Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A quarter of polled republicans think Obama might be the anti-christ

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

  • #16
    Re: A quarter of polled republicans think Obama might be the anti-christ

    Originally posted by unknown source
    This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.

    At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.

    After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

    I then log onto the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right
    Oh noes, SOCIALISM! :row__787:



    TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: A quarter of polled republicans think Obama might be the anti-christ

      Originally posted by ScratchMonkey View Post
      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism


      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership


      So a system that grants the public control and administration over the means of production and allocation of resources is socialism, if I understand the definition correctly.

      If we grant the term "ownership" to a private entity but the public still controls it, we can call that a mixed economy, but that's just playing with the words. The public is still running things. I think that's the scheme that Mussolini was running.

      What's wrong with calling the system we live under "socialism"? We have goverment-run police, fire departments, and military. Why not call those "socialist"?

      What do we call a person who calls for greater public control (ie. ownership, if not in name, then in outcome) of industry?
      The problem isn't just whether it's appropriate to apply the term 'socialism' to the system we live in. That's not even a very interesting question. Who cares what label we use. Call it a 'daifinguaism' if you want. The interesting questions are about the properties of the system we live in and whether those are good or not. Unfortunately, like many technical terms, one can't give a good nonvague, nonambiguous definition of 'socialism' in a single line that will let us appreciate the relevant distinctions between types of economic and political policies. Consider the next line in your wiki entry,

      A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions and method of resource allocation; often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labor expended or individual contribution."
      There's no way to semantically derive that from the line that you quote. Which definition is right then? If your line is right and you can't derive the second line from it, then the second line is not right. If the second line is right, then the first couldn't have been right. I take it the first is just a very general description, not a definition. Consider I give you the following general description of what a frog is: any of various, typically green, tailless amphibians with long gear legs for leaping. That's not going to be a good definition of a frog. It doesn't distinguish between frogs and many kinds of nonfrogs that the description also applies to. It's the same with the general description you quote from the wiki article. The second line is better, but it's also a general description - less general than the first though.

      The problem here is that certain people are disposed to use some variation of the association fallacy, genetic fallacy, equivocation, or appeal to emotion. They exploit the fact that the term 'socialism' has a negative connotation for their audience. So they expect their audience to associate the negative connotation to the system we live in by and thus find it bad calling it "socialist." In doing this, they use the term 'socialist' in such a loose way that in one context, they apply it to things they don't like, and in another, where you would have thought it applied to some features they like based on the way they've used the term in the first context, they deny that it's applicable. The problem is that they use this form of guilty by association argumentnin lieu of considering whether the particular properties of the system are good or bad.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: A quarter of polled republicans think Obama might be the anti-christ

        Originally posted by sordavie View Post
        The problem here is that certain people are disposed to use some variation of the association fallacy, genetic fallacy, equivocation, or appeal to emotion.
        Agreed. Right wingers refer to socialism as an evil while in the same breath calling for things that fit the definition. So how did this come to be? When/Why did socialism become such an evil? Was it just that industrialists (like Hearst) owned the newspapers and were able to demonize it to unthinking masses the same way modern radio talk show hosts do? Why don't right wingers realize that they, too, are socialists, differing only in focus on what they want to socialize?
        Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

        snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

        Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: A quarter of polled republicans think Obama might be the anti-christ

          Francies Bellamy, the author of the Pledge of Allegiance, was a socialist.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: A quarter of polled republicans think Obama might be the anti-christ

            More numbers: http://ow.ly/1rTMm

            These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,320 adults surveyed online between March 1 and 8, 2010 by Harris Interactive.

            The actual percentages of adults who believe these things are true are as follows:

            * He is a socialist (40%)
            * He wants to take away Americans' right to own guns (38%)
            * He is a Muslim (32%)
            * He wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government (29%)
            * He has done many things that are unconstitutional (29%)
            * He resents America's heritage (27%)
            * He does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do (27%)
            * He was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president (25%)
            * He is a domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitutions speaks of (25%)
            * He is a racist (23%)
            * He is anti-American (23%)
            * He wants to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers (23%)
            * He is doing many of the things that Hitler did (20%)
            * He may be the Anti-Christ (14%)
            * He wants the terrorists to win (13%)

            What Republicans, Democrats and Independents think

            There are – no surprise here – huge differences between what Republicans and Democrats believe. Majorities of Republicans believe that President Obama:

            * Is a socialist (67%)
            * Wants to take away Americans' right to own guns (61%)
            * Is a Muslim (57%)
            * Wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government (51%); and
            * Has done many things that are unconstitutional (55%).

            Also large numbers of Republicans also believe that President Obama:

            * Resents America's heritage (47%)
            * Does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do (40%)
            * Was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president (45%)
            * Is the "domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitution speaks of" (45%)
            * Is a racist (42%)
            * Want to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers (41%)
            * Is doing many of the things that Hitler did (38%).

            Even more remarkable perhaps, fully 24% of Republicans believe that "he may be the Anti-Christ" and 22% believe "he wants the terrorists to win."

            While few Democrats believe any of these things, the proportions of Independents who do so are close to the national averages.

            One big surprise is that many more Republicans (40%) than Democrats (15%) believe the president does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do.

            Differences by education

            These replies are also strongly correlated with education. The less education people have had the more likely they are to believe all of these statements. Consider these differences between those with no college education and those with post-graduate education:

            * He is a socialist (45% and 20%)
            * He wants to take away Americans' right to own guns (45% and 19%)
            * He is a Muslim (43% and 9%)
            * He was not born in the United States so is not eligible to be president (32% and 7%)
            * He is a racist (28% and 9%)
            * He is anti-American (27% and 9%)
            * He is doing many of the things Hitler did (24% and 10%).

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: A quarter of polled republicans think Obama might be the anti-christ

              Originally posted by ScratchMonkey View Post
              Agreed. Right wingers refer to socialism as an evil while in the same breath calling for things that fit the definition. So how did this come to be? When/Why did socialism become such an evil? Was it just that industrialists (like Hearst) owned the newspapers and were able to demonize it to unthinking masses the same way modern radio talk show hosts do? Why don't right wingers realize that they, too, are socialists, differing only in focus on what they want to socialize?
              The opinion pieces(s) in the NYT article talks about how most people associate socialism with communism. I really think that when most people talk about socialism they are really think of a ideology that is at basic odds with their ideology. And of course they think their ideology is, or at least should be, the ideology that is America.
              n many

              So I think that at least some of it is calculated marketing introduced by Republicans. Just like the estate tax was re-branded the death tax, by the Republicans, in many peoples minds.

              I think you are correct in your assertion that many that cry "socialism!" are the same ones that don't want the government to take over Medicare. The canidate that promises to beat back socialism in all it's forms will often promise to bring federal dollars to build roads and fix dams.

              I also think that some of it is a reaction to Obama. It is a latent racism. I saw an article that showed a couple of studies that showed that this might be happening. They presented to two groups the same health care proposal. When the proposal was attributed to Clinton it more people approved of it than when the same proposal was attributed to Obama. There where some other parts of the study that showed that those that disaproved of the plan when attributed to Obama also showed some signs of latent racism. (I will link it if I find it again. It came up when I was clicking the stumble button a week ago.)

              So I think there is just to much going on right now. Oil/energy prices high. Still a war going on with an enemy that can't be confronted directly. The high unemployment rate. The big banks screwing us all and the fat cats still making millions of dollars after we save their butts. Global warming. Since there isn't a single source of the fear and change they blame "socialism".

              And let us not forget that there are just a bunch of crazy sprinkler ladies out there. With the internet and many 24/7 news outlets looking to fill in minutes they become visible and their crazy ideas are given a certain amount of weight. Some like Beck capitalize on those crazies. The internet allows the crazies to bolster their crazy ideas because they provide "proof" to each other. This also allows the recuiting of people that don't really have a voice or enough education or even intelligence to understand what is going on. Many of those shouting now would have, several years ago, not have had any opinion.

              And there is also the fact that the deals that are going on in Washington are now being exposed. Like the Nebraska kickback that was given to help get the health care bill threw. That isn't a new thing. Those kinds of deals have gone on since the conception of the country. There where many compromises made in the Deceleration of Independence and the constitution. Because many are seeing these for the first time they think they are somehow new and indicative of some new evil sweeping the land. Socialism is the name they give this evil .

              ++EDIT++
              Just wanted to add the the left has their own over generalized class that they tend to place problems in. Because the Dems marketing is not nearly as good as the Republicans there are not cool names that conjure up old fears and anxieties. One is profit. Another is the lobbyists hired by the rich. Even "the rich" is a catch all at times. There are more I bet. I tend to have an aversion to anything that gives the police or any other law enforcement group more power.
              Last edited by El_Gringo_Grande; 03-28-2010, 09:53 PM.
              Iím not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
              - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
              - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
              - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
              - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette
              - "Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." -Friedrich Hayek
              - "Don't waist your time on me your already the voice inside my head." Blink 182 to my wife

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: A quarter of polled republicans think Obama might be the anti-christ

                Let's get back to the 25% that think Obama is the Anti-Christ. Has any other political figure ever get that high a number? Maybe Clinton? Do you really think they believe this or are they just using the term as many liberals use Hitler when referring to certain conservative?

                I did not like GW Bush at all and thought he was pretty much Cheneys puppet. But to think that he was the devil incarnate.

                What does that say about Republicans? November should be interesting.
                Iím not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
                - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
                - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
                - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
                - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette
                - "Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." -Friedrich Hayek
                - "Don't waist your time on me your already the voice inside my head." Blink 182 to my wife

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: A quarter of polled republicans think Obama might be the anti-christ

                  Originally posted by sordavie View Post
                  Yes, because you're clearly utilizing too broad of a definition of the term 'socialism'. Or you're using it in such a loose and vague way that you choose when and where, arbitrarily, you want to apply the label.
                  Considering that I quoted the definition from Britannica.com, and then directly correlated that to one of the largest goals of the current president, I don't see your foundation for saying this. I'm not afraid to answer the question, but felt it was irrelevant, since he asked about my "personal" definition and feelings. The established definition is, of course, of the greater importance. I would like to know what you feel that to be, if it cannot be found in common reference sources.
                  Originally posted by sordavie View Post
                  The fact that you use the term 'socialist' in such a loose way that it would appear to apply to all of the presidents in the last 100 years is good evidence that you're not using the term correctly.
                  I could easily point out presidents like Regan & Coolidge, who seem to have tried to reverse the tides of excessive regulation and taxation, which would be against a very loose and encompassing definition of "socialist." If you notice that about 100 years ago was the time when the progressive income tax was started (I hope you feel that any heavy tax on income is Communistic!), it would not be expected to find a lot of presidents that are anti-Socialist in the subsequent decades, so long as the general population continues to support such ideals.
                  Originally posted by sordavie View Post
                  You also slip between using the terms 'socialist' and 'socialistic'.
                  Socialistic:"Of, advocating, or tending toward socialism." That's from TheFreeDictionary.com, since you don't like Britannica, lol.

                  Originally posted by sordavie View Post
                  For instance in another recent thread you appear to equate communes with communism or at least imply that the former lead to the latter. Communes have nothing to do with communism.
                  I'm unsure of what you're referencing there, but to say that communes have "nothing" to do with communism? How so? Communes are tiny communist ventures, are they not?
                  Commune:a. A relatively small, often rural community whose members share common interests, work, and income and often own property collectively. Communism:1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

                  Originally posted by sordavie View Post
                  Perhaps you should try reading the Communist Manifesto instead of "summaries" of it.
                  I've read an English translation of it, in its entirety. In fact, I went over it today and feel more sure than ever of my intellectual conception of the terms "socialism" and "communism." Perhaps some excepts from the work would be fitting?
                  "The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
                  "In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend."
                  Of course, it's clarified to encroach only on the property of "bourgeoisie," for it's said that private property is already done away with in 9/10 of the population, through capitalism.
                  Five different types of socialism are shortly expounded on. None of them were completely acceptable to Marx, but he'd likely prefer any but "Conservative Socialism" to free trade. That section on "Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism" is an interesting part. It affirms my allusion to a welfare state being socialistic. It is a concession by "capitalists" or "bourgeois," to attempt to maintain control, but it is opposed to free trade. It has qualities of socialism without being acceptable to socialists who hold larger goals.
                  In the English preface of 1888, Engels states, "Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a Socialist Manifesto."
                  Thank you for encouraging me to (re)read it. :-)

                  Between Socialism and Communism I see a similar amount of difference as between Catholicism and Protestantism. Both religions are called "Christianity" and yet some on each side would argue all day that the other group is nothing like "real" Christianity. From the outside and for general purposes, each set looks similar enough to be called by a common word, in my opinion.

                  Now, since when has 24% become a "full" quarter? Sounds like you're the one repeating things like a parrot, I'm afraid. :P

                  I personally know some people who might have answered "yes" to the question about Obama being THE anti-christ, because they feel he holds principles that are completely opposed to those of Christ. That's my guess on why the number is so high. I think it was due to some people wanting to express their disapproval, rather than actually claim the president is THE anti-christ.

                  sigpic
                  "The true genius shudders at incompleteness - and usually prefers silence to saying
                  something which is not everything it should be." ó Edgar Allan Poe

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: A quarter of polled republicans think Obama might be the anti-christ

                    Originally posted by SilentSunshine View Post
                    "In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.".

                    When has Obama said he wants to abolish private property?
                    Iím not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
                    - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
                    - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
                    - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
                    - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette
                    - "Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." -Friedrich Hayek
                    - "Don't waist your time on me your already the voice inside my head." Blink 182 to my wife

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: A quarter of polled republicans think Obama might be the anti-christ

                      Originally posted by SilentSunshine View Post
                      I personally know some people who might have answered "yes" to the question about Obama being THE anti-christ, because they feel he holds principles that are completely opposed to those of Christ. That's my guess on why the number is so high. I think it was due to some people wanting to express their disapproval, rather than actually claim the president is THE anti-christ.
                      What, like turn the other cheek, or "Those will be blessed in the Kingdom of Heaven who renounced possession of earthly things, renounced seeking earthly wealth because the Heavenly Father will be their Wealth if they dedicated themselves to aspiring for Him. “Do not lay up treasures on the Earth…, but lay up treasures in Heaven… for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matt 6:19-21)

                      Don't tax meeeeeeeeee.

                      Methinks those that claim to be the most Christian these days, didn't really "get" Jesus.
                      Do or do not, there is no try....
                      -- Yoda, Dagobah

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: A quarter of polled republicans think Obama might be the anti-christ

                        Originally posted by SilentSunshine View Post
                        I personally know some people who might have answered "yes" to the question about Obama being THE anti-christ, because they feel he holds principles that are completely opposed to those of Christ.
                        I'm very interested in finding out what principles you're talking about?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: A quarter of polled republicans think Obama might be the anti-christ

                          I don't see how I could be "parroting" anything. I didn't assert that 24% is the same as a full quarter. I quoted someone saying that a full quarter of republicans polled think something. And I quoted some other document that summarized the findings of a poll that said that 24% of republicans think something. How is this repeating myself or parroting?

                          So is Catholicism the phase you must go through to become Protestant or is it the other way around?

                          I don't think there are any established definitions of socialism. So I wouldn't use the term in most contexts. Dictionaries often don't give us usable definitions of terms. They give us what's called the lexical definition - a highly inclusive description of the general use of the term. These are often far too vague to be useful in a discussion. Consider the lexical definition of 'bachelor': An unmarried male. That definition includes male babies, the Pope, males that have been married and are divorced, nonhuman males, and perhaps certain types of cabling connectors. At least some of these aren't bachelors. It would be silly of me to insist, pointing at this definition, that the hdmi cable that I plug in to the rear of my TV is a bachelor because (1) it is unmarried and (2) it is a male. When lexical definitions are too vague or unsuitable for clarifying a discussion, we need more precise types of definitions.

                          There are some things that a definition should do that lexical definitions can't do. The definition or definiens, for instance, ought to be substitutable in any place the term, or definiendum, appears without change in the semantic content of the sentence. It ought to tell us the necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term applies and when it doesn't. There are two types of definitions we might give here, a precising definition or a stipulative definition. The first kind is an extension of the lexical definition by including additional criteria that narrows down what the term applies and doesn't apply to - the difference between lexical and precising definitions is that while the former seeks to provide the most general information to the most general audience, the latter attempts to provide precise and specific information without regard to audience. A stipulative definition is a highly precise meaning given to a new term or an old term for the purposes of argument or discussion in a particular context. So long as all parties agree to the stipulated meaning, the debate will not get sidetracked by participants talking past one another due to equivocation of a term's meaning. If your "personal definition" is just something nobody else in the discussion understands the term to mean, then you'll be talking past everyone.

                          So to make it clear, I don't think we have any established precising definition of the term 'socialism', and I nobody has suggested a good stipulative definition either. I would dispense with using the term 'socialism' in any argumentative context or debate because of this. I take it the important part of the argument or debate is whether the economic or political policies are good or bad, not whether a term applies or does not apply to it. If you're focused on the latter, it might be a sign that your real argument is lacking and you're resorting to name calling.

                          Why would I feel that any heavy tax on a wage labor income is communistic? Communism dispenses with the notion of wage labor. There are no taxes in a true communist country. Think of the Federation in Star Trek: the Next Generation. That's pretty close to pure communism. Communism and socialism are not the same thing. Marx argued that socialism is the phase society must go through before it can reach a communist phase.

                          Of course, 'communism' is used pretty vaguely and I don't know what precising or stipulative definition is good here either. So what if a heavy tax should be labeled by the term 'communistic' or not? Who cares whether it should be labeled by the term 'oogabooga' or not. If you want to criticize the notion of a heavy tax, tell me what's wrong with it. Don't label it with some vague term, expect me to associate some negative connotation of the term, and come to the conclusion that it must be bad. You ought not do that to yourself either.

                          But suppose a heavy tax is communistic. It's not sufficient that someone who's against heavy taxation is an anti-communist (or anti-socialist as you put it.) You're just picking when and where you want to apply which term based on the looseness and vagueness inherent in your idea of what the terms means so that you can use favorable or unfavorable labels when it suits you. On one hand you say that proponents of nationalization of goods and services are socialists. You want to apply this criteria to Obama in the case of health care. Were Regan and Coolidge against nationalization of defense, education, fire control, and so on? I take it no. So here you don't apply the criteria. Apparently nationalization of somethings is not socialistic. Sheesh, which is it? Obama is not against the abolition of private property. So that must mean he's anti-communist, if I use your Regan-Coolidge criteria. Or even better, anti-socialist, if I use your criteria and your notion that socialism and communism are generally the same thing. So by your own criteria, Obama turns out anti-socialist. Of course, you will reply that I'm misusing your criteria. But that's because there are no principles behind your criteria other than that you use them when it suits you and you don't when it doesn't.
                          Last edited by sordavie; 03-29-2010, 01:51 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: A quarter of polled republicans think Obama might be the anti-christ

                            Given that "socialist" is a weasel word used in this poll to show off the ignorance of the person using it, I wonder who commissioned the poll? Presumably the whole point is to show that democracy has failed, that the body politic is too stupid to understand anything, and that only our cultural elite can safely make decisions about the country.
                            Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

                            snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

                            Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: A quarter of polled republicans think Obama might be the anti-christ

                              I'm not sure why you think the poll results inherently shows off the ignorance of certain groups of people. Someone might take the data contained in the results of the poll to do that, but the poll results don't assert anything of the sort.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: A quarter of polled republicans think Obama might be the anti-christ

                                I'd probably not be too inaccurate at interpreting the above responses to mean that most TG's think 25% of Republican respondents are kooks.

                                Was the choice of the word "socialist" in the poll because the composer just heard it a lot? Or was it because he was expecting a certain result and designed the poll to cast Republican voters in the worst light? We've established that the word is poor for use in any economic debate, so it doesn't really tell us anything about the economic views of the respondents. I would have been one of those who classified Obama as a socialist, but only because I think all politicians think the economy can't get along without them. It's not because I think he's the fulfillment of some religious prophecy or even a love child of Marx.
                                Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

                                snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

                                Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

                                Comment

                                Connect

                                Collapse

                                TeamSpeak 3 Server

                                Collapse

                                Twitter Feed

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X