas law enforcement as well for not noticing the situation needed to be handled by a grown up immediately.
On a final note, if my dog was dying and I realized this moron cop wasn't going to let me go to the vet hospital I would have hopped back in the car and high tailed it to the vet. No low level government imbecile will be responsible for my dogs death if I could do something about it.
Why we let our local governments invest so much power in so few, so unqualified a bunch of people, as to actually have such great detainment powers over fellow civilians is mind boggling.
LIVE FREE OR DIE!!
Now while using the reason and logic not quite at the level of a 1st grader, the officer detained them for 20 minutes!! While the dog died.
Instead of the officer writing a quick ticket and instructing them to drive the speed limit to the hospital, or even giving them a pass and allowing them to obey the speed limit and proceed to the hospital, or even follow the frantic dog owner's suggestion of detaining the driver while letting the girlfriend leave with the dog, the officer instead took the classy route and exclaimed
"Chill out, it's just a dog, you can buy another one."
Nice. Real Professional.
I have always held the view as a law student that the police officers who serve should get just as much education with the law as I am required to receive (A Bachelor's, and a 3 Year Doctorate of Law) mainly because while lawyers get to sit back a their desk with all the paperwork on a case and then get to consult others, and research the situation before deciding a course of action, police officers actually have to tap into a vast knowledge of law and make decisions that are life or death in a split second. And Hell, the government even supplies them firearms in the process, even more reason for them to be educated at a law degree level. If not that then at least at a 1st grade teacher level, which in New York requires 6 years of schooling after high school and 2 degrees. If the proper schooling was in place this particular officer would have not be on the force since he probably would not have passed the SATs to get into college. You need a working brain to pass those kind of tests.
One other point is that in the article, it states that the brilliant officer discussed the situation with two other officers while detaining them as the couple watched their dog die. The other officers must also be the cream of the crop for Texas law enforcement as well for not noticing the situation needed to be handled by a grown up immediately.
On a final note, if my dog was dying and I realized this moron cop wasn't going to let me go to the vet hospital I would have hopped back in the car and high tailed it to the vet. No low level government imbecile will be responsible for my dogs death if I could do something about it.
Why we let our local governments invest so much power in so few, so unqualified a bunch of people, as to actually have such great detainment powers over fellow civilians is mind boggling.
LIVE FREE OR DIE!!
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Why Election Won't be so Bad for Republicans and Breaking that Northern Virginia Myth
It has amazed me as to how much Republican politicians, analysts, and pundits continue to concede the point that this is a Democratic year and we will be lucky if we make it out of this election with some dignity.
The reason its amazing is because it's just not true!
Republicans better start acting like winners, and start showing the American people why their ideas and beliefs are the only way to pull the U.S. out of this so-called malaise.
First the American People have never elected a President as liberal and out of touch with everyday Americans as Barack Obama is. Never. Ohh they tried, (remember John Kerry, and Micheal Dukakis) but it never works. The American people are not majority liberal and the only time Democrats can manage to sneak into the White house is when they nominate southern "moderates"
Second Check out the national polling. In such a Democratic year Barack Obama cannot pull away. The RCP aveage has Obama up by only 4.5 points. For most polls that's in the margin of error. Ohh and Republicans always poll better in the fall (Ask Dukakis).
Third just take a look at the playing field. All we have to do is win Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado and its over, that coming from Karl Rove. If someone told you a while back "hey for the Republican to win the Presidency all he has to do is hold CO, VA, and OH." You should respond by saying thats going to be a tough road for the Dems. The Demographics are on our side. Now I know, I know,... "but what about Northern Virginia, and Colorado is in blue tide". Well let me tell you a secret, Demographics don't change 16 points in four years! That would be whats necessary for Obama to win Virginia. I mean Jim Webb, a conservative Democrat with a military record could barley win in Virginia in the best year the Democrats will have in the next 30 years, all this while his opponent was running an inept campaign and calling people maccacca. How does that exactly translate into a shift that allows Obama to beat a war hero in Virginia in a Presidential election.
A side note on all of the Northern Virginia changing Demographics nonsense:
Virgina has 11 house seats, 9 of them won by President Bush in 2004 and 8 of them controlled by Republicans. This includes both of the Northern Virgina districts. Bush carried both booming districts in 2004, although some talk as if Republicans can't compete there. Most importantly according to the Almanac of American Politics (Barone's book) the districts that voted for President Bush increased population from 2000 to 2005 by 493 thousand, while the Kerry voting districts lost 5 thousand people!! And from 2000 to 2005 Northern Virginia grew by 220 thousand people while the rest of Virginia grew by 268 thousand! Meaning Northern Virginia will actually have less impact compared to the rest of the state in these elections then in 2000! One final note Eric Cantor's 60 percent bush district grew almost as much as Tom Davis's Northern Virgina district.
The point of all of this is we need to get our chins up and start acting like winners. Start showing moderates and independents why they voted with us before, and that we are still the most dominant force in American politics no matter how many George Soros's give money to prop up empty suit Governors in Colorado and Virgina. If Obama's campaign needs to come to our home field to beat us (Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, NC,) then we should welcome it. Democrats are in their own world thinking they are going to take Senate seats from us in Mississippi and North Carolina, so let them be delusional, its probably better that way. In many ways we have a lot of advantages this year lets start acting like we do.
The reason its amazing is because it's just not true!
Republicans better start acting like winners, and start showing the American people why their ideas and beliefs are the only way to pull the U.S. out of this so-called malaise.
First the American People have never elected a President as liberal and out of touch with everyday Americans as Barack Obama is. Never. Ohh they tried, (remember John Kerry, and Micheal Dukakis) but it never works. The American people are not majority liberal and the only time Democrats can manage to sneak into the White house is when they nominate southern "moderates"
Second Check out the national polling. In such a Democratic year Barack Obama cannot pull away. The RCP aveage has Obama up by only 4.5 points. For most polls that's in the margin of error. Ohh and Republicans always poll better in the fall (Ask Dukakis).
Third just take a look at the playing field. All we have to do is win Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado and its over, that coming from Karl Rove. If someone told you a while back "hey for the Republican to win the Presidency all he has to do is hold CO, VA, and OH." You should respond by saying thats going to be a tough road for the Dems. The Demographics are on our side. Now I know, I know,... "but what about Northern Virginia, and Colorado is in blue tide". Well let me tell you a secret, Demographics don't change 16 points in four years! That would be whats necessary for Obama to win Virginia. I mean Jim Webb, a conservative Democrat with a military record could barley win in Virginia in the best year the Democrats will have in the next 30 years, all this while his opponent was running an inept campaign and calling people maccacca. How does that exactly translate into a shift that allows Obama to beat a war hero in Virginia in a Presidential election.
A side note on all of the Northern Virginia changing Demographics nonsense:
Virgina has 11 house seats, 9 of them won by President Bush in 2004 and 8 of them controlled by Republicans. This includes both of the Northern Virgina districts. Bush carried both booming districts in 2004, although some talk as if Republicans can't compete there. Most importantly according to the Almanac of American Politics (Barone's book) the districts that voted for President Bush increased population from 2000 to 2005 by 493 thousand, while the Kerry voting districts lost 5 thousand people!! And from 2000 to 2005 Northern Virginia grew by 220 thousand people while the rest of Virginia grew by 268 thousand! Meaning Northern Virginia will actually have less impact compared to the rest of the state in these elections then in 2000! One final note Eric Cantor's 60 percent bush district grew almost as much as Tom Davis's Northern Virgina district.
The point of all of this is we need to get our chins up and start acting like winners. Start showing moderates and independents why they voted with us before, and that we are still the most dominant force in American politics no matter how many George Soros's give money to prop up empty suit Governors in Colorado and Virgina. If Obama's campaign needs to come to our home field to beat us (Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, NC,) then we should welcome it. Democrats are in their own world thinking they are going to take Senate seats from us in Mississippi and North Carolina, so let them be delusional, its probably better that way. In many ways we have a lot of advantages this year lets start acting like we do.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Corruption at the Highest Levels of the Gang of 10
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet but it is the first I am hearing about it. The Gang of 10 which include 5 Republican Senators and 5 Democrat Senators have angered conservatives by adopting an energy policy proposal that is everything Nancy Pelosi wants with a sprinkle of drilling for Republicans. It is a slap in the face against all of the conservative House members who have been working so hard to have the American people identify Republicans with solving the energy problem by drilling. Where does the corruption come in?
Well I was just watching Special Report on Fox News and according to James Rosen who was reporting on the Gang of 10, part of the Gang of 10 plan involves the creation of one or more nuclear energy plants which would bring jobs and a boost to the local economy that they are located in. Well, according to Rosen the plant will be either located in the state of South Carolina or Georgia. Which just so happens to be the home states of 3 out of the 5 Republican members. Namely Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Issakson of Georgia.
Whether or not they abandoned the whole Republican House, the rest of the Republican Senate, President Bush and John McCain for a chance at having a facility placed in their backyard so they can show their voters how they can bring home the bacon is unclear. But polling shows the Republican message of drilling is popular so why else throw away one of our few good issues this cycle.
A side note, in the same story by Rosen, Graham said something to the effect that if Republicans want to embarrass the Democrats instead of solving the energy crisis then they don't understand what the people want. Too bad Lindsey doesn't get that we can solve the energy crisis and embarrass the Democrats at the same time.
Final note, it is depressing to know that John McCain's closet friend and ally in the Senate is Lindsey Graham. We will be rooting for a guy who takes Graham seriously. That is dangerous for all Americans. If we win this November we really lose.
Well I was just watching Special Report on Fox News and according to James Rosen who was reporting on the Gang of 10, part of the Gang of 10 plan involves the creation of one or more nuclear energy plants which would bring jobs and a boost to the local economy that they are located in. Well, according to Rosen the plant will be either located in the state of South Carolina or Georgia. Which just so happens to be the home states of 3 out of the 5 Republican members. Namely Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Issakson of Georgia.
Whether or not they abandoned the whole Republican House, the rest of the Republican Senate, President Bush and John McCain for a chance at having a facility placed in their backyard so they can show their voters how they can bring home the bacon is unclear. But polling shows the Republican message of drilling is popular so why else throw away one of our few good issues this cycle.
A side note, in the same story by Rosen, Graham said something to the effect that if Republicans want to embarrass the Democrats instead of solving the energy crisis then they don't understand what the people want. Too bad Lindsey doesn't get that we can solve the energy crisis and embarrass the Democrats at the same time.
Final note, it is depressing to know that John McCain's closet friend and ally in the Senate is Lindsey Graham. We will be rooting for a guy who takes Graham seriously. That is dangerous for all Americans. If we win this November we really lose.
Thank God He is Letting the Adults Handle This
Off of the top of my head the Georgian-Russian conflict has taught us a few lessons and exposed to us a few truths.
Number 1 is that sometimes countries don't always listen to what we say or do what we ask. President Bush has told Russia to draw back their troops to the contested territories and yet Russia has refused. Now I'm not 100 percent sure how Barack Obama would ask Putin and the Russians any differently than our current President did, but the notion that just sitting down and talking to our enemies will solve international conflicts has just been blown out of the water.
What is even scarier then Obama's policy of "talk first, and when that doesn't work, beg later" is that I don't think that community organizer has a back up plan to his whole idea of talking. So if Obama became President and this happened to him Russia could invade Ukraine, Poland, and all of Europe and Obama would be left frozen in disbelief as to why the Russians aren't listening to him.
Finally, this whole conflict shows one other thing. John McCain is ready to be commander and chief and Obama is simply not. McCain sounds confident on this topic, looks more presidential then Obama, and just seems like a national security leader. Meanwhile Barack Obama gives a Jimmy Cater like statement in a golf shirt from Hawaii while the adults handle the situation
Number 1 is that sometimes countries don't always listen to what we say or do what we ask. President Bush has told Russia to draw back their troops to the contested territories and yet Russia has refused. Now I'm not 100 percent sure how Barack Obama would ask Putin and the Russians any differently than our current President did, but the notion that just sitting down and talking to our enemies will solve international conflicts has just been blown out of the water.
What is even scarier then Obama's policy of "talk first, and when that doesn't work, beg later" is that I don't think that community organizer has a back up plan to his whole idea of talking. So if Obama became President and this happened to him Russia could invade Ukraine, Poland, and all of Europe and Obama would be left frozen in disbelief as to why the Russians aren't listening to him.
Finally, this whole conflict shows one other thing. John McCain is ready to be commander and chief and Obama is simply not. McCain sounds confident on this topic, looks more presidential then Obama, and just seems like a national security leader. Meanwhile Barack Obama gives a Jimmy Cater like statement in a golf shirt from Hawaii while the adults handle the situation
Sunday, August 3, 2008
How About "GO USA!"
Call me old fashioned but what ever happened to the days where Americans and American companies actually rooted for America in the Olympics?
Well apparently Visa thought it is much more appropriate to just root for the whole world instead. Visa, which is a major sponser of the 2008 Olympics has adopted the slogan "Go World". They even have commercials and a website proudly displaying it. Now I'm not saying they have to root against other countries but could they at least root for their own first. What ever happened to national pride and sense of American greatness.
And when I really get to think about it there are some parts of the world that I don't want to win and will be rooting against. I will be rooting against China, because they are a communist nation which tramples on their own peoples rights and practices infanticide. I will be rooting against Venezuela because of it's blowhard dicatator who called my President the Devil with a stupid grin on his face. And I will be rooting really hard against Iran, so that the disturbed little man who wants to destroy Isreal doesn't get to cheer once.
Now I will probably root for a forigner who has a good personal story, or for countries like Israel, Austrailia, and Great Britian but only if America is knocked out of that specific event already. Whats the point of going there and representing different countries if we are all supposed to root for everyone regardless of their country. Maybe we should just dump the Red White and Blue and wear a more inclusive world logo on our chest.
Throughout all of the great American moments in Olympic history I can't imagine us using this logic. It would have been unreal if when watching the 1980 games when the U.S. upset the Russians during the Cold War, that fellow Americans were sitting around their televisions saying "Hey If the Russians win that would be fine, Go World!"
This kind of "America is no better than the rest of the world attitude" relished by liberals but this will be one American yelling "Go USA".
Well apparently Visa thought it is much more appropriate to just root for the whole world instead. Visa, which is a major sponser of the 2008 Olympics has adopted the slogan "Go World". They even have commercials and a website proudly displaying it. Now I'm not saying they have to root against other countries but could they at least root for their own first. What ever happened to national pride and sense of American greatness.
And when I really get to think about it there are some parts of the world that I don't want to win and will be rooting against. I will be rooting against China, because they are a communist nation which tramples on their own peoples rights and practices infanticide. I will be rooting against Venezuela because of it's blowhard dicatator who called my President the Devil with a stupid grin on his face. And I will be rooting really hard against Iran, so that the disturbed little man who wants to destroy Isreal doesn't get to cheer once.
Now I will probably root for a forigner who has a good personal story, or for countries like Israel, Austrailia, and Great Britian but only if America is knocked out of that specific event already. Whats the point of going there and representing different countries if we are all supposed to root for everyone regardless of their country. Maybe we should just dump the Red White and Blue and wear a more inclusive world logo on our chest.
Throughout all of the great American moments in Olympic history I can't imagine us using this logic. It would have been unreal if when watching the 1980 games when the U.S. upset the Russians during the Cold War, that fellow Americans were sitting around their televisions saying "Hey If the Russians win that would be fine, Go World!"
This kind of "America is no better than the rest of the world attitude" relished by liberals but this will be one American yelling "Go USA".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
