Halos Heaven

Ha!

RexTookMyStash - October 14, 2010 reply

Where's the "Neither" button?

HaloFanInDC - October 13, 2010 reply

I just can't bring myself to vote for either choice.

To me it’s like deciding between explosive diarrhea or genital warts. Is either choice really better than the other?

halofolife - October 13, 2010 reply

Not even close

The shits go away. Warts don’t.

hauldog - October 14, 2010 via mobile reply

Very true.

Maybe genital warts vs. herpes then? That does sound more like a choice between the skanks and rangers.

halofolife - October 14, 2010 reply

I thought Halos Heaven turned into RFD-TV for a moment.

I’m for any team (even the MFY) that denies the Ranger fans gratification and any further bragging rights. At least the Yankee fans stay on their own side of hell for the most part.

44FAN - October 13, 2010 reply

+1

Rangers in 5.

Fuck the beef. I got your back, you douchebag Rangers.

SenorChuckles - October 13, 2010 reply

Go Yankees!

The poll question summed up my feelings exactly . . . at least I like the city of New York.

There is also this:

What?

The annoying red unis?

rspencer - October 14, 2010 reply

Yeah, that really pisses me off

agent_99 - October 14, 2010 reply

Yes, exactly!

Haha

at least that pres

doesn’t do a reach-around with his other hand for your wallet, like BO does

hittheg - October 14, 2010 reply

Even if that were true

It’s still better than “PATRIOT” Acts and so forth.

"So forth" is a bit difficult to rebut, and the choice of the Patriot Act (or "Patriot" if you prefer) is an odd choice with which to criticize President Bush.

The Patriot Act passed the House of Representatives 357 to 66 (approximately 85%). This included 145 Democrats. Democrat house members supported The Patriot Act approximately 2.5 to 1.

The Senate voted 98 to 1 to pass the Patriot Act.

So, laying blame/giving credit (whichever way you want to go) exclusively on the President is disingenuous. Our political leadership overwhelmingly supported that legislation.

Since his election, Obama hasn’t exactly run away from support of the act. On May 1, 2010, President Obama signed a one year extension of the act with no new “…limits or safeguards…”.

Fine, I'll go into more detail

Yes, I place the blame for the “USA PATRIOT” Act (written as such because it is a ridiculously construed acronym to make it sound good right after 9/11 – the words “Patriot” and “United States of America” are nowhere in the title) squarley on the shoulders of George W Bush because he is the one that initally signed it into law. Sure it passed all of the morons in Congress, but he had the power to stop them and didn’t. He had the power to do so again in 05/06 and chose not to. The fact that Obama reauthorized it is just another thing you can add to the list of what he’s wussed out on.

There are books and hard drives full of things you can blame on Bush, but I won’t get into most of them in the interest of keeping this short.

Anyway, back to the point I was originally responding to, which was that Bush didn’t “reach-around with his other hand for your wallet, like BO does.” This is simply false. As 2pintsofbooze mentioned, there’s the Iraq War, which cost hundreds of billions in tax payer money, and thousands of lives. We’ve arguably seen little or no direct benefit from this. More importantly, Bush is the one who authorized the very first $700 billion or so in bailouts, which again came straigh from the public coffers. On top of that, a good amount of the trouble that led to the crash started under his administration and prior congresses.

Where was the TEA Party (another acronym) when all of this was piling up – still buying crumpets?

The truth is, neither party does squat about government spending. If they lower taxes, they just borrow more money from China or somewhere else. Either way, hundreds of billions get taken out of the economy. The only real debate is over how this money gets spent and who benefits from it. All of this talk radio, 24-hour news, pundit BS to the contrary is just grandstanding in an effort to gain money and influence.

Oh, and go Giants!

More importantly, Bush is the one who authorized the very first $700 billion or so in bailouts, which again came straigh from the public coffers.

I laugh every time people (like my grandma) act like BO is the sole person responsible for TARP. such a joke. it was started months before BO was even sworn in.

ok, I’m done ranting about politics. sorry everyone.

Laughing at Grandma is not nice.

I can’t speak for her, but perhaps what she intends to point out is the unrivaled explosion of debt being racked up by the Obama administration. At a time when his focus should have been on restoration of employment and the economy (he strongly stated he would focus on jobs, jobs, jobs in the January, 2010 state-of-the-union address), he instead continue to zealously pursue “health care reform”.

That health care reform – which was sold as being close to cost neutral – is instead going to add another trillion dollars over 10 years to our debt. And then there’s the not-so-stimulating $862,000,000,000.00 “stimulus” bill.

So yes, Bush/Republican Congress (2000 – 2006) spent too much, but Obama/Democratic Congress( Democratic since 2006) have put over-spending into hyper-drive.

Republicans are mildly to moderately incompetent while Democrats are wildly incompetent to the point of…turn the reigns of congress back over to the mildly to moderately incompetent.

I tried to end my involvement in this discussion

since this a baseball blog, but then you had to suck me back in.

you may not like healthcare reform (I’m assuming you, like me, are fortunate enough to work for a company that provides HC), but the people who don’t have it, or the people who can’t get it due to a pre-existing illness will like it.

what I take from what you’ve written is that you would rather spend billions of dollars on bringing down a dictator in a far away land who may or may not be dangerous to the world (given what weapons were found, it was obvious he wasn’t a real threat), and may have sons who are evil, in an attempt to bring Democarcy to a part of the world that has resisted any sort of Western influence for thousands of years instead of spending that money on providing for the people who actually live here and pay the taxes.

and I read an article just a couple weeks ago about how most of the money given out in the bailouts has been paid back, and that the forecast now is that in the end it will have cost around $30 billion. thats not too bad in my mind given the astronomical numbers some throw out (oh look, you did the same, how funny).

also, you say Bush’s administration spent too much, but that BO is spending even more, adding to the deficit. remind me, who was it that came into office with a surplus, and who was it that came into office during the worst finicial crisis since the Great Depression. expecting BO to magically cure what was wrong in a matter of months, while at the same time not spending any money is simply ridiculous.

also, way to paint such a broad stroke of Repubs and Dems. that really convinced me to agree with you.

You asked for it...

The role of the USA in the world is truly unique. WWII has a lot to do with that uniqueness. In advance here, if I’m telling you what you already know, my apologies. Many of the worlds problems are inherited by the USA due to military, economic, and social strength inherited post WWII. We have been the defender of choice for many (Western Europe, South Korea, Kosovo, on and on) because there are no other organizations in the world that are seen as honest power brokers. The UN is a joke of an organization…almost completely worthless in international conflicts.

Prior to WWII, the USA had an isolationist foreign policy. We believe the oceans on either side of us would protect us from foreign adversaries. Consequently, we didn’t enter the war at an earlier stage. If we had intervened earlier, the devastation – especially the depth of the Holocaust – would likely have been reduced. So, one of the great lessons we were to have taken from WWII was this; when true homicidal, genocidal dictators are running a government, it is better to intervene earlier rather than later…the idea being early intervention will cost less dollars and less lives lost. The key here is the whether or not the dictator is truly homicidal and genocidal.

So, let’s take a quick look at Saddam Hussein. After torturing/murdering (REAL torture, not the Abu Graib/US military "torture") his predecessor, he started a war with Iran in 1980…used nerve and mustard gas on Iranians…invaded Kuwait in 1990…used poison gas on Kurds…defied/dodged in and out of UN sanctions for 12 years…and a whole lot more. Did you know he put political opponents and others into tree-limb shredders? Some would beg to go head first so their death would be more instantaneous. So, I believe he fit the definition of a homicidal, genocidal dictator. Further, he wasn’t a "one-time" or "first time" act. He had demonstrated depravity over 23 long years. He had shown that he would use banned weapons (poisonous gasses) on civilian and military populations. His sons were in line to replace him, and they seemed at least as bad if not worse..

So, the "take-away" from my opinion? I believe there were excellent reasons to intervene, and there were excellent reasons to NOT intervene. There were potential advantages and disadvantages from either direction. The Iraqi Liberation Act – which called for regime change in Iraq…the ouster one way or the other of Saddam Hussein – was signed into law by President Clinton in 1998. President Bush inherited that from President Clinton. Once President Bush decided to intervene, he made a strong effort to get support from allies. He was successful, with the exception of Germany and France. (The irony there is he likely would have gained the support from both of those countries with their current political leadership). Was it the right call? Again, I don’t believe there is a definite yes or no answer. If somehow we end up with a stable, friendly government in a relatively hostile part of the world, the answer moves closer to "Yes".

One way or the other, I believe President Bush was operating in the best spirit of the post-WWII standard for intervention. We had a homicidal, genocidal dictator that had repeatedly shown his contempt for other nations, UN sanctions, and any other effort to moderate his threats. Given our unique position in world affairs, I don’t believe it was an error to intervene and forcefully remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Indeed

most anti-Iraq war people would probably say they’d have not reservations having the U.S. invade Germany much earlier to take out Hitler. Of course, seeing the devastation by Hitler, it is easy to make that decision, but by the time you can see the enough devastation to convince even most dove hippie, it is usually already too late.

ttsec - October 15, 2010 reply

fyi

I am leaving to get on a plane in an hour, so when you respond (foregone conclusion) just know I’m not ignoring you.

No problem. I hope you have a great flight.

thanks man

headin up to Seattle. first time visiting, looking forward to it.

Ha! I was there for only my 2nd time in August...

…saw a Mariner game at Safeco. Anyway, good luck. Response to other post to follow…

Both parties like to spend

The difference is what they spend on. The Democrats will generally try to spend on social programs (for better or worse), while Republicans will spend more on defense. By the way, tax cuts are also a form of spending, because that money has to then be borrowed from another source.

Warren Buffet pretty much sums up my feelings on the whole issue.

Both parties like to spend...

…but the Democrats like to spend more. Look at California. We had relatively decent budgets from 1982 – 1998. The key was a Republican governor. As soon as Gray Davis was elected in 1998, we had a spending surge. We are still trying to dig out…

As a Goldwater Republican, I wish what you keep saying were true.

Facts, shamefully, keep getting in the way. (Source here.)

Stirrups - October 14, 2010 reply

But it IS true that Democrats spend more than Republicans...

…and a Goldwater Republican should know this better than anyone else.

Want facts? OK. Here’s one. ALL appropriations bills start in the House of Representatives.
So, take that same poster above, but this time replace president with the political party in charge of the House of Representatives for the 50 years. What you find is Democratic control from 1960 to 1994, Republican control from 1995 to 2006, and then Democratic control again from 2007 to the present. This gives a much different perspective to the chart. You want to REALLY enjoy Democratic spending excess? Add the next 10 projected years of the debt/GDP to the chart. Depending on whose numbers you use, debt/GDP ration rises anywhere from 75 to 90% (as shown on the very right of the chart above) of GDP….and stays there! Of course, this is completely non-sustainable.

Here are some more facts;
- President Reagan asked repeatedly for a line item veto to cut the pork-a-palooza out of defense appropriations bills ("Oh look!! Here’s another community center to be built and named in honor of Robert Byrd. He really needs this since there aren’t yet 100 structures named for him."). Democrats would not allow it.
- Gingrich/Dole had a little spat with President Clinton in ’95 that lead to a government shutdown. Now, which side wanted cuts in government spending?

And here is some added context;
- President Reagan inherited a mess from President Carter…Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Iranian hostage crisis, revolutionary movements growing in Africa, Central and South America, high inflation, high unemployment, and more. During the 1980 campaign Reagan made 3 promises; 1) Cut taxes; 2) Reduce the deficit; 3) Make a stand against the Soviet Union (which required lots of additional defense spending). To balance this out, he wanted to reduce growth of domestic spending. The Democrats refused to accept these reductions. Consequently, he was successful in #1 and #3, but the deficit reduction could not be achieved.
- The Reagan tax cuts actually worked quite well. Total government revenue increased from slightly more than $1 trillion in 1981 to approximately $1.8 trillion in 1989. That’s right…800 billion more revenue flowing to the government in 8 years!
- President Clinton came to office at a time when the Soviet Union had disintegrated, which lead to the "peace dividend" (actually started under the first President Bush). That dividend? Using a benchmark of $380 billion of defense spending in 1992, approximately $578 billion over the 8 years he was president. Not a bad "dividend" to work with in managing the nation’s finances.
- President Clinton benefited financially not only from the "peace dividend", but from a congress – a Republican Congress – that was far more spend thrift than the 17 previous congresses (going back to 1960). There’s no way spending would have been held down if congress remained in Democratic hands. NO WAY.
- The 2nd President Bush also inherited a recession in 2001. On top of that, we were hit by a serious terrorist attack after he had been in office only 8 months. That attack not only hurt us economically, but it required increases once again in defense spending.
- President Bush and Congress absolutely, positively did not control spending. That and the mistakes in the Iraq War are why he left office with such low favorability ratings.
- President Obama inherited a mess, no question. His remedies have actually made a bad situation worse.

So, my original premise remains true in spite of the chart above. I originally wrote, "Both parties like to spend, but Democrats like to spend more". If you like, I can provide many more examples.

sothball - October 15, 2010 reply

You should know better.

In our Federal Budget System, while all 11 annual appropriations bills do begin in the House Appropriations Committee ALL Federal Budgets begin, and end, at the White House. The President submits the Federal Budget to Congress, and the President signs that budget into law when it comes back, all carved up and all laden with pork. The Appropriations Committe then spends the balance of the year creating the legal framework for spending that budget money. These bills create new and exciting ways to screw up federal spending, for sure. But that does not exonerate the President, by any means. And, IIRC Bush II found some interesting ways around this whole process to create emergency expenditures during his tenure.

I won’t get into the tit-for-tat on the condition of hte planet from one adminsitration to the next. We Republicans have our spin, and the Democrats have theirs. That is a religious battle for which there will be no victor.

I don’t dispute that both parties are at fault. I do dispute that Republicans are some minor nit in the equation, or that what the Democrats are doing “is unprecedented”. You bring up Byrd? I give you Ted Stevens and Thad Cochran. And look at the chart here for how pork has grown, overlaying that data on which party was in control of Congress (and the Appropriations Committee).

As for the line item veto, I am on the fence there. My instinct is that it a good idea, but it puts too much power into the hands of the Administrative branch. SO, IMHO, it could be a bad solution to a bad situation.

Stirrups - October 18, 2010 reply

If you want to believe that you are as likely to get tax relief as easily from a Democrat as from a Republican, and conversely that you are likely to get less government spending from a Democrat as from a Republican, I can’t stop you. That belief simply is not supported by the facts. I am just surprised this opinion is derived from a self-identified Goldwater Republican.

Even when the 108th Congress – dominated by spending-wayward Republicans – was considering Medicare drug prescription coverage, the Republicans committed to spending $400 billion over 10 years. Yet this STILL was not enough for Democrats, who’s plan, "…greatly exceeded $400 million…". I could go from city to city, county to county, state to state, and provide example after example of the exact same scenario.

That said, I do miss one Democrat, the late William Proxmire. He was the last Democrat I can recall that actually blushed at wasteful and inefficient government spending.

sothball - October 18, 2010 reply

I call myself a "Goldwater Republican" on purpose.

To distinguish myself from the yahoos who occupy Republican seats in government today.

I would admit that a fundamentalist Democrat will spend more money than an old-style Republican, but I am not convinced that the same holds true for modern Republicans. Left to their own devices, modern Republicans proved their desire and ability to spend on a scale that matches, if not overwhelms, anything that Democrats have done in the past. This is why I cringe when I read or hear about Obama being “unprecedented”.

It seems to me that the best result is to have a Democratic President contending with a Republican Congress. At such times, modern Republicans rediscover their thrifty roots and leverage those for the political purpose of regaining power. Tightfistednesss with other people’s money is no longer a Republican moral principal. It is now just a legacy, useful to beat back the opposition only when there is a need to do so.

Stirrups - October 19, 2010 reply

On the national political level, I agree...

…I think there’s a “disease” acquired in Washington (Washingtonitis??) that causes Republicans to abandon principles of limited government and reduced spending, although the foreign policy component coupled with our unique position in the world makes that aspect a bit harder to control.

You point on split government is better, but remains debatable. There is a good book titled “The Canadian Century” about how much worse Canada’s government spending and economy were in 1995 (i.e., worse than our current status). They got out of their downward spiral by slashing taxes (corporate taxes by almost 1/3, personal and capital gains taxes reduced in exchange for a much smaller VAT tax), their federal budget cut by almost 9%, reduced welfare payments and a lot more. In 3 years, they completely turned their economy around. They went on to produce 11 straight budget surpluses, and reduced their debt to GDP ration from 80% to 45%. INCREDIBLE. The kicker? It was the Liberal Party that realized their government model was completely broke and unsustainable and decided to take these steps to fix the mess.

THAT is what it will take here to turn this mess fully around…for DEMOCRATS understand that this mess is unsustainable. If they truly want to help the weaker and the poor and the downtrodden, there soon will be no other choice.

sothball - October 20, 2010 reply

Now we are seeing eye to eye.

I think that California shines like a guiding beacon for all those stuck in the 60’s mindset of The Great Society (people who are in denial about the lessons learned with the Carter administration) who want to forecast what the future holds for their concepts of economics and governance: catastrophe.

We are going to need a governor who will do for the State, what Reagan did for the nation when he fired the ATC union. Considering his history, that sentence is kind of ironic, no?

Meanwhile…back to baseball!

Stirrups - October 20, 2010 reply

Bush just threw money away though

I don’t agree at all on your descriptions. Bush and his constant warring with the world is insane.

Salty - October 14, 2010 reply

"the world"

I see you have a very middle-eastern centric definition of “the world.”

ttsec - October 15, 2010 reply

Nowhere above do you give any objections to the Patriot Act (other than the ridiculous acronym).

Please tell, me, what harm has it brought to you and your fellow citizens? I am actually glad it passed, and do not believe I have been harmed by it. Perhaps the “…morons in congress…” just want to help protect their constituents? Can you name one person hurt by this legislation?

Beyond that, I agree that the Bush administration spent too much money. The effectiveness of the Iraq War remains debatable, and the original stated purpose of the war turned out to be a great error (WMD). But then, we don’t know if we could have continued to contain Saddam Hussein – world resolve had weakened over 12 years of sanctions. He was committed to re-building his WMD programs, with some evidence that he may have THOUGHT they had never stopped. And he had 2 sons – as bad or worse than their father – ready to take over for him in the event of his demise. Here’s a link to Uday’s “stewardship” of the Iraqi Olympic Committee. If reading it doesn’t make you sick to your stomach, you are a stronger man than me.

So, was the money – and far more importantly, the lives – spent on the Iraq war an error and a waste? I don’t see how you or anyone can make that claim. If Iraq somehow emerges as a relatively stable democracy (still iffy) in a area of unstable totalitarian regimes, then it makes the sacrifices of lives and dollars more worthwhile, far less of an error or mistake.

What's wrong with it? For starters, it violates the 1st and 4th Amendments

For more detail, see this interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano conducted by one of our boy Matt Welch’s collegues at Reason. I find it particularly interesting that the judge states that “Zero” pepole had been convicted of terrorism under the Act at the time of the inteview in 2007.

The Act was directly resposnible for the unlawful detention of Brandon Mayfield as well as the unlawful search of his home back in 2004 in supposed connection with the train bombings in Madrid. There’s your one person.

I am by and large a libertarian when it comes to legal and social policy issues. Beyond collecting taxes to fund things the government should be doing and making sure I don’t harm anyone else or infringe their rights, the government has no business knowing what I buy at the store, what books I choose to read, who I associate with, what I write in e-mails and so forth. The FBI especially doesn’t have the right to create search warrants out of thin air and raid my home because they’ve got no other leads to go on. The authority to do so was shoved through a mostly blind congress right after 9/11 when most of us were too scared to object. If you think that’s ok, then I’d guess Ben Franklin might want to have a word with you about liberty and seurity if he were still around.

Again, I wonder where the TEA Party and some of these militias running around the woods were when this was going on?

Iraq – Even if the only outcome we can hope for comes true and Iraq becomes a stable, free-market democracy, why was it our responsibility to make that happen? I won’t argue that Saddam and his government were douchebags, but there are dozens of douchebags in power around the world. What made him so much worse? Why didn’t we ever invade Sudan? Why didn’t we invade Iran or North Korea? Why was Iraq so imperative after we’d kept him bottled-up and weak for 12 years?

International Relations was my primary focus in college. I’ve always been interested in it. This is my biggest area of disagreement with our former President. We had the entire world behind us after 9/11 and instead of focusing all our resources on Afghanistan and Pakistan and destroying those truly responsible, he decided to go on a wild goose chase in Iraq that we still haven’t quite cleaned up. Our standing and credibility in the world fell dramatically to the point where now many of our allies want out of Afghanistan and we still haven’t finished our orginial, justified mission there.

By all verifiable accounts, there never were any new WMD’s, and bin Laden’s buddies didn’t show up until we took out Saddam (who was a secular arch-enemy of theirs), creating an environment of chaos that they could thrive in. Other than some private defense contractors and the like making a killing on government contracts in the aftermath, the US has seen no economic gain nor any gain in security from the Iraq War.

I believe in international cooperation and that we should stick by our principles. After all these years, I still fail to see how our principles were served by making the invasion of Iraq a priority over more pressing matters, namely destroying a terrorist group that had attacked us roughly 18 months earlier.

if you haven't already

check out this month’s issue of Rolling Stone. great interview with BO and a great article on the Tea Party. well worth the $4

Isn't there some sort of "no politics" rule on this site

ryanfea - October 14, 2010 reply

There is, actually.

No politics, and no hippies.

Fair enough.

I’m not a libertarian…close but not quite. I want the least government possible. So, I accept that the level of intervention has to adjust to threats to my life and liberties. I accept that some of my liberties may be curtailed at times of war or conflict. I don’t like it, but I accept the necessity.
The case you cite above is unfortunate. To be fair, you need to compare this unfair denial of Mr. Mayfield’s liberties to the potential denial of life and liberties to those targeted in thwarted terrorist attacks. For example, this guy was sentenced just 1 1/2 weeks ago. It was only dumb luck that kept many people (5?, 10?, 100?) from having their lives ended by his car bomb.
I’m not sure that you or anyone else can claim that the Patriot Act hasn’t been used to prevent more of these potential terrorist attacks. It can be proven that it has seriously disrupted money laundering and the funneling of cash to terrorist organizations. The fact that President Obama signed a one year extension without any modifications perhaps indicates he has learned the Act is a useful tool in preventing terrorism. If that is the case, I am simultaneously sorry for the treatment of Mr. Mayfield (and any others innocently accused), and glad that the Patriot Act was passed.

Re: Iraq, I believe I covered most of your points above in a reply to 2PintsofBooze. The fact that there are other "douchebags" in the world is not a strong argument against removing Saddam Hussein. Yes, the others remain, but we were able to remove one of the worst. In WWII, we helped remove Hitler, Hussolini, and Tojo. To do it, we unfortunately had to cooperate with another dictator that was possibly worse (Stalin). Among other things though, it puts the other "douchebags" on notice that they may be next. (Actually, that is no longer true with the current administration).

...and with that, I ban myself from further response.

I enjoy the exchange of ideas. I really dislike where people feel they need to take extreme views, and make personal attacks. It’s far better to discuss like this. Thanks to you guys (2pints of booze, commander-nate) for the non-personal reciprocation.

Likewise

IR and national security is a favored subject of mine, so if I get a bit overzealous when discussing it, I apologize.

Now, if our political and media leaders could figure out a way to have such a discussion, that would really be somethin’.

yeah

because that war in Iraq sure didn’t cost us tax payers any money, did it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html?no_interstitial

please read

2pintsofbooze - October 19, 2010 reply

G R E A T

can o’ worms of everyone vomiting their political beliefs on a sports blog.

Sorry

This is my fault.

damn u

No worries

W really is one of the reasons I don’t like the Rangers.

Berkeley

I guess living in Berkeley makes you forget that there are people that aren’t necessarily opposed to him (especially in OC). Anyway, I wasn’t trying to make a political statement, just poke fun at our former president, god knows I have made fun of every president in my lifetime and many others in recent history: Obama, Bush I/II, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon are just a few. Haha.

It was a picture of Michael Young, therefore baseball related

I too was just trying to drop a one-liner initially, but I’ve never been one to pass a political debate, so…whoops. Sometimes they are fun/informative, what can I say?

I find it hard to pass up a political debate too . . .

That is probably why I put the picture up. Haha. Oh well, I guess I created a good distraction from baseball because whenever I think about the playoffs I am depressed that the Angels aren’t there.

Whoa, these posts almost read like McLaughlin Group transcripts.

But somebody tell me, what in the wide world of sports does this have to do with the Halos acquiring Granderson! ;)

halofolife - October 14, 2010 reply

Aren't you banned?

On the other hand, I might be thinking of someone else

ryanfea - October 14, 2010 reply

Not that I know of!

Haha

There's one in every crowd...

Tsk tsk

No politics. It is in the site rules

hauldog - October 14, 2010 via mobile reply

Again sorry for starting a political discussion

That wasn’t my intention at all, just poking fun at our last president. Now, to even things out, I have to poke fun at Nixon celebrating with the Angels in 1979.