This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Friday, October 2, 2009

Fallon: You Lie!


Late night comedian Jimmy Fallon cracked: "Sarah Palin’s new autobiography – that doesn’t come out until November — is already #1 on Amazon. And if you go to the Web site, it says, “People who bought this book also bought . . . no other books in their entire lives.”

Fallon "You lie!" Actually, not only are 19 books listed, but most are at the top of the New York Time list.

65 comments:

guy faulkes said...

Who is Jimmy Fallon? He must not be very successful. I have never heard of him.

I personally could care less about the opinion of someone that thinks he is a wit and is half right (most comedians).

Sarkazein said...

Jimmy Fallon is a slight little fellow, I think from SNL years ago.
There must be a Talk-Show included with every actor's union membership in replacement of unemployment insurance.

Sarkazein said...

Accomplishments to-date:

http://www.breitbart.tv/good-luck-with-rio-snl-has-obama-review-his-accomplishments/

oatz said...

Sark the video is sad cause its true.

Sarkazein said...

Oatz-
At first I thought Obama was way under-qualified to become President. People were talking about having to provide OJT as he had never held any Executive power or even business management experience and had only been in the Senate for such a short time, and had virtually done nothing but get elected and write books about himself. Then my mind was still telling me- maybe something I don't know will make Obama a great Leader as so many were supporting him. I thought, if General Powell could endorse him, he must know something I don't know, which is a definite probability.
I figured the worst that could happen is his handlers and the momentum of the Presidency and US history along with senior Officials would provide him with that OJT and, in the long run, America would survive such a President. It's not happening. His handlers are as bad as he is, the Speaker is not the Speaker of the House, but Speaker for a weak political cause, and there is no strong government Official to shepherd him through his one term.
Virtually everything Obama is doing is not working.
The fact he has accomplished nothing, may translate in to my theory that the momentum of the US will be the only survival factor. But momentum fades.

guy faulkes said...

Glen Beck raised attention to Jones. They had to transfer Jones to a lesser position. He brought attention to ACORN. Even though the administration will not investigate ACORN (probably because it would result in Obama's impeachment), funding for them was cut and they lost a lot of government funding and connections. Beck continues to draw attention to scandals of the administration.

You know they have tried to find anything they can to discredit Beck. They have found nothing. They have tried to manufacture incidents. This has not worked either. What do you think Beck's life expectancy will be?

Sarkazein said...

Lindsey Graham just dissed Beck on FOX this morning.

Reader said...

Off subject Blogger, but here is another website that I'm keeping as a favorite.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2981/show

Reader said...

And another.....

http://www.govtrack.us/users/events.xpd?monitors=misc:activebills

guy faulkes said...

Reader

These sites are very interesting. I wold like to have a thread concerning Frank's gay protection bill and I bookmarked the second site. It is a valuable reference.

Anonymous said...

If the Republican party would just focus, solely, on deficit reduction as a strategy right now, and moving forward, they'd sweep all upcoming elections.

Problem is, the Bush regime's overspending leads to a lack of credibility -- thankfully for them, Obama is spending more..

John McCain could have been the fiscal conservative we so desperately need. Problem is, he was ripped to pieces on his abortion vote record.. Abortion isn't going to be reopened, and the more the right talks about it, the less progressive they seem. And a progressive conservatism is the only way to get moderate Democrats to switch their votes and swing elections.

I think people are more worried about the fiscal crisis than anything else. In Canada, the country was nearly broke in 1993 and the Liberal Party (!) ran a campaign that spoke of killing the deficit with the exception of nearly everything else. This resonated, and they won an overwhelming majority that year. The incoming finance minister promised a zero deficit 'come hell or high water'.

As soon as the health care issue is settled, it is time to switch focus to fiscal responsibility. If some dummy steps up to the plate and proposes more tax cuts, we're all screwed.

Sarkazein said...

Nony-

I'll be supporting the candidate calling for the MOST tax cuts as most know it stimulates the revenue. But, that person will have to be proposing the most spending cuts also. The first Republican NOT proposing tax cuts and spending cuts is screwed.

Anonymous said...

But the problem is, you can't have a race to zero on tax cuts. We need a certain amount of infrastructure and government involvement like it or not. The Bush tax cuts were already massive... that's income tax. Corporate tax is a different matter, and American corp tax is high compared to other countries, cutting that would spur corporate investment leading to productivity gains, and yes, more revenue.

But to stimulate on the consumer side? You can only do that for so long, and at a certain point it no longer works. There is a balance between debt momentum and revenue momentum that is so far disturbed, more tax cuts cannot be a rational response. Spending cuts, and drastic ones are what we need - just think of the percentage of every dollar in revenue that goes to interest on the debt. It's disgusting. When the economic expansion finally hits, that noose will tighten in a horrific way as interest charges rise.

Anonymous said...

One more thing, the future generations what will pay for these tax cuts through interest charges is a prime example of more government involvement in daily life. Problem is, for interest charges, goverment takes your money and you get NOTHING in return. Worst. case. scenario.

Gregg said...

The thing about Bush's tax cuts is they worked. We are a far way from racing to zero. Drastic spending cuts are indeed needed but the worst thing we could do is raise taxes (let Bush's tax cuts expire) in this economy.

Gregg said...

"...future generations what will pay for these tax cuts through interest charges..." -Nonny

You lost me, please explain.

Liberal POV said...

Gregg


" The thing about Bush's tax cuts is they worked."

No, this is just another conservative myth.

Because of the tax cut the deficit has been exploding.

The tax cuts were all on borrowed money . We didn't have enough left to run the government.

Remember those two wars the conservatives like so much cost 2 billion per month and have been going for six years. We will spend close to 2 trillion dollars on the war in Iraq.

The United States economy went from a surplus under Clinton to a deep recession with huge deficit spending with Bush.

All of those men and women who have served need medical and educational benefits. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Bush and Cheney destroyed this country.

Obama has no choice but deficit spending to get the US economy working once again.

guy faulkes said...

POV, the tax cuts stimulated the economy and increased revenues, including tax revenues. The problem was that Bush was a proponent of big government policies that increased the deficit. Of course Bush was a piker in the deficit spending department when compared to Obama.

We are now experiencing the slight bump in the economy that is all we are going to get from the porkulas bill. More and more people are continuing to lose their jobs. The worst of the Obama depression is yet to come. We are going to have to pay for all these policies or our grand children and great grand children will (if the country survives).

To come out of this mess, we are going to have to cut taxes and spending to the bone. This is going to be difficult to accomplish, because people that have voted themselves bread and circuses will want to keep them. In addition to this, liberals (particularly Democrats) use these entitlement programs to increase and control their base.

Sarkazein said...

Nonny- The income tax being higher or the same as the Clinton years could never make up for the Obama's projected deficits at this point. The Obama deficits are an economy killer. It wouldn't matter if you doubled everyone's income tax, it still wouldn't be enough, it would only kill the remaining productivity. From now on, this is like a poor person paying the minimum credit card payment on a $30,000 balance. Eventually it is a complete bust because the balance only grows. Income tax could never be high enough to accomplish what you are suggesting.

Sarkazein said...

Do you think the doctor's asked the White House to supply them with lab coats as they couldn't afford their own. The doctor's I know, can not stand to be seen in public with out their lab coats.

Sarkazein said...

""Nobody has more credibility with the American people on this issue than you do," Obama told his guests."-Obama

A few weeks ago the lying b@&$rd was telling us how doctor's are ripping us off with extra money making procedures to line their pockets, and how they must be put under price controls etc. Now he says they have more credibility than anyone. Certainly MORE credibility than him.

Gregg said...

Gee Wiz Lib!

I guess that answers my question to Nonny as well. You really have to turn logic on it's head to come to your conclusions.

"Because of the tax cut the deficit has been exploding." -Lib

That is just not true. You can justifiably complain about deficits. For deficits to "explode" you must spend much more than you take in. The tax cuts brought in MORE revenue. Raise hell about the wars and everything else you want too, fine. You're right. The increased revenue was SPENT and THEN SOME.

Let's review.
Spending caused the deficit: TRUE.
Tax cuts brought in more revenue: TRUE
Tax cuts caused the deficit: Total BS

"The tax cuts were all on borrowed money" -Lib

This is what Nonny is talking about but it's more BS. It's stupid on it's face. How does a tax cut cost money? We say it all the time but the fact that it's OUR money seems to get lost. If I rob a rich man on the street that's illegal. It matters not if I give the bounty to a homeless man. If the government does the same thing then that seems to be cool. Now then, if I rob the rich guy and decide to take only half his money, does that "cost" me? Hey, a robber's got kids to feed, got to put them through college. What if I have to borrow money to do so? Because that rich guy kept a litte more of HIS money, I have to pay interest on a college loan! Damn!

That's the Liberal logic, you own it

"The United States economy went from a surplus under Clinton to a deep recession with huge deficit spending with Bush." -Lib

Educate yourself, a "surplus" is not the opposite of a "recession". When Clinton left office we had a surplus AND a recession. The economy was shrinking but we had money in the bank. Tax policy made the recession shallow and saved disaster after 9/11. With this recession Obama's policies are making it worse. If the expected tax hikes come it will not work.

Tax policy should be thought of as a way to stimulate the economy not as a way to confiscate money to spend our way out of debt.

Liberal POV said...

Gregg

When the tax cuts went into effect the United States was spending more than it was receiving.

Clinton had moved the country to a position to pay down the debt.

Bush passed the medicare drug bill which was corporate welfare for the pharmaceutical companies without funding it causing even more deficit spending.

Now you want to blame Obama for trying to clean up the conservatives mess made over the last eight years.

It has been 9 months and Obama doesn't have the train unwrecked.

guy faulkes said...

POV, not only does Obama ot have the train "unwercked" (interesting word. Could you possibly have meant repaired?), he is pouring gas on the flaming wreckage.

I do not think you understand that making money and spending it are two different things. Bush's tax cuts created increased revenue from taxes from increase productivity. His big government spending caused the deficit and in the long run, lowered productivity. He spent more than he made. The spending is the culprit in the case of Bush.

Obama is compounding this problem exponentially. This means he is not only adding to it, he is multiplying it by orders of magnitude. His policies are going to require tax hikes that will result in less productivity. The result will be instead of having an increased amount of money coming in but spending more than the increase, we are going to have less money coming in and spend much more money than ever before, creating the largest national debt on record and making inflation skyrocket.

Sarkazein said...

No reasonable person would complain about President Bush lowering the tax by a few percentage points, complain about deficit spending by President Bush, then not complain about Obama saying 95% of the people would not get their taxes raised and at the same time increase government spending by 4X.

BikerBard said...

I imagine Jimmy Fallon has never heard of you, Faux, but he is certainly more clever and wealthier than you will ever be.

Nobody said...

I love the turn this thread has taken (with the obvious exception of BikerBard's pointless and simplistic post). I've enjoyed economics since my college days, and since that time have realized that, generally, conservatives understand economics more than liberals. POV's posts demonstrate this. Gregg's does as well (I enjoyed your post). Deficits do not equal recessions. We can have a growing economy and budget deficits. We can have surpluses and recessions. The economy is measured by aggregate productivity as measured by GDP and has nothing to do with measures of deficits -- GDP measures, for the most part, private productivity. Governments don't produce anything, they use tax dollars confiscated from private citizens and businesses to buy things. Dollars taken in taxes are then not available in the private economy. When tax rates decline, that money is used up in the private economy. I like to say that people with money will do one of several things with it -- spend it, invest it, save it or give it away. All of these actions can help the economy. Having it taken and given to ACORN will not. When the economy grows (as measured by GDP), more people are working and paying taxes and businesses are profitable, paying taxes. The great danger, as mentioned by others, is that the debt will grow so big, so fast under Obama that the tax burden needed to pay just the interest on the debt will crush the economy. Lib - take a look at the following website: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8116&type=0

Synopsis - federal tax revenues GREW between 2003 and 2006 by $625 billion, a 35% increase. Tell me again how the tax cuts caused the deficits?!?

Liberal POV said...

Gregg, Sark< Guy

Can we all agree we need millions of jobs with wages high enough to pay taxes ( union scale) and that has benefits more than we need 100 more billionaires ?

We need a very large and strong middle class.
Your party is protecting the corporate royalty at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

We would see a complete breakdown of our society ( even more drugs, more prisons, more crime, more homelessness, more child abuse, more mental illness) if the conservative get their way. We will become like South American countries with a 10% wealthy 10% middle class and 80% poor. Everyone will need body guards, compounds. Kidnaping will become common place, gangs will both protect and prey on the poor.
The last 40 years has brought us close to this.
We will become a police state if we do as the conservative bloggers here want.

You people need to stop with silly issues we have real one the Republican party need to engage to solve.

Sarkazein said...

Biker Bard- Were you inspired by the Village People in using your screen name? Not that there's anything wrong with that. There is the Indian, the Naval Officer, the Fireman, the Policeman....and the Biker Eric.

guy faulkes said...

Sark, many on the Watauga Watch site have made the same connection you did concerning BB. There are many on that site that contend he is gay.

It does not matter if he is or is not. In either case he is unable to create a post that is relevant to the discussion. However, I do find his attacks humorous as they are really an indication of his capitulation on the argument. He has nothing to say, so he says nothing as rudely as possible.

As I said before, I own him. I can make him go outside with a flashlight at 12:00 noon if I tell him it is dark.

POV, your assertions are so ridiculous they do not deserve a reply. You are wrong on every statement except we do need a strong middle class (which would be assured by conservative policies). The sad thing is you present a better post than BB, even with your disjointed sentences that require speculation as to their meaning.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes- That is why I wrote "Not that there's anything wrong with that"
But, it may explain his infatuation with you. It was puzzling as to why he directed such odd attacks in your direction. He appears to be conflicted.

Liberal POV said...

Nobody

" Governments don't produce anything, "

I strongly disagree.

The space program produced vast amounts of knowledge as did funding the internet that Al Gore worked so hard for.

Eisenhower's Interstate Road project produced a highway system that has lead the world.

The Panama Canal was produced with government funding.

REA Rural Electric Associations produced electric for Rural America with Government funding.

The Blue Ridge Parkway was produced with Government funding and is a major revenue stream for this area to this day.

Roosevelt's CCC and National Parks produced millions of skilled labors and an infrastructure we still use today. The TVA we receive much of the nations power from was build during the depression.


Excessive tax cuts produce an uneducated population, low wages, job cuts, crumbling infrastructure, poverty.

" I like to say that people with money will do one of several things with it -- spend it, invest it, save it or give it away. "

I would agree with that even money obtained through graft or criminal activity.

Our current tax structure and government policies have favored the wealthy for decades. Its time we focused on improving the middle class and the working poor.

Wages and opportunities must improve for the bottom 80% of Americans.

The wealthy funding conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and others who feed propaganda to web sites , hate radio , Fox News and main stream media that is not in the interest of the middle class or the working poor.

Look at the results over the last forty years.

Look at prison population, wages, benefits, crime, drug use, family units, gangs, wars.

You don't have to be a genius to see something isn't working.

Sarkazein said...

Povvy-

The "production" being discussed is what pays for all the government stuff you mentioned.
The government rarely "produces" anything that is not paid for by private sector production.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

The private sector is used to build much of the government funded infrastructure or deliver government services.

Balance is what we need.

The last decade we the United States has produced little of anything only consumed.

Sarkazein said...

Povvy-

I think the term you are searching for is "manufactured" not "produced" as your government has run so many manufacturers out of the country.

The only thing the government produces is currency and debt. Everything else the government produces is paid for by the real producers in the form of taxes paid.

The more punishment for real production in the form of taxation... the less production, the less revenue from taxation.

Gregg said...

"Excessive tax cuts produce an uneducated population, low wages, job cuts, crumbling infrastructure, poverty." -Libby

You were on your way to making a valid point, or at least a valid "beside the point" until you wrote the above. Where on earth did that come from?

Tax cuts have worked every time to stimulate jobs and the economy (Kennedy, Reagan, W.). Look, if you want to make an argument that will contradict Conservative principals then try Clinton. He raised taxes on the rich and the economy prospered. Many conservatives, myself included, thought that would spell disaster. He also, because of the "Contract With America", cut taxes for many. Money was coming in hand over fist from the dot com bubble that had not yet burst. He still spent but the context is different when the money is there.

Sarkazein said...

Gregg-

Most of the Clinton prosperity was during the Republican Congress before they went wobbly.

BikerBard said...

Sarkazein:
Did the Village People put a tingle in your trousers? You folks here are quite homophobic. Maybe you should hook up with Faux, that is if you two are not already an item.

Yes, you REALLY discuss the important issues and welcome oposing thought. Sark, you, above all, are so full of it (think sh.)

PS: Did you find "Sark" from the hazy bottom of a bottle of scotch?
Your drunken pontifications would suggest that is the case.

Gregg said...

Sark,

Yup, just as most of Bush's bad economy happened after Democrats took congress.

I give Clinton credit for reading the political climate and not over reaching. He doesn't deserve the credit for the dot com bubble nor the blame for it bursting. He did plenty of damage but at least he didn't go nuts like Obama. I would have preferred Hilary to this crap.

oatz said...

Bikerbard drops insults not knowledge. Fires up his likkercycle with both the milk crate and the orange flag flapping in the wind content with his legend in his own mind fantasy drives off to Walmart.

Sarkazein said...

BB- I hit a sore spot it seems.

Sarkazein said...

Gregg-

I voted for Obama in the Texas Primary, figuring Hillary would have a better chance of beating McCain.
BIG mistake. My neighbors chastise me about that because I talked some of them into the same action.
Would Hillary be any less radical if she had a Democrat Congress... I doubt it. I just mainly wanted to see an end to the Clintons.

Liberal POV said...

Gregg

Most all income and wealth ( 90%? ) in the United States is in the top 5% of the citizens.
Forty percent of Americans don't make enough income to pay more than sales tax and at that they don't have enough to meet their basic needs of food, shelter, transportation, and health care.

The Republican party is totally blind to this fact and works to keep wages and benefits low.


Your comment "Tax cuts have worked every time to stimulate jobs and the economy (Kennedy, Reagan, W.)"

We have done that( tax cuts) to the point of being excessive. What we need now is long term investments in our future in the form of education, Massive high speed rail system, local light rail, safe bike and walking trails, sidewalks, Universal Health Care, new energy distribution , less highway expansion and more cars, greener buildings and cities, unions,more jobs with higher wages, fewer prisons, citizens to feel they have a future, leadership.

Sarkazein said...

Povvy-

What are the wages for the 17% unemployed and the 52% youngest unemployed? ZIP maybe.

guy faulkes said...

POV, what do you intend to do with criminals if we have fewer prisons. Do you think they should be killed by their victims during the commission of a crime? By your logic, would this not be racist, as much, if not the majority, of crime is committed by minorities such as the already undeniable criminals know as illegal aliens or undocumented workers? Or do you propose nothing be done to criminals and that we should live with violence and fear as a part of everyday life?

I believe your other statements have already been debunked.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes-

I am betting Povvy thinks the criminals should be given salaries as Maxine Waters suggested. Apparently not believing the "idle hands" thing.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

You can't quite get you head around the difference between victimless crime and violent crime.

Prison should be for those that commit violent crime of invade another's home.
Drug laws need to be reformed sentences should be less except for those committing home invasions or violent crime.

The Head Start program is the best place to fight crime long term which your party always opposes funding.

The conservative ideology will only make crime worse. Look to the south to see your model.

Sarkazein said...

Povvy- I notice you leave rape out of your crimes to serve time for. I think the statute of limitations has passed on Clinton, but the liberal idle Polansky escaped sentencing which never expires.

Gregg said...

Sark,

Yea, I'm sick of the Clintons too. I thought they would go away but no. Having said that, I don't think Hilary would be as radical as Obama is proving to be but who knows? At least she has some experience and a set of balls.

guy faulkes said...

Mexico is not conservative. Until the liberals bring this country down to the level of Mexico, then illegal alien (criminals) will keep coming. these criminals should not be imprisoned if they are non violent. They should be deported. However, violent offenders need to be punished.

Which brings us back to the questions you refused to answer. I will ask you once again:

"POV, what do you intend to do with criminals if we have fewer prisons. Do you think they should be killed by their victims during the commission of a crime? By your logic, would this not be racist, as much, if not the majority, of crime is committed by minorities such as the already undeniable criminals know as illegal aliens or undocumented workers? Or do you propose nothing be done to criminals and that we should live with violence and fear as a part of everyday life?"

Liberal POV said...

Guy

You miss the point as usual we have more people behind bars per capita than any society in the history of civilization. We have nearly 2% of our population and you want more at $50,000.00 per year per prisoner. Now that's conservative.

Conservatives don't have taxes dollars for head start programs or schools but have plenty of money for prisons.

Shorter sentences often work as well as long sentences leaving room for the really dangerous criminals.

guy faulkes said...

You still have not answered the questions.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

You keep the really dangerous one in prison to keep our society safe and use fines,house arrest and short six month sentences to control the non violent crimes.

Why do you like prisons and war? Don't you think it's a problem when a free country has so many prisoners?

Reader said...

http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/Program%20Design%20and%20Management/Head%20Start%20Requirements/PIs/2009/resour_pri_006_040209.html

Lib, were you involved in the Head Start program?

Liberal POV said...

Reader


No my spelling and grammar would be a lot better if I had. Republicans were in charge when I went through school but I learned civics and about justice. Many here missed the justice class.

guy faulkes said...

POV, you continue to avoid the questions. We do not have enough prisons for violent offenders now. You want fewer prisons. Explain how your proposal is going to work. So far you have failed to do so.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Decriminalize pot and as many other drugs as possible ( use the resources of current law enforcement as money to fund treatment).

40 years of law enforcement has not worked the drug problem just gets worse and is at the core of our decay.

I don't know the answers but know it not in the failed programs of the past.

Do you believe we have problem with 2% of Americans in prisons?

What's your answer? You want to play "Dirty Harry".

Your party is protecting the corporate royalty at the expense of the middle class and the poor.
You need to put energy into fixing the bottom making those at the top even more rich will not solve our problems.

While you lobby for the supper rich our country is decaying as many escape to drugs numbing the effects of a broken society.

guy faulkes said...

POV, upon reflection, it may be that I owe you an apology. I have on occasion made derogatory remarks concerning your spelling and sentence structure. I am sure you are doing your best.

That being said, there is nothing to keep you from improving these abilities. There are many self help books that address writing skills. You have to admit that poor or incomprehensible sentence structure lessens your arguments. If you will forgive my saying so, you do not need any more negatives than those caused by your arguments. :-)

Another way to improve your skills is to to continue to post on this and other sites. Try to improve your writing skills with every post. I do this and it has helped me immensely. Maybe someday I will become marginally proficient.

Republicans had nothing to do with your ability to communicate nor did Democrats. Even your teachers had little to do with this ability. The responsibility for your education was your parents and is now yours. After all, one never stops learning unless he is dead or a yellow dog Democrat. :-)

guy faulkes said...

POV. being poor is no excuse for being a violent criminal. In this country if you try to improve your economic condition, you can do it without resorting to crime. Your continued references to corporation causing people to be poor or criminals is hogwash. The only person to blame for criminal behavior or drug use is the individual that commits these acts.

My solution is based on personal responsibility. If you commit a crime, you get punished for doing so in a manner that will encourage your not committing another crime.

I believe that criminals should have to compensate the rest of us for their incarceration. In other words, they pay fees when they get out and get jobs. This is part of the punishment. It may take them a life time.

Sarkazein said...

Povvy-

You write about not wanting non-violent criminals in jail, yet the Idiot-In-Chief you pray to wants to jail people for not getting health insurance.

Reader said...

Lib, I was asking if you were involved in the program. You mention it so frequently, I thought maybe you've worked with them.

Bikerbard said...

Oatz:
FINALLY, an original thought. However, it is one you have repeated a number of times on WW. Now, do you have a SECOND original thought?

Sark:
The only "sore spot" you may have hit certainly wasn't with me! Check with Guy. I only marvel at the level of pompous ignorance you
display here.
There is a REASON people have rejected the politics you represent. We'll see how you play to the masses at the polls.

Sarkazein said...

BB- You must have a sensitivity of some kind. If one is not allowed to mention the Village People, Biker Eric, or your odd obsession with Guy Faulkes.
How is mentioning The Village People the kind of politics I represent? Unless you are writing about a need for the thought police.

Sarkazein said...

Pelosi attacked Gen McChrystal in an interview, saying he should have gone up the "line-of-command".
Our 3rd in line for the Presidency doesn't even know it is the "chain-of-command". This is surreal.

Sarkazein said...

http://www.breitbart.tv/kiss-my-gay-ass-ca-lawmaker-heckles-gov-schwarzenegger/


Can't we all just get along. At least Wilson let Obama talk.