Patterico's Pontifications

6/21/2010

White House to Kyl: You Lie!

Filed under: Obama — DRJ @ 9:25 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Yesterday I posted on Arizona Senator Jon Kyl’s claim that President Obama said he won’t secure the border until Americans agree to amnesty. Today the White House responded by denying Kyl’s claim, and Kyl’s spokesman responded that Kyl’s version of the statement is consistent with Obama’s public position on immigration. It’s also memorable given Kyl’s follow-up that it’s Obama’s duty to secure the border.

On the other hand, if Obama uses the same long-winded, convoluted sentences in his private meetings that he’s known for in his extemporaneous speaking, I’d have a hard time remembering anything he says.

— DRJ

128 Responses to “White House to Kyl: You Lie!”

  1. I’m not sure it matters what he says; he’s just going to change his mind as soon as he hopes that will make him look better.

    htom (412a17)

  2. obama lies…..

    all we need to remember about any announcement from his regime.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  3. This is the White House that has Rahm at the top of decision making.

    They are liars. They are political machines. They are cool with mailing dead fish wrapping in newspaper to opponents.

    Of course they said this. It makes perfect sense.

    they say “There are more resources dedicated toward border security”

    Do they? Are these people tasked with keeping illegals from breaching the border, or something else as the National Guard sent to Arizona’s border?

    They will sue those who protect our border, so I don’t trust them on this. They have lied several times about Arizona’s law, too.

    Kyl’s a good person and I’m glad he brought this out in the open. Let’s hold the White House to it. Secure the border. Not in exchange for anything, just do it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  4. Senaor Kyl is scheduled to go Greta Van Susteren tomorrow night and address this. Should be interesting.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  5. Dustin, they wrapped the fish in Luca’s bullet-proof vest.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  6. You know, I’m tired of realizing just how many typos I make. It’s because I have a hard time actually seeing the text I type. But I’m sorry I make the threads so messy.

    Dana, that is something I will have to watch. I never get to FNC, but I’ll make a point of seeing this.

    I think a solid half of the electorate already has contempt for Obama’s ethics, and the other half will split from the cynical / true believers. It’s a bad idea for Obama to put his admin’s word against the word of anybody.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  7. OT: Dustin, if you use FireFox, it will underline what it thinks are typos in red.

    you still have to remember to scan for them, and pick a proper spelling, but it helps.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  8. DC– another toddlin’ town…

    drone (6cf5fc)

  9. Obama’s word is bond! He would never lie.

    Obama promised to keep unemployment under 9% if we would just give him $787B.

    Obama promised that he would not raise taxes “one dime” on anyone earning less than $250K.

    Obama promised that under Obamacare if you like liked your doctor and your current insurance, you could keep it.

    Obama promised that he would end the war in Iraq and fight the “necessary” war in Afghanistan.

    Obama promised to stop warrantless wire tappings and renditions.

    Obama promised a boom in green jobs.

    Obama promised a post racial, bipartisan atmosphere in Washington.

    Obama promised an executive order prohibiting use of tax dollars to fund abortions.

    Obama promised to use soft power to deal with Iran and North Korea.

    Obama promised leadership.

    Obama promised transparency. Every bill would be posted on the web.

    Obama promised CSPAN would cover the Healthcare meetings live.

    Arch (24f4f2)

  10. Big deal: Republicans always lie. It’s genetic.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  11. Triumph:

    So you think Obama has closed the Arizona border? It is his job.

    arch (24f4f2)

  12. Non-sequitur Man strikes again!

    Icy Texan (b17d15)

  13. Obama’s sentences are convoluted if you don’t understand English

    boo-sox (e79b6c)

  14. We are all not used to having a president who actually earned his way into an Ivy League school, so I think we should back off on making fun of his eloquent sentences until we adjust.

    boo-sox (e79b6c)

  15. @boo-sox

    People here speak only tardese, the language of their favorite beauty-queen-turned-ex-governor.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  16. @Arch:

    Obama is a schmuck with the same IQ as his predecessor and, it turns out, some of the politics. Still, it’s a matter of fact that Republicans always lie and Kyl’s claim is too politically convenient for it being an exception to the rule.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  17. Arch, comments like yours seem to drive the nutcase democrats like Triumph into concern troll frenzy!

    You are awarded 160 cool points.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  18. Does Arch think that Bush closed the border? It was his job, too. Oops. What I meant to say (so that I don’t get banned) is ‘ALL HEIL BUSH’.

    boo-sox (e79b6c)

  19. “There are more resources dedicated toward border security”

    Liberal Think Tank employees living on a Government Grant don’t really count.

    HeavenSent (a9126d)

  20. @6 You still have Bush beat, unless you still write with crayons…

    boo-sox (e79b6c)

  21. Obama throws like a Girl.

    Frank Drackman (550e6d)

  22. Does Arch think that Bush closed the border? It was his job, too. Oops. What I meant to say (so that I don’t get banned) is ‘ALL HEIL BUSH’.

    Comment by boo-sox”

    Of course he doesn’t.

    And I don’t know many Republicans who approved of this failure.

    Stop living in the past. Bush was imperfect, and he’s no longer in power. He was heavily criticized for having some role in deficit spending, his policies on the border, and many other issues.

    Obama has a responsibility to secure the border. He knew, or should have known, what he was singing up for. This ‘he inherited’ problems crap is pathetic. Even a bad janitor knows he can’t complain that he inherited full trash cans.

    This is his job.

    Also, you’re a liar to imply you’ll be banned for viewpoint. Why not drop the oppressed routine and just argue against border control?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  23. @Dustin:

    Once and for all, I am NOT a Dem and the only thing I’m concerned for is the state of conservatism in this country. You seem to be one of the few people here able to read words with more than two syllables so I expect you to understand what I’m saying. Or am I too charitable?

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  24. Even Obama’s successor’s successor will have to deal with the mess left by Dubya. That guy was the WORST president EVER.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  25. Election-stealer (twice)
    Torturer and abuser
    Assassin of the Constitution
    Liar for the ages
    Sold the country to corporations
    Precipitated the worst recession since 1929
    Dumbest dumbass of them all

    BUSH ON TRIAL!!!!

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  26. Triumph,

    If I’m wrong, understand that I’m following your advice to use humor, sorta in a watered down version of what you’re doing, to mock.

    But if I’m wrong I am sorry. I’m at a loss to understand you, though. W was a worse president than Carter? Than Wilson? Than FDR? Than Lincoln (I love Lincoln, but am trying to grasp your point of view and Lincoln was anti federalist).

    What makes Bush so ultimate?

    Better yet, if you’re sincere, what kind of politician are you looking for? Ron Paul? Paul Ryan? Ryan Seacrest?

    The way you’re making your points isn’t very good at letting me know what your point is, and is very good at getting people to react to your attacks. Which seems to me to be trollage. We all know about the moby idea, so I’d draw a conclusion that you’re not really a conservative. At best, you’re accidentally repeating Obama’s favorite talking point these days, that he may be bad but Bush is soooooo bad.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  27. Dustin, I smell sock lint. Don’t you?

    Eric Blair (6ca166)

  28. Actually, failure to execute the oath of office (defending the nations borders and protecting it’s citizens) would be impeachable.

    cedarhill (b9d3cf)

  29. This “triumph” cat isn’t skilled enough to moby or concern troll. He can only troll.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  30. Dustin – triumph the idiot dog has done this show here many times before. Someone claiming to be a conservative until Bush is a dead give-away as to the amount of seriousness you should place on their opinion. It is a lying f*cking Moby, no different than the hundreds that preceded it.

    JD (99d9b9)

  31. As for the subject of this post, you know there is an easy way for the white house to settle the debate. Actually secure the border, without amnesty. then we will all know that kyl was lying, or at least we won’t care.

    But they can’t stop the flow. mmm, that’s getting to be a theme with them. Can stop the flow of oil, or illegals.

    JD

    Well, the real sign of a fake ex-republican troll is when they call Bush some variation of Chimpy McHitlerburton, and i don’t mean ironically like i just did. you know, its one thing if they say, “i just felt that bush’s policies were unwise” but to go the full metal wingnut is a dead giveaway.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  32. Triumph, are you not supposed to be in the studio? Don’t you have another album coming out?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  33. Wanna know the reasons why I loathe WBooch?

    1°) He launched us into an useless, ill-prepared war and resorted to dishonest tricks in selling it to us. Now I had no objection to Saddam being overthrown (should have been done at the end of First Gulf War) but could we please first get the Afghan job before starting another in Irak? Hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi people died because of this foolishness and dishonesty.
    2°) He ruined everything our Founding Fathers stood for. He was not alone in screwing our rights and liberties with the Patriot Act – Democrats were happy to give him a hand at that. But the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” – i.e., torture – is something he and his pals are the only ones to be blamed for. “Cruel and unusual punishment”, Amendments Four, Six and Eight – ring a bell, fellas?
    3°) He ruined our image worldwide for no gain. America is powerful enough not to need others to achieve its goal yet we are polite enough to sound as though we need help and advice from our friends – it’s called diplomacy. WBooch ditched that completely and as a result we ended being more unpopular worldwide than OBL.

    As to comparisons with other presidents, I’d say Carter is arguably the weakest president we ever had – especially in dealing with the Mullahs; we needed a hawk and all we got was a sheep – but he was much less toxic to the values and standing of America than WBooch was.
    As to what kind of politician I’m looking for, I’ve said earlier that I was longing for Eisenhower republicans, the kind that became a minority in their own party after Goldwater took over. I see no one in sight – the RLC is on the right track but is too liberal on abortion and societal issues for my taste.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  34. Yep, Moby troll.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  35. I might actually pay attention to what you type, Triumph, if you weren’t a demonstrable liar. Spewing standard leftist mantras is not a way to burnish your bona fides.

    JD (5375e6)

  36. Triumph, if my comments cause you some degree of emotional distress, you should get back on your meds.

    For those with some intellect, Check out American Thinker. Over on AT, Russ Vaughn has an interesting piece. The Kyl-Obama conversation took place in the Oval office, so it should be on tape.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/wheres_the_tape_mr_president.html

    If Kyl is lying, roll the tape! If he’s not, STFU.

    arch (24f4f2)

  37. Triumph

    Its rich to hear you calling bush a liar, given your own obvious dishonesty.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  38. arch – That ain’t gonna happen. Especially when Pfeifer’s denial pretty much confirms what Kyl said.

    JD (5375e6)

  39. haiku say triumph
    not worth namesake doggie poop
    comedian dog

    ColonelHaiku (2ce3dc)

  40. Triumph:

    1. Wrong. Virtually every intel service knew Saddam had w WMD program. He was pursuing nuclear weapons. Before we attacked, he shipped the stuff to Syria. We watched the trucks. His nuclear weapons director defected. He lives in Washington. Chemical weapons are WMDs; he used them on the Kurds. He had a PhD microbiologist researching biological weapons. You remember Dr. Germ, don’t you? If your information is so accurate, what colour is the boathouse at Hereford?

    2. Wrong again. Water boarding is not torture. Exposure to hot and cold environments are not torture. We use them on our own guys at survival schools. I attended three US military survival courses. How about you, August Triumphant One?

    3. Wrong for a third time. President Bush put together a 31 Nation coalition for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Some of our friends were less than helpful – France, Germany, Russia come to mind. Bush certainly has the respect of the Iraqis, the Kurds, the Poles and many others. Obama has ruined the special relations with the UK!

    What a joke! By comparison, Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Julius Caesar.

    arch (24f4f2)

  41. arch, I am glad you replied to the Rosie O’Donnell wing of the Progressives, but “Triumph” (who I am pretty sure is one of our banned trolls based on language use and vitriol) isn’t interested in anything but Teh Narrative.
    Notice how it is set up so that no matter how thumbfingered BHO is shown to be, it is still GWB’s fault?

    Alphabetist hypocrisy.

    Eric Blair (fc59fb)

  42. Comment by Dustin — 6/22/2010 @ 4:46 am

    You forgot Jeri Ryan.

    AD - RtR/OS! (2480c8)

  43. Knowing that at times the host of this fair sight will impose “civility expectations” on a thread he considers especially important, I request “intelligence and truth” expectations for threads having to do with the one at the moment, at least with Kyl and McChrystal.

    This stuff is too important to be disrupted by the disengenious garbage and excrement that gets flung around, please, please, please, DRJ, Stash, patterico, do something before half of your viewers either stop looking or smash their screen.

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  44. MD, that is the goal of trolls. And then when they are called on it, they shout that their opinions are being stifled.

    Isn’t it sad that so little work by a few destroys the work of others?

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  45. I’m thinking that the Chicago way works with those who are motivated by selfish ambition, and the one and his ilk have run into people who are more interested with the good of the country and the people they represent or are in charge of.

    So Obama’s little one on one strong arm tactics, first displayed on a national scale when he, as a first term Senator and Democratic candidate, read the riot act to Lieberman on the Senate floor, have not been effective as anticipated.

    Push is coming to shove, will the deceit of the one and the MSM entralled with him win the day, or will honest people prevail with straightforward appeal to the truth?

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  46. Eric,

    Yes, yes it is. Perhaps Patterico will start a thread exclusively for trolls so they can post whatever they want, so their opinions are not “stifled”, but we don’t need to work to wade through their muck.

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  47. I think that they have that already, MD, at Sadly, No! and elsewhere. Except they need to battle people with whom they disagree. Which makes no sense to me. But there it is.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  48. By the way, let’s observe some of the contradictory crap from Triumph.

    On one hand he says: “[Bush] launched us into an useless … war.” On the other hand, he said, “Now I had no objection to Saddam being overthrown (should have been done at the end of First Gulf War).” Well, if you think Saddam “should” have been overthrown, and the war accomplished that end, then how exactly can you honestly call it useless.

    He also said we were ill prepared. We had almost a year’s lead in.

    He claimed Bush lied. As usual, the claims that Bush lied is in fact a lie.

    Not that I expect this guy to know very much about “Irak.” Here’s a hint. If you can’t spell the name of the country, when its only four letters, I am going to discount everything else you say on the subject.

    > He ruined everything our Founding Fathers stood for.

    You know the founding fathers believed in actually fighting our enemies. They stood for that, too; in fact they were more about that than being nice to our enemies.

    > He was not alone in screwing our rights and liberties with the Patriot Act – Democrats were happy to give him a hand at that.

    Name one valuable right or freedom Bush took away from you, and cite the law involved.

    Liberals can never rise to that challenge.

    (psst, being able to check “terrorism for dummies” out of the library without at least being questioned by the FBI is not one of them.)

    > But the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” – i.e., torture

    Don’t you love the liberal mindset. They can’t figure out what terrorism is, but they are absolutely certain on the definition of torture. Never mind that even a democratic congress refused to specifically outlaw what bush had done, and the laws that are there are probably so vague as to be unconstitutional, let’s pretend that the definition of torture is certain.

    > [“torture”] is something he and his pals are the only ones to be blamed for. “Cruel and unusual punishment”

    The founding fathers hung people for horsetheft. Something tells me that being forced to listen to Harry Potter readings wouldn’t bother them so much.

    > He ruined our image worldwide for no gain.

    Besides keeping us safe, liberating 50 million people, killing lots of terrorists. Yep, no gain. Meanwhile, Obama is well loved all over the world… except in Muslim countries. It turns out in those countries the only thing that would suffice is if we surrendered in the war on terror.

    > America is powerful enough not to need others to achieve its goal yet we are polite enough to sound as though we need help and advice from our friends

    If we don’t need their help, what do we care what they think? This isn’t high school and I could give a rat’s a– if they like us at the Club for Dictators (aka the UN).

    I might add that your idol Obama did need the help of the world and turned it away. He still hasn’t waived the Jones Act. Bush did it in 4 days after Katrina.

    But that is actually factually bunk. Bush did consult with the world. And when the world proved useless, only then he went it alone. He gave them the chance to step up and they declared Saddam had WMDs, but they were not interested in doing anything about it. That is the sad, ugly truth, only verified by the fact that everyone knows Iran is building a nuke while its leader says, “There has been no holocaust… yet.” (no he didn’t literally say that, that is just my pitch-black sense of humor, there).

    Only a liberal idiot thinks we should hold our national security hostage to the UN, to China and Russia.

    > As to what kind of politician I’m looking for, I’ve said earlier that I was longing for Eisenhower republicans

    You think Eisenhower would have been more solicitous of our allies? Wow, you are clueless.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  49. btw, i keep saying… if obama wants to prove kyl a liar… just secure the border. if he doesn’t, then we will know kyl was telling the truth.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  50. if obama wants to prove kyl a liar… just secure the border.

    Amen.

    This is simple.

    Not that he was going to secure it after he got amnesty to amend the voter rolls. This is one of the few plausible paths for reelection for this crew, after trashing our country’s finance, shores, and international stature.

    Blaming Bush sure as hell isn’t going to work. But that too will be attempted. As if Bush didn’t inherit problems too. This is a tough job and we elected someone who wouldn’t be able to work at McDonald’s without whining that he inherited frozen beef.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  51. Dustin

    i am thinking of getting a betting pool running. Which flow will obama stop first:

    immigration?

    Or the oil spill?

    Place your bets!

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  52. Boy, you guys are either autistic or brain-dead or just downright fanatics, and I don’t know which option is the most distressing. “Conservative” to you apparently excludes anyone to the left of Sam Brownback, and your vision of history (especially the history of the conservative movement) is, er, an odd one. I don’t like Obama, I don’t like the Dems but if they are the price to pay to keep belligerent loonies like you all from power, then I’m ready to suffer as many years as necessary.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  53. Patterico, DRJ, Can we start banning folks by MAC address, please.

    Make them buy new hardware if they want to come back and urinate in the pool again.

    NavyspyII (df615d)

  54. Triumph, your habit of rewriting history and making up stuff makes you liberal, not conservative, by definition.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  55. I wonder if Triumph is a single, twin, or triple?

    AD - RtR/OS! (2480c8)

  56. AD, Triumph is nothing more than a post-it note on the terminal of some DNC hack.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  57. arch, I am glad you replied to the Rosie O’Donnell wing of the Progressives, but “Triumph” (who I am pretty sure is one of our banned trolls based on language use and vitriol) isn’t interested in anything but Teh Narrative.

    So we should expect him to provide the “I work here is done” proclamation sometime soon?

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  58. Comment by SPQR — 6/22/2010 @ 10:33 am

    Not even a Tiger Cub – must be a 2-stroke.

    AD - RtR/OS! (2480c8)

  59. Another Chis

    He work here is done!

    lol

    There i did it for him.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  60. #42 MD in Philly,

    With respect, Sir. It is not the moderators that allow these trolls to hijack the threads but the commenters who follow these Pied Pipers off topic. If they were ignored their comments would have little effect on the threads and they would not be encouraged. They are quite successful here and have little reason not to continue. It is the commenters here who decide if they want to follow the topic or the trolls.

    I don’t see how the moderators are supposed to decide who is a troll and who’s opinion is just not mainstream. I don’t think I am a troll but I have certainly had opinions that were against some of the regular commenters here.

    Machinist (497786)

  61. Please DO NOT ban Triumph. Given the chance, he might actually stop foaming at the mouth and start delivering calm, rational, reasoned arguments.

    After all, there’s only so much poop to throw around.

    [Then again, he does seem to be another one of those trolls that conveniently ignores the HISTORICAL FACT that the New York Times itself verified the results of the 2000 election.]

    Icy Texan (092752)

  62. On one hand he says: “[Bush] launched us into an useless … war.” On the other hand, he said, “Now I had no objection to Saddam being overthrown (should have been done at the end of First Gulf War).” Well, if you think Saddam “should” have been overthrown, and the war accomplished that end, then how exactly can you honestly call it useless.

    It was useless to invade a country to overthrow a now largely inoffensive (to us, not his people) dictator twelve years after we had a perfect and legitimate occasion to get rid of twelve years before. I note without that you didn’t answer my subsequent point about the need to get the job (Afghanistan) done before starting another, but then I guess you’re one of those who advocate opening a third front in Iran – sensible thing to do without a doubt.

    He also said we were ill prepared. We had almost a year’s lead in.

    Wars don’t end when the enemy surrenders; it includes what comes after. And we were clearly ill-prepared for that as the long cycle of violence and anarchy that followed the liberation (note that I don’t use commas, unlike your standard liberal) of Irak demonstrates.

    He claimed Bush lied. As usual, the claims that Bush lied is in fact a lie.

    Your song?

    Not that I expect this guy to know very much about “Irak.” Here’s a hint. If you can’t spell the name of the country, when its only four letters, I am going to discount everything else you say on the subject.

    Being a purist is fine and dandy. Being able to understand other people’s points and answering it is even better. You should try once.

    > He ruined everything our Founding Fathers stood for.

    You know the founding fathers believed in actually fighting our enemies. They stood for that, too; in fact they were more about that than being nice to our enemies.

    Excuse me, I missed the passage where Jefferson advocated “enhanced interrogation techniques”, rendition, wiretapping and infinite detention without trial.

    > He was not alone in screwing our rights and liberties with the Patriot Act – Democrats were happy to give him a hand at that.

    Name one valuable right or freedom Bush took away from you, and cite the law involved.

    Looks like the value of rights and freedoms depends to you on who is losing them and why, so answering in detail would be pointless. Maybe you’ll have an answer the day you’ll find yourself detained without trial (and no help of a lawyer) and subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques” for no clear reason and on shaky evidence.

    Liberals can never rise to that challenge.

    They can and do. But what use is it when your opponent is sticking his fingers in his ears chanting “La-la-la, I can’t hear you, la-la-la”? as you are presently doing?

    (psst, being able to check “terrorism for dummies” out of the library without at least being questioned by the FBI is not one of them.)

    If you think you’re funny then you fail miserably.

    > But the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” – i.e., torture

    Don’t you love the liberal mindset. They can’t figure out what terrorism is, but they are absolutely certain on the definition of torture. Never mind that even a democratic congress refused to specifically outlaw what bush had done, and the laws that are there are probably so vague as to be unconstitutional, let’s pretend that the definition of torture is certain.

    The definition of torture is certain, and it includes “enhanced interrogation techniques”; check the Geneva Convention which the US happens to have signed some time ago. Of course you may pretend that it’s only a piece of paper and we don’t have to surrender our right to torture whoever we please to international babble. You’ll find yourself in agreement with luminaries like Gaddafi, al-Assad, Castro, Wu Jintao and others. Sounds good, doesn’t it? As to the rest of your “argument” it’s another strawman since I said that Dems were complicit in Bush’s screwing of our values and system.

    > [“torture”] is something he and his pals are the only ones to be blamed for. “Cruel and unusual punishment”

    The founding fathers hung people for horsetheft. Something tells me that being forced to listen to Harry Potter readings wouldn’t bother them so much.

    See above. I can’t recall the Founding Fathers or the Supreme Court – even the Dredd Scott years – commending the use of torture – oops, “enhanced interrogation techniques” – to get information. I also missed the amendment legalizing Third Degree, but maybe I haven’t read The Federalist Papers nor the Constitution well. The best proof that waterboarding and other funny games are indeed torture is how hard Bush and his cronies ran for cover when the Abu-Ghraib affair surfaced and blamed those who just obeyed their sinister orders.

    > He ruined our image worldwide for no gain.

    Besides keeping us safe, liberating 50 million people, killing lots of terrorists. Yep, no gain. Meanwhile, Obama is well loved all over the world… except in Muslim countries. It turns out in those countries the only thing that would suffice is if we surrendered in the war on terror.

    “La-la-la, I can’t hear you, la-la-la”

    If we don’t need their help, what do we care what they think? This isn’t high school and I could give a rat’s a– if they like us at the Club for Dictators (aka the UN).

    Strawman – once and again; you should open a factory. I mentioned “our friends”, not the UN. Everyone, even the US, may need allies and that’s why we should ideally be friendly to them.

    I might add that your idol Obama did need the help of the world and turned it away. He still hasn’t waived the Jones Act. Bush did it in 4 days after Katrina.

    Obama is not my idol – no one is. I think you are projecting, since Bush is obviously YOUR idol.

    But that is actually factually bunk. Bush did consult with the world. And when the world proved useless, only then he went it alone. He gave them the chance to step up and they declared Saddam had WMDs, but they were not interested in doing anything about it. That is the sad, ugly truth, only verified by the fact that everyone knows Iran is building a nuke while its leader says, “There has been no holocaust… yet.” (no he didn’t literally say that, that is just my pitch-black sense of humor, there).

    Only a liberal idiot thinks we should hold our national security hostage to the UN, to China and Russia.

    Strawman, I never advocated surrendering our national security to anyone. I only said that you can be the boss, act as the boss and then be friendly to your associates. Bush did none of that; he established from the start that you were either with us or against us, that he would do as he pleased regardless of what others thought and when the UN declined to follow him, he gave the finger to it and went on invading a country for no valuable reason. Is it how the Leader of the Free World is supposed to behave? How is it different from, say, Vlad the Impaler?

    You think Eisenhower would have been more solicitous of our allies? Wow, you are clueless.

    Being called a clueless by a closed-minded partisan is a hell of a compliment, and I do appreciate it. Keep it coming.
    Eisenhower was ready to fight but he had no desire to fight again wars that had already been fought and lost. He didn’t try for instance to reverse New Deal as you guys are so keen to. It was because he was a conservative whereas you are reactionaries.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  63. Well, I suppose a wall-O-text can be a bit disruptive by itself.

    Machinist (497786)

  64. Another wing-ding post by the two-stroke.

    AD - RtR/OS! (2480c8)

  65. Looks like the value of rights and freedoms depends to you on who is losing them and why, so answering in detail would be pointless.

    In other words, Triumph the Moby is ignorant of the real contents of the PATRIOT Act and just uses it as an excuse – much as any ignorant leftie would.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  66. ignorant leftie

    Isn’t that redundant.

    AD - RtR/OS! (2480c8)

  67. Excuse me, I missed the passage where Jefferson advocated “enhanced interrogation techniques”, rendition, wiretapping and infinite detention without trial.

    — It was part of his slave-holder contract.

    Icy Texan (092752)

  68. Icy Texan, evidently Triumph the wonder troll thinks that Jefferson objected to the trial of Major Andre.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  69. Did Triumph ever tell us which politician he advocates for? I asked him so I’d understand what he means by conservative, but I don’t see an answer.

    We can expect these kinds of attacks when immigration is brought up. No doubt, Kyl will be accused of racism. Perhaps people will attempt to pull a stunt at a Kyl rally the way they did at the Obamacare Tea Party protest.

    They will do anything if it means adding millions of illegals to the voter rolls. That’s a basic betrayal of the word ‘democrat’, in my opinion.

    But anyway, can Triumph name a major office holder today who he would be happy to see as US President? Mobies often have a hard time giving a credible answer to this question.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  70. Speaking of immigration…
    Rush just announced that MEXICO has just filed a suit against the State of Arizona!

    AD - RtR/OS! (2480c8)

  71. Triumph

    > It was useless to invade a country to overthrow a now largely inoffensive (to us, not his people) dictator

    Perfect example of liberal multinationalism. We should worry about the opinions of others, but not the suffering of others. To the point that you find relieving that suffering to be “useless.”

    > twelve years after we had a perfect and legitimate occasion to get rid of twelve years before.

    Well, I didn’t realize that the statute of limitations on kicking his ass ran out. Indeed, in most states the statute of limitations on murder never runs out.

    > I note without that you didn’t answer my subsequent point about the need to get the job (Afghanistan) done before starting another, but then I guess you’re one of those who advocate opening a third front in Iran – sensible thing to do without a doubt

    I thought my point about preparation answered it adequately. And actually if our soldiers invaded iran, it wouldn’t be a third front. It would all be one front.

    > And we were clearly ill-prepared for that as the long cycle of violence and anarchy that followed

    You mean we were ill prepared for something that is inherently unpredictable. Sheesh.

    Also can’t watch youtube vids right now.

    > Being a purist is fine and dandy.

    Expecting a person to be able to spell a four letter word correctly is hardly being a purist. I am dyslexic and I don’t make mistakes like that.

    > Excuse me, I missed the passage where Jefferson advocated “enhanced interrogation techniques”, rendition, wiretapping and infinite detention without trial.

    Yeah, let’s see here… Jefferson never did endorse wire tapping, mainly because there were no wires to tap back then.

    Rendition? Mmm, that is otherwise known as extradition. Done all the time. I suppose you want us to grant asylum to our enemies? I mean that is the choices, you know. Or I suppose we could just let them go free.

    Indefinite detention without trial? Actually we practiced exactly that in regard to british POWs. Even forced them to work on our farms.

    As for enhanced interrogation techniques, well, I am not aware that they said anything on the subject one way or the other. Although I would have my doubts that the same rebels who recently tarred and feathered tax collectors would get all weepy at the idea of a man who murders women and children getting a little water up his nose. Crazy me, I suppose.

    > Looks like the value of rights and freedoms depends to you on who is losing them and why, so answering in detail would be pointless.

    Yeah, translation, you’ve got nothing.

    > The definition of torture is certain

    Really? So how severe does the severe physical suffering have to be? What is the scale of measurement? Care to calculate it out to the decimal point?

    Do you even know what I am talking about?

    > I also missed the amendment legalizing Third Degree… but maybe I haven’t read The Federalist Papers nor the Constitution well.

    So you haven’t read those things, but you presume to talk about what the framers believed?

    > The best proof that waterboarding and other funny games are indeed torture is how hard Bush and his cronies ran for cover

    Actually Bush is unapologetic about waterboarding KSM. Haven’t you heard?

    > ran for cover when the Abu-Ghraib affair surfaced and blamed those who just obeyed their sinister orders.

    Except they never ordered anything of the sort. And after all these years liberals have yet to prove it. The best the liberals can claim is that by mistreating KSM (time for liberal weeping), this set up a culture where they thought they could do that.

    So your theory is that because Bush et al didn’t take the blame… for things they didn’t do, that other things they openly admitted to doing was torture.

    Your logic seems a little… tortured.

    > “La-la-la, I can’t hear you, la-la-la”

    You can ignore it all you want, but it’s the truth. They still hate us in the muslim world.

    > I mentioned “our friends”, not the UN.

    You mean like the 40 something countries that did in fact ally with us? But don’t worry, in a minute you will verify that you were talking about the UN all along.

    By the way, your idol Obama is treating true friends, like England, like his personal b-tch. And they aren’t liking it very much. I mean Gordon Brown gave Obama a pen holder made from wood the sister ship to the ship the President’s desk was made out of, a ship that made its name stopping illegal slavery, and Obama gives him a pack of DVD’s that aren’t even in the right format. Its good to see smart diplomacy in action.

    Oh and don’t forget when Obambi gave the queen an ipod. Filled with his own speeches. I don’t know if a laugh track was included.

    > Obama is not my idol

    Sure he isn’t.

    > I think you are projecting, since Bush is obviously YOUR idol.

    Mmm, yeah. Wow, you are so not paying attention. Just because obama is making bush look like a genius doesn’t suddenly turn him into Reagan.

    > Strawman, I never advocated surrendering our national security to anyone.

    Well, given that we did seek the advice and help of others, what am I supposed to think? That the guy who spouts typical liberal talking points, follows the liberal talking point that listening to our allies means obeying them? anyway, you are going to prove my assessment of your view correct in 6…5…4…

    > Bush did none of that; he established from the start that you were either with us or against us

    On terrorism. Yep. So? And?

    And the countdown to you proving me correct is still ticking… 3… 2… 1…

    > that he would do as he pleased regardless of what others thought and when the UN declined to follow him, he gave the finger to it and went on invading a country

    Bingo! So just after telling me I was wrong to say that you wanted the UN to have a veto over our nationals security, you criticize bush… for not following the UN. Huh. So how was it that I supposedly set a straw man again…?

    > Is it how the Leader of the Free World is supposed to behave?

    Yes. Seems kind of implicit in the idea of being the leader of the free world, rather than the follower of the free world. And what does the free world have to do with the UN?

    > How is it different from, say, Vlad [Putin]?

    Well, let’s see here. Bush was spreading freedom. Killing people who attacked us. Deposing a dictator who attempted to kill a former president. Not suppressing freedom of the press. Stepping down when his time in office was done and not becoming the shadow head of government… need I go on?

    > [Eisenhower] didn’t try for instance to reverse New Deal as you guys are so keen to.

    Changing the subject. We are talking about whether Eisenhower would care what China thinks about our national security decisions.

    But it’s a funny definition of conservative where you apparently like the new deal. But despite all that, it wasn’t Reagan with his evil cowboy ways that drove you from the party, even though Regan was a much clearer repudiation of the new deal. No, it was bush who… actually expanded some entitlements. Huh, wait a minute… So if anything you should have liked Bush more than Reagan.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  72. Aaron…..Please observe the “Don’t Feed The Trolls” signs!

    AD - RtR/OS! (2480c8)

  73. AD

    Actually i see him more like a mouse. And i am a cat, playing with my food before i eat it. 😉

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  74. For a concerned and principled conservative, it sure does like to toss around nearly every Kos/mediamatterz/TPM/leftist canard.

    JD (28db4d)

  75. President Obama said he won’t secure the border until Americans agree to amnesty.

    That’s not really shocking news, is it? That was Bush’s position as well. “Comprehensive immigration reform”, in plain English, means “we’ll start enforcing immigration law if and only if you first agree to an amnesty”. That’s the position of both parties.

    Subotai (f9a946)

  76. No, that is not the position of both parties, Subotai. In fact, quite the opposite.

    JD (28db4d)

  77. failure to execute the oath of office (defending the nations borders and protecting it’s citizens) would be impeachable.

    It would be, if Congress was not also on the open-borders bandwagon. But the buck stops with the American people. If they cannot be bothered to vote for people who put their interests first then they don’t deserve to have a country. And very shortly, they won’t.

    Subotai (f9a946)

  78. Eisenhower was ready to fight but he had no desire to fight again wars that had already been fought and lost. He didn’t try for instance to reverse New Deal as you guys are so keen to. It was because he was a conservative whereas you are reactionaries.

    Triumph is one of those Olde Tyme Conservatives who also supports the New Deal, along with everything else the left has wrought. But he’s no Democrat!

    They’re not left enough for him.

    Subotai (f9a946)

  79. #72, “AD
    Actually i see him more like a mouse. And i am a cat, playing with my food before i eat it. 😉

    Comment by Aaron Worthing — 6/22/2010 @ 12:13 pm”

    With respect, Sir. You can not win his game as he is not here to change minds but to disrupt the discussion and lead it off a bad topic for the left. How often do the trolls offer the same lines,”Bush lied, inherited Bush’s problems, Patriot Act police state, etc” and how often have people offered the same responses? How long since there has been a new line?

    They post the same BS and tie a hook to the current topic. We offer the same rebuttals and follow the troll down HIS chosen path, congratulating ourselves on how foolish we are making the troll look as he guides us down the same well worn trail, laughing at how easy it is. Do you think they even read our responses? Why would they, they got what they wanted and hijacked the thread. You do not win or discourage them by playing their game. It is heads they win, tails you loss.

    Machinist (497786)

  80. Machinist is obviously right. Triumph is winning this thread because he’s not willing to discuss whether Kyl has more credibility than Obama. His argument is that Kyl is a Republican, and Republicans are sub human and genetic liars. It’s not an unusual bit of bigotry from the Kos types.

    He tries to stir up dust about other issues, but the fact is, this is what the democrats have: rank hatred of Republicans as evil and the party of Bush-Hitler. They know that if people actually consider the facts it’s obvious Obama does have a policy of not enforcing the border because to do so would remove a very valuable chip from the amnesty negotiation.

    And that’s disgusting. Kyl is sounding an alarm that ought to lead to severe repercussions for Obama.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  81. Point and laugh. Mock and scorn.

    JD (28db4d)

  82. We are just so bitter, clinging to our guns and religion.
    Truly Pathetic!

    Damn, I feel better now.

    AD - RtR/OS! (2480c8)

  83. [Eisenhower] didn’t try for instance to reverse New Deal as you guys are so keen to.

    We won’t have to do a thing to reverse the New Deal (or the Great Society)–economics and basic math are going to take care of that all by themselves.

    http://www.market-ticker.org/archives/2422-Social-Security-Heres-The-Problem.html

    Now, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a possibility of Greece-like riots the minute people actually realize that the money they put into SS, for example, is no longer there, but anyone who thinks austerity in some form–whether its through severely reduced payouts or a complete repudiation of these programs altogether–isn’t inevitable, is kidding themselves.

    You can’t fight the math on this one.

    Tangentially, there was a shrill op-ed in the local fishwrap yesterday by a clueless environmentalist lamenting the fact that China was jumping ahead of us on “green jobs” and technology–apparently ignoring the fact that Chinese workers are paid what we would consider poverty-level wages, thus allowing the business owners there to hire more workers and invest more money in manufacturing and R and D. I seriously doubt this leftist would want China’s business model brought to America’s shores, unless he was the factory owner instead of the factory worker.

    The math and current geoeconomic realities dictate that it can’t exist otherwise–it’s no accident that our two most sustained periods of manufacturing and global dominance occured in 1) a time of ridiculous worker exploitation and 2) a period right after a major war that had blown our foreign competitors’ infrastructure to smithereens. I sincerely doubt Triumph would desire a repeat of either of those historical catalysts.

    With no primary economic engine in place anymore, with global competition on a scale that was incomprehenisible after WW2, and with an expectation of a standard of living bordering on luxurious that can only be financed with unlimited credit, Americans are going to be getting a hard ole lesson in those mathematical realities soon, if they haven’t already over the last 20 months.

    Bottom line: if we can’t sustain our economy on anything other than cheap credit and bonded debt, what are we going to sustain our entitlement programs with? Nothing, that’s what.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  84. Another Chris, I laughed so hard when my poli sci professor told me that conservatives, by definition, must adhere to the status quo.

    That’s awfully convenient for liberals, who can make change after change while conservatives can never change anything, and especially not reverse huge entitlements.

    But they will run out of other people’s money. Math is a conservative.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  85. Anyway, to get back on topic–at this point, it’s largely irrelevant whether Kyl has more credibility than Obama or not in regards to this particular episode–we weren’t there, and it’s going to be “He Said, He Said” in the press. The credibility lies in whether people believe Obama would deliberately manipulate a political issue in order to push his pet projects.

    After his milquetoast oil spill address, who would possibly think that Obama wasn’t playing by Chicago rules here?

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  86. Dustin

    “Math is a conservative.”

    Reality is conservative.

    Of course the professor is right if you go with the dictionary definition of the term and not the political definition.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  87. It helps to be era-specific – as in, Jefferson was known as a Liberal in his time; couldn’t say that now.

    AD - RtR/OS! (2480c8)

  88. Another Chris, I laughed so hard when my poli sci professor told me that conservatives, by definition, must adhere to the status quo.

    That statement by your prof reveals such a basic misunderstanding of conservatism in its modern contexts, it’s a wonder his pointy head didn’t fall off. Apparently he didn’t realize that these entitlement programs are now the status quo and have been for decades, including the massive bureaucratic infrastructure he no doubt loves, which long ago succeeded in breaking down the power of families and communities to run their own affairs and solve their own problems.

    With this attitude, it’s no wonder that his type continually promote a caricature of conservatives as “the radical right”–for him, the argument that SS, Medicare, etc. is unsustainable, and that a return to local control is desirable, is downright revolutionary.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  89. Indeed, AC, it’s like you were sitting next to me in class.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  90. Comment by Machinist

    never even crossed my mind to consider you anything other than an intellectually honest poster

    My request was obviously “a cry for help”, as in, “help me, I’m tired of wading through BS when there are important things to consider”.

    Yes, some like to feed trolls and mock them, etc., some try to resist and are part of the 12 step program, but fall off of the wagon.

    Not that I think it’s happening here, but wouldn’t it be interesting for someone to troll and have a sock-puppet alter that was always debating the troll, you could totally annoy the readers until someone caught on.

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  91. Okay am I the only one who looks at the title of this post and pictures Cartman saying it on south park? “You lie, Kyle, you lie!”

    I can see Obama shouting, “respect my authoritah!”

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  92. Triumph. You only get street cred around here if you blindly swallow their ideology. You can’t be a conservative and disagree with their idiotic memes.

    boo-sox (a26871)

  93. These assclowns are out in force recently. This is consistent with their patterns, as the aggressiveness and levels of vitriol and overall activity increases when Barcky is struggling. It is as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

    You can’t be a conservative and disagree with their idiotic memes.

    Lie. You can’t be conservative and hold Triumph’s views/leftist memes. That would be an accurate way to state it.

    Stash – Haven’t we seen this pair before?

    JD (3b62be)

  94. Stash – Haven’t we seen this pair before?
    Comment by JD — 6/22/2010 @ 2:45 pm

    Can’t prove it… yet.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  95. It was more rhetorical, as we have. I just don’t think they hung around or were dishonest enough to get banned. Hit and run BS

    JD (a30317)

  96. JD.
    So what you’re saying is that you have no proof that you’re right, you just are. I like your reasoning… not.

    If we have to substantiate our claims then the terrorists have won.

    boo-sox (a26871)

  97. It is beyond disoute that when a troll leads with “so what you are saying” what follows is almost inevitably aggressively dishonest. Case in point, boosocks.

    JD (d9926c)

  98. So what you’re saying is that you have no proof that you’re right, you just are

    No, I think he’s saying that we’re not going to allow the left (people like yourself) to define conservatism.

    But on a whole separate topic I think that liberalism started going downhill with FDR, then got much much worse in the sixties. In fact I don’t think it deserves to be called “liberalism” anymore.

    What’s the the liberal response?

    Subotai (f9a946)

  99. I think the liberal response is that we disagree. I believe it is only getting better and better. Your retort?

    boo-sox (a26871)

  100. Just like a consertvative to bring up that topic on a hard right forum. You don’t fancy yourself to be smart, do you Subotai?

    boo-sox (a26871)

  101. I think the liberal response is that we disagree. I believe it is only getting better and better. Your retort?

    So what you’re saying is that you have no proof that you’re right, you just are. I like your reasoning… not.

    Subotai (f9a946)

  102. Just like a consertvative to bring up that topic on a hard right forum.

    Yes, it’s already being discussed so extensively at the hard hard-left forums, isn’t it?

    Subotai (f9a946)

  103. Why don’t you go there and bring it up, then. Or are you afraid to leave your ‘home’ turf?

    boo-sox (a26871)

  104. Or are those sites too biased for you? Unlike this extremely conservative site, which is not biased. Yeah, yeah, we get it. This is different.

    boo-sox (a26871)

  105. boo sox, are you afraid of the actual topic of the thread? You know, that Obama’s a corrupt liar again?

    I hear a Federal Court ruled today that Obama misled the American people. I guess if I were an Obama shill I would just rant about random crap too. Anything to change the subject, right?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  106. btw, mccain has backed up kyl’s story. that’s over at hot air.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (f97997)

  107. obama need clean
    white house in much disorder
    start with salazar

    ColonelHaiku (2ce3dc)

  108. Out of 105 comments, I count 20 on topic.

    1-4,6,8,9,21,27,30,44,48,49,50,69,79,84,90,104,105.

    You have to give credit to the trolls.

    Machinist (497786)

  109. Colonel:

    The trolls sound nervous
    Midterm elections are soon
    Hope and Change coming

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  110. John Kyl is Arizona’s good senator. The only thing I disagree with him about is his support for John McCain. And if anyone lied, it was not Senator Kyl.

    Triumph: You may not be a Democrat, but you are definitely not a Republican or a consevative.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  111. Why don’t you go there and bring it up, then. Or are you afraid to leave your ‘home’ turf?

    Or are those sites too biased for you? Unlike this extremely conservative site, which is not biased. Yeah, yeah, we get it. This is different

    I notice that you have not been banned yet. That is different from the practice at those hard left sites.

    And by “you” I mean you, singular. Who this “we” is I have no idea.

    Subotai (f9a946)

  112. Yeah…. this site NEVER bans people for really stupid reasons…

    boo-sox (a26871)

  113. As I have long said, the trolls aren’t very smart. Which one are you, boo-sox? You sound quite like a couple of jerks who got booted for very good reasons that had nothing to do with their political beliefs….but everything to do with their personalities and fecklessness.

    Just think of all the carbon dioxide you produce, spending electrons trying to get even with people who genuinely could care less.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  114. I wasn’t being sarcastic Eric. This site never does that. Obviously you know better than that if you are taking issue with my statement and do not take it at face value.

    boo-sox (a26871)

  115. Riiiiiggghttt. No worries. Sooner or later you will make yet another mistake. It’s in your nature, as the troll that you are.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  116. Shouldn’t you be out kicking dogs or throwing old ladies into the street as per conservative norm?

    boo-sox (a26871)

  117. Um. I have your ID narrowed down to two possibilities, based on your word patterns and general style. You think you are funny and clever, but neither is true. You are sad and angry, actually. And that’s fine. You have already given away two things with your posts. And with each thing you post, you give more away.

    Because like most trolls, you just aren’t as clever as you think you are.

    The interesting part to me is why you and your type keep posting. Besides the fact that you are a nasty little troll with nothing to contribute and little of value in your life, I mean.

    But by all means. Keep posting nonsense and juvenile insults. You just make yourself look…well, like you are.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  118. I’m only half as clever as I think I am, and even that isn’t that impressive. But I’m not spending my life on a website either.

    Indulge me with the guesses? I have never been here before, but I’d like to see how wrong you are.

    boo-sox (a26871)

  119. Yawn. As I say, you think you are witty, and are half correct.

    You have never been here before. Puh-leeze, trollie.

    As for not spending your life on the Internet, well, that joke writes itself.

    Go play somewhere else, trollie. You aren’t even an entertaining nasty-bot.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  120. You claim to know who I am but you’re not telling me? Who do you think you’re fooling, Sherlocke?

    boo-sox (a26871)

  121. Every post you make, spelled correctly or not (another hint), just reveals you for the juvenile troll you are. Go play somewhere else.

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  122. It matters less who it is, than the demonstrable fact that it is dishonest.

    JD (d55760)

  123. I’m pretty sure I know who it is, but you are still correct: a troll is a troll is a troll.

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  124. Every post you make
    Every point you fake,
    Every promise you break
    Every lie you make,

    we’ll be watching you…

    Painted Jaguar: When someone says that what I said was a lie when I said it, it is not up to me to say what I said was not a lie, but for those who said I said a lie to prove what they said about what I said. By the Deep, Turbid Waters of the Amazon this is known as, “Put up or shut up”, and it is true, and even Chicago thugs know so.

    Or, as Quetzal the philosopher says:

    Kyl said “x”
    White House said, “Kyl lied”
    White House can prove their point, if true, by:
    1. Securing the border
    2. Playing the tape

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  125. 65.ignorant leftie
    Isn’t that redundant.
    Comment by AD – RtR/OS! — 6/22/2010 @ 11:19 am

    — Non-ignorant lefties know how stupid they are; but, alas, are still too stupid to do anything about it.

    Icy Texan (31a5d5)

  126. How is it dishonest, JD?
    getttttajobbbbb

    boo-sox (827c50)

  127. It is just so juvenile of you all to come on here and discuss how much you agree with each other, then make bold accusations about the majority of the population that doesn’t agree with your ugly ideologies.

    boo-sox (827c50)

  128. You are dishonest, boosocks. It is shown in your words and in your nature. It matters little who you are, we have seen your ilk do the same dance before. What does gettttttttajobbbbbbb mean? I am employed, well.

    JD (838ee9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4555 secs.