Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
    \Page 70 of the FY2009 Strategic Operating Plan. It's there in black and white. The idea was the Brain Child of Dr. Don Steger, former assistant City Manager. He instituted a level of competition to help keep the Garbage Dept efficient.
    I'm sure it's followed to the letter with all the efficiency you claim a govt. entity can exert.

    Run away, run away.
    They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

    I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Raughammer1 View Post
      Think thats why the Democratic Party's Congress of 2007~2008 has approval ratings in the single digits?

      Hey...i'm just sayin'

      (is'nt it like a 8 or 9% approval rating or something?)
      Whats really sad is our elected leaders and there enanblers (sp) us cant seem to seperate the forrest from the trees and put aside the BS and do whats right. We're looking at some pretty serious problems.
      Fortune does not change men; it unmasks them.

      The grass ain't greener, the wine ain't sweeter!! Either side of the hill.


      IACOJ PROUD

      Comment


      • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
        What a surprise. It's Clinton's fault...
        I always get a chuckle out of that statement. Most people are so blinded by their allegiances to a party that they can't see their is no difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush. Bill Clinton chased little girls around the Whitehouse; George Bush chased bad boys around the world. Neither did a thing to the economy, they just let it run it's course. Both invaded foreign countries; although it could be argued one was justified and one was not; it could equally be argued that both were justified as well as unjustified. We haven't had a President who really did anything for the people since Ronald Reagan.

        Sad part is, the current crop of Presidential candidates promises more of the same, except they want to spend even more, both creating a larger deficit.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
          Both invaded foreign countries; although it could be argued one was justified and one was not; it could equally be argued that both were justified as well as unjustified.
          You're right. Clinton's was justified, Bush's was not.

          Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
          We haven't had a President who really did anything for the people since Ronald Reagan.
          How so? He started the practice of claiming to be a fiscal conservative by adding mountains of debt and expanding government.
          They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

          I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            It's more like those companies have no labor, worker safety, or pollution control restrictions. Should we get rid of all of those as well? Business is very quick to bemoan high wages (unless it's for the execs at the top) but never complains about high profits...
            This is one of those areas where Americans give this stuff a lot of lip service. We want the perfect environment (if you can define that). Yet it is OK to ruin the environment in other parts of the world. Drilling for oil is the best one so far. There has to be a balance between the needs of the environment and the needs of the people who live there.

            OSHA!!! How many times have you heard someone complain about a silly OSHA rule? In fact, a search of these very forums will find numerous examples. Many of the regulations and safety things go beyond reasonable to excessive and overboard. I know of a fellow who was doing some painting on a manufacturing facility. He was a private contractor (aka self employed) An OSHA fellow came by and made him put on a safety harness and strap himself to the ladder. My cousin drive a cement truck. He was making a delivery to a state job. The safety guy on the scene jumped him as soon as he got out of the truck. Said he needed a vest and helmet. Absolute stupidity. He didn't get the vest or helmet either, as private non-union workers they didn't need all of that garbage. Speaking of vests, I laugh every time I see a highway worker wearing one. I think if people can't see all of those big trucks and heavy equipment, along with the numerous road signs and orange cones, then that vest isn't really going to help. Just another waste of money as far as I'm concerned.

            Businesses are in the business to make money. It's that simple. And the stock holders, many of whom are ordinary working people, want their stocks to make the most money. 99% of the people who invest don't look at the company's employment policies, safety policies, or environmental policies. What they look it is the financial sheet. I would go further to say that about 5% would actually look at where the company does it's work.

            So don't blame the corporations and their leaders for making decisions that increase profits. Do look at government when a company moves off-shore, obviously, the business climate in the other country is more favorable. We are our own worst enemy.

            By the way, I saw some comments about governess workers. I worked for the US government for a while in a manufacturing facility. They had a monopoly so there was no incentive to do thing better. The place was a joke. Biggest waste of tax dollars I've been involved with. People were promoted not because they were good workers or knew what they were doing, but because they were someones buddy or relative. Incompetence was tolerated and at times even rewarded. Now I am in the private sector, it is a world of difference. Those that work and produce move up, those who don't do their jobs are removed. Private company workers are 5 times better than government workers. Although there are a few good government workers. But those folks never get promoted because they are to valuable doing their jobs. The more incompetent one is in Government the higher they get promoted. As a side note, I often inter act with government workers now. It is an absolute shock and shame to see what some of these folks are making. The taxpayer surely isn't getting the best bang for the buck. There are some who make over $100,000 and are totally clueless about the most basic concepts. It is based on my direct observance and contrast of government vs private sector that I believe the government needs to be smaller and doing less.

            And think about this. The U.S. government takes in tax dollars and redistributes them to the states, the states give it to the local municipalities, The municipalities use it to provide services or needed infrastructure. In each step of the process there are administrative cost. So the dollar they take from you ends up being 70 cents worth of stuff. Less taxes - Less spending - Less intrusion not our daily lives.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
              I know of a fellow......

              I worked for the US government for a while in a manufacturing facility. They had a monopoly so there was no incentive to do thing better. The place was a joke. Biggest waste of tax dollars I've been involved with......
              I always like conclusions based upon anecdotes.

              Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
              People were promoted not because they were good workers or knew what they were doing, but because they were someones buddy or relative. Incompetence was tolerated and at times even rewarded.
              And you don't believe that doesn't happen anywhere in the private sector? BTW, the GOP nominee is a product of just that type of favoritism as is the current GOP president.

              Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
              Now I am in the private sector, it is a world of difference. Those that work and produce move up, those who don't do their jobs are removed. Private company workers are 5 times better than government workers. Although there are a few good government workers. But those folks never get promoted because they are to valuable doing their jobs.
              More anecdotes.

              Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
              The more incompetent one is in Government the higher they get promoted. As a side note, I often inter act with government workers now. It is an absolute shock and shame to see what some of these folks are making. The taxpayer surely isn't getting the best bang for the buck. There are some who make over $100,000 and are totally clueless about the most basic concepts.
              Like what? Yet your company is still doing business with them.

              Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
              It is based on my direct observance and contrast of government vs private sector that I believe the government needs to be smaller and doing less.
              Thank goodness we have your direct observation.
              Last edited by scfire86; 08-23-2008, 02:20 PM.
              They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

              I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                You're right. Clinton's was justified, Bush's was not.
                If you think refocusing public attention away from Bill Clinton's own poor decision making towards a dictator who most hadn't even heard of until we started bombing the country into oblivion justifiable. The Yugoslavs hadn't done anything to us. They didn't deserve what we did to their country. And we didn't need to spend trillions blowing it up and then rebuilding it.

                How so? He started the practice of claiming to be a fiscal conservative by adding mountains of debt and expanding government.
                Ronald Reagan made it a goal to stop the double digit run away inflation. Home mortgages were at 25% interest. No one could afford a home. He cut taxes and gave businesses a break. He was smart enough to see that businesses are what makes this country wealthy. They provide the jobs. And when he put in place his reagonomics they said it would take 15 to 20 years to realize the effect of what was being done. In case you didn't notice, the 15 to 20 years landed smack in the Middle of Clinton's term.

                Reagan was also president when the cold war ended. This allowed for the massive down sizing of the military during the Clinton years.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
                  If you think refocusing public attention away from Bill Clinton's own poor decision making towards a dictator who most hadn't even heard of until we started bombing the country into oblivion justifiable. The Yugoslavs hadn't done anything to us. They didn't deserve what we did to their country. And we didn't need to spend trillions blowing it up and then rebuilding it.
                  Just because you hadn't heard of Milosevic doesn't mean the rest of us had not.

                  Everytime we ignore the happenings in Europe we end up in a world war. But hey, if you believe that to be the case, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

                  Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
                  Ronald Reagan made it a goal to stop the double digit run away inflation. Home mortgages were at 25% interest. No one could afford a home. He cut taxes and gave businesses a break. He was smart enough to see that businesses are what makes this country wealthy. They provide the jobs. And when he put in place his reagonomics they said it would take 15 to 20 years to realize the effect of what was being done. In case you didn't notice, the 15 to 20 years landed smack in the Middle of Clinton's term.
                  Great. Find an economist that actually believes that economic policies have effect 20 years later. If you use that logic the prosperity enjoyed during Reagan's administration were the result of Johnson's Great Society and JFK's Camelot.

                  Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
                  Reagan was also president when the cold war ended. This allowed for the massive down sizing of the military during the Clinton years.
                  And we engaged in deficit spending the likes of which we hadn't known till Bush 43.
                  Last edited by scfire86; 08-23-2008, 02:57 PM.
                  They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                  I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                    Just because you hadn't heard of Milosevic doesn't mean the rest of us had not.

                    Everytime we ignore the happenings in Europe we end up in a world war. But hey, if you believe that to be the case, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
                    I see, so it is only Europe we need to concern ourselves with. Asia, Africa, South America, and Australia are not a concern. That has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. I get the feeling you are so in love with the liberal left that you have lost all ability to think rationally. And that is exactly what the Democrats count on, lack of rational thought.

                    Great. Find an economist that actually believes that economic policies have effect 20 years later. If you use that logic the prosperity enjoyed during Reagan's administration were the result of Johnson's Great Society and JFK's Camelot.


                    And we engaged in deficit spending the likes of which we hadn't known till Bush 43.

                    Find an economist who believes that an economic policy has an instantaneous effect. There was no prosperity in the Reagan years. Reagan inherited a horrible economy. The activism of the 70s was taking it's toll. Businesses were closing and moving off-shore. Inflation was in the double digits. We had a crisis in the Middle East, Iranian Hostage Crisis, radicals attacking U.S. installations, a lot of instability in the world, The fall of the Russian Empire.

                    As for deficit spending, Let us look at Bill Clinton's years. During his 8 years in office spending increased. The deficit decreased, this is true. We still had the same debt though. The only way to accomplish that is by increasing revenues (aka More Taxes). He also thrust more social programs upon us and at the same time decreased the size of the military by 1/3. He was able to do that thanks to Reaganomics and the end of the cold war. He also managed to bring a great deal of shame and disrespect to the office of the President. Some statesman chasing little girls in skirts around. Simply put, sad and pathetic.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      But I'd like you to prove the Chinese have strict labor and enviornmental laws.
                      I never said the Chinese did. If we have to ease our restrictions to keep them here, then it would be better. What kind of protective regulations do you think a company will follow once it leaves our soil? We try to take externalities into account, but this isn't a perfect world.
                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      No. So should we get rid of all those agencies and workers safety laws they enforce?
                      Why does every question you pose have to be an "all or nothing"? If businesses can't compete on our soil because foreign lands offer a competitive advantage of fewer regulations, then something has to give, maybe a few regulations need to be dropped. Not all regulations are good. Don't confuse this with “no regulations are good”, you have a history of not being able to tell the difference.

                      For example: A structured program allowing firms to buy and sell government issued pollution vouchers offers benefits to those firms that can reduce their pollution the best. This rewards efficient pollution controls and penalizes the lesser ones. But we know that doesn't make you happy either because ALL businesses don't comply with ALL regulations.
                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      And the private sector never over produces?
                      They do, but in a free market, only the stakeholders of that firm pay the penalty, which is a deterrent to such behavior. If my government overproduces, then we all foot the bill whether we like it or not, like what the French are doing with their Nuclear Power Plants.
                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      You made a claim. It's up to you to prove it with something other than conjecture.
                      Offering evidence of worker motivation based on performance-related pay programs is not the same of proving the Pythagorean Theorem. You refuse to recognize the obvious
                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      Defense contractors and many of their subcontractors to name a prime example.
                      Name one. List one private firm who's revenues were based solely (100%) on government contracts.
                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      You said earlier that private companies are always more efficient than government. Now you admit there are cases where that isn't true.
                      Show me where I said private companies were ALWAYS more efficient than governments. Put up, or STFU.

                      I provided an example where government uses the private sector to create a benchmark for its own programs, essentially making it competitive. In the absence of competition, how do you propose we set benchmarks for performance?
                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      Never.
                      Then your experience in Government Management is quite shallow. I’ve worked or volunteered in 8 different government entities from the State level to the Small Rural Fire District and this behavior has taken place in each. NOTICE I DID NOT SAY IT TAKES PLACE IN EVERY FORM OF GOVERNMENT, ONLY THAT IT IS COMMON.
                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      And you're using a HS insult to counter my claim that competitive bidding actually occurs in the waste management business. Good luck with that.
                      I provided a link proving it takes place. You choose to ignore the obvious.
                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      Oh okay. Keep believing that.
                      See above post.
                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      Yawn. It's a moot point. How is my statement anti-military. You're reading things that aren't there.
                      You write about military administrators like they’re buffoons. If you can do a better job then why aren't you the Secretary of Defense?
                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      Huh? These statements make absolutely no sense.
                      They make perfect sense. You attacked my statement of how effective our military was. I challenged you to provide an example of a more effective military. In doing this you are not allowed to use as examples:
                      A. Conscription Armies
                      B. Movies (Star Wars, The Longest Day, etc)
                      C. Wishful thinking that doesn’t exist in real life.
                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      I pointed out examples of the Army performing a sea based invasion in the past. There is nothing that says they wouldn't be able to do it again. It's this type of parochial thinking that prevents the efficiencies in government that you claim don't exist.
                      Your example has no relation to modern military capability. 64 years ago we didn’t have jet engines, C-141's, CH-46's, C-5A's, C-17's or CH-53's. We didn't have in flight refueling. Making an amphibious assault in such large numbers today would be nuts. What’s next? You want to use the Battle of Waterloo as an example of why we should substitute horses for the M1 Abrams?
                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      Wouldn't it be better if it were privatized since the private sector would do it more efficiently? Not necessarily cheaper by the way. Compare the cost of one individual paid to private contractors (like Blackwater) versus the cost of a sergeant in Spec Ops.
                      The fact is that for small operations, the private contractor would meet the same objectives with fewer people. Trying to equate our entire “National Defense” to a private company is nonsense, no firm has the resources to do such a thing.
                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      Yes I remember how much conservatives cared about oppressed individuals in the Balkans Campaign in the 90's. You're insulting any intelligent person if you want them to believe that.
                      Once again, you’re trying to put words in my mouth. I didn’t assert if I cared or didn’t care. The question was if the person being brutalized cared. In the absence of any defense force, a private contractor would be a Godsend.
                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      I live in SoCal. I thought you knew.
                      Oh, well I’m glad you were so specific; you’ve conveniently managed to narrow it down to just under 82,000 square miles.
                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      Run away, run away.
                      Just because you have no life outside these forums doesn't mean I'm going to neglect mine to be here.
                      The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

                      Comment


                      • Name one. List one private firm who's revenues were based solely (100%) on government contracts.
                        Lockheed Martin @ 91%
                        Raytheon @ 96%
                        Northrop Grumman @ 78%
                        General Dynamics @ 78%
                        L-3 Communications @ 80%

                        Are any of them 100%? No. But those listed have a significant portion of their revenue stream from govt contracts. Take away the govt. contracts and they would be very different companies.

                        If I had time I'm sure I could find a list of subcontractors (since 50% of contracts or mandated to be subbed out) whose primary or sole source of revenue are govt. contracts.

                        Offering evidence of worker motivation based on performance-related pay programs is not the same of proving the Pythagorean Theorem. You refuse to recognize the obvious.
                        So you don't have any proof other than your opinion. It's obvious you either don't know your subject or prone to conjecture. Either way it doesn't matter.

                        Your example has no relation to modern military capability. 64 years ago we didn’t have jet engines, C-141's, CH-46's, C-5A's, C-17's or CH-53's. We didn't have in flight refueling. Making an amphibious assault in such large numbers today would be nuts. What’s next? You want to use the Battle of Waterloo as an example of why we should substitute horses for the M1 Abrams?
                        What does any of the examples you state have any bearing on the modern military force? None of what you state have anything to do with the Army executing a sea based invasion. I have faith the Army would be more than capable if it became necessary. If the DoD were truly interested in efficiency it would dissolve the USMC and incorporate it's functions (air, armor, infantry) into the applicable sections of the other military branches. You're the one claiming the private sector is more efficient yet you defend redundancy of tasks.
                        Last edited by scfire86; 08-24-2008, 04:13 PM.
                        They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                        I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RoughRider View Post
                          The Poop for 2008: Of the 106 bills enacted since January, 94 -- or 89 percent -- were to name government buildings or lands, extend or make technical corrections to existing laws, or passed either by unanimous consent or with less than 10 dissenting votes. For leaving town after Congress has spent nearly all of its time on frivolous legislation and failing to address critical issues.

                          Great Job.
                          To expound upon the post above:


                          “The 110th Congress, whose term officially ends in January, hasn’t... attacked high gasoline prices. But it has used its powers to celebrate watermelons and to decree the origins of the word ‘baseball.’ Barring a burst of legislative activity after Labor Day, this group of 535 men and women will have accomplished a rare feat. In two decades of record keeping, no sitting Congress has passed fewer public laws at this point in the session—294 so far—than this one. That’s not to say they’ve been idle. On the flip side, no Congress in the same 20 years has been so prolific when it comes to proposing resolutions—more than 1,900, according to a tally by the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense. With the mostly symbolic measures, Congress has saluted such milestones as the Idaho Potato Commission’s 70th anniversary and recognized soil as an ‘essential natural resource.’ As legislation on gasoline prices, tax fixes and predatory lending languish, Congress has designated May 5-9 as National Substitute Teacher Recognition Week, and set July 28 as the Day of the American Cowboy. The resolutions, which generally don’t carry the force of law, can originate in either the House or Senate. However, some types of resolutions establish the federal budget, authorize the president to go to war, or condemn actions such as the genocide in Darfur. Even among the 294 laws passed thus far, many were symbolic in nature. Many of the post offices named by this Congress honor servicemen and -women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the 435-member House, fully one-quarter of the workweek is typically devoted to debating and passing symbolic measures.” —Elizabeth Williamson
                          01.20.13
                          Change We Can Believe In.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
                            Problem is the Democrats have had control since 2006, and things have gotten worse since. Nancy, Barbara, Hillary and the rest have failed the American Public. In fact, since the Democrats took control the price of gas has nearly doubled. This is exactly what the greenies want. They don't care about you and I at all. The republicans want to do something now to fix the problem. The democrats want to run and hde.

                            The Democrat's Party Platform: Where's the Drilling?
                            The party platform that the delegates to the Democratic National Convention will vote on this week has planks entitled "New American Energy" and "Establish Energy Security," but nowhere-not once in the 94-page, 45 thousand word document-do the Democrats mention drilling for more American oil and natural gas in order to lower prices. It's just not there.

                            If Democrats had taken the time to consult another platform - the Platform of the American People - they would know that their platform does NOT reflect the opinion of their rank and file. Overwhelming majorities of Americans-including majorities of Democrats-favor using more of America's energy resources, including oil and coal.

                            From the Platform of the American People:

                            We want our elected leaders in Washington to focus on increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering the costs of gasoline and electricity. (71 to 18)


                            With appropriate safeguards to protect the environment, we should drill for oil off America's coasts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. (73 to 23)
                            Delegates to the Democratic convention, as well as any other American who is interested, can read the entire Platform of the American People here.


                            Report: Increase in U.S. Natural Gas Production Upends Anti-Energy Left's Conventional Wisdom
                            Democratic delegates who are still convinced that the notion that increased American oil and gas production will push down energy prices is a "hoax" (to quote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) should read a new report in the International Herald Tribune.

                            This is the headline: "A U.S. drilling boom revives hopes for natural gas."

                            And here's the lead:

                            American natural gas production is rising at a clip not seen in half a century, pushing down prices of the fuel and reversing conventional wisdom that domestic gas fields were in irreversible decline.

                            The new drilling boom uses advanced technology to release gas trapped in huge shale beds found throughout North America-gas long believed to be out of reach.

                            Increased supply utilizing new technology is pushing down prices? Now, where have we heard that before?

                            And if it works for natural gas, increased supply will work for oil, coal and nuclear.

                            Is it a Hoax to Believe in the Laws of Supply and Demand? This is the Question that the Democrats will have to Answer in Denver
                            A reporter recently asked Speaker Pelosi if she supported offshore drilling. She responded: "I will not allow Republicans to have a hoax on the American people that if you drill offshore the price at the pump will come down."

                            Pelosi's comment represents the strange predicament that many anti-energy Democrats have gotten themselves into; they have boxed themselves into denying some very basic economic laws of supply and demand. Led by Pelosi, anti-energy Democrats are saying that increases in supply afforded by opening up new areas to drilling won't affect the price of energy, even as gas prices are dropping in response to very clear indications that the American people are increasingly determined to support more drilling offshore.

                            It is well established in economics that long-term increases in supply of a commodity will affect current prices of the commodity. Changing U.S. law to permit expanded drilling offshore and in Alaska would immediately increase long-term oil supplies that the market would have to take into account in its pricing and thus have an impact in lowering oil prices today.

                            One of the great open questions for the Democratic Party in Denver this week is whether it will follow Speaker Pelosi's lead in ignoring the economic laws of supply and demand to suit the political agenda of an anti-energy elite.

                            By Newt Gingrich
                            01.20.13
                            Change We Can Believe In.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Raughammer1 View Post
                              By Newt Gingrich
                              Poor Newt. So desperate to still be thought a player.

                              Is this the same person who was having sex in his office and proclaiming it was despicable that Clinton was doing the same?
                              They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                              I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                                Poor Newt. So desperate to still be thought a player.
                                To millions of Americans he is very much a mover and shaker in the poltical arena.
                                01.20.13
                                Change We Can Believe In.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X