Poll: Who's the Biggest Threat to the World

[FranG]

I say the American Government hands down.

[Leftfield]

I am going to post this because I don't get how everyone is so blinded...

American business owns American goverment, period.

So I say the terrorists... unless they are also funded by Big Business?

There is so much "illegal" money out there, call it M4.

[zhang_bob]

Until the terrorists (whoever they maybe) get 5,736 active nuclear warheads, it has to be The United States.




So I say the terrorists... unless they are also funded by Big Business?

It depends if you consider money laundering big business.;)

[Carebear]

Difficult poll. The American Government has done much to increase terrorism and fundamentalism... it's difficult to say if the biggest threat is the ones increasing terrorism or the terrorists themselves.

[MacGuffin]

Biggest threat?

U. S. of A. bitches!

Suck it!

[HappyNoodleBoy]

Why arent idiots, UFO's and INTJ's on the list?

[FranG]

I am going to post this because I don't get how everyone is so blinded...

American business owns American goverment, period.

So I say the terrorists... unless they are also funded by Big Business?

There is so much "illegal" money out there, call it M4.

True the corporations do own America. But I regard business and the government as one in the same; because you have the same players in and out of both organizations on a continuous basis. But yeah big business (especially the bankers) funds everybody, including both governments and terrorists. But they fund America the most:think:

[Krill]

Biggest threat? United States Government.

Greatest chance of actualizing the threat it presents? Terrorists.

[omnirook]

Actually, I think it depends on what one considers threatened.

Up until the election last week, it seemed that the US Government was poised to continue on a neo-con path that would lead to the US becoming an openly dictatorial police-state under the control of multi-national corporate interests; in other words, the "legal fiction" that the US was a nation governed "of the people, by the people, and for the people" would no longer be maintained w/the same vigilant attention to "democratic" forms but would become a nation where little or no attempt was made to continue conning the public into believing that their opinions mattered much if at all. Now, at the least, something of a return will be made to the conditions that have prevailed since the death of Lincoln: the US Government will put effort into courting public "opinion" (sentiment) and making the "nobody" believe that he is a "somebody."

Whether this "kinder, gentler" domestic policy affects foreign policy remains to be seen. I think that it will - to some extent. Something of a return to economic dominance masquerading as "foreign aid" will be made, so that the multi-nationals will have to be more patient in imposing their logo's on every visible surface in the world.

If the rest of the world wants what we have - as much of it seems to - then, ultimately, the official "terrorists" - code word for those who oppose our taking over and doing as we please - will ultimately lose. If the world does not want what we have, then the "terrorists" will become history's "freedom fighters," and we will - in an ironic twist of fate - become the "evil empire" that brutalized and terrorized and mass-murdered in our cruel attempts to take over.

Just what does the US have?

90% of the nation's wealth is in TEN percent of the people's hands; 60% of that 90% is in the hands of ONE percent of the people's hands.

80% of the American population is - officially! - classed as "working class" - in other words, everybody from those who are "getting by" to those who are starving. 20% of those who are classed as working class make enough money and are likely enough to vote that Carl Rove includes them in his "35% who matter."

The other 15% of the 35% who matter are the "middle class" - the college-indoctrinated drones who swarm in office towers, nesting in cubicles, churning out massive mountains of "data" that - hardly anyone ever looks at. They are maintained not because of the work they do; they are maintained because they provide a semi-literate, semi-cultured "buffer" who have enough of a vested interest in the status-quo to help to preserve the status quo. They are hardly guard dogs - no, those are the police - they are too soft and too chicken-shit to be guard dogs - but they are excellent lap dogs, and they serve several purposes, not the least of which is as examples of how well "things" turn out for "good little boys and good little girls." You, too, can live in a house that you do not own, drive a car that you do not own, be in debt over your unborn grandchildren's eyeballs, wear the latest fashions, and, best of all, never have to sweat or get your hands dirty!

The vast majority of the American population is - invisible. Roseanne was the closest that American television has come to representing the working class since All in the Family 15 years earlier. In TV Land, all are well-to-do - money is hardly ever mentioned - everybody lives large and has a nice home and plenty of free time to get involved in "situations." Why, even on a minister's salary, one can have a stay-at-home wifey and 7 or 8 or 10 kids who can all look forward to life at college in a cushy dorm!

Who's a greater threat to humanity's well-being - the sand-blown "terrorist" who makes bombs in his tent - or the "American Way?" At least the sand-blown terrorist is (officially) fighting for something besides oil companies, Disney, Starbucks, and personal debt.

Toss a coin!

[rainfall]

Rainfall should be a poll option.

Nuclear rainfall...

[Xander]

Has to be the government.

The terrorists must gather their strength before they do something. The government just announces it on TV with some "experts" to verify that it's all legal and a good decision.

Also they are as blind and brutal as the terrorists. Oh and their methodology is probably worse. Plus they almost never own up to doing it where as the terroroists often do.

I think the worst thing from, my perspective, is that they are sanctioned by the people to do these things. Knowingly or not.

[Dempsey]

America should shut up for a couple of years and see what happens.

[Stoned_Rider]

official "terrorists" - code word for those who oppose our taking over and doing as we please
Heh, talk about being simplistic.

With regards to the poll, what exactly do you mean by "biggest threat to the world"? Are you saying, for example, that the US government is more likely to wipe out all of humanity? Because it has nuclear weapons? :confused: I really don't get it. This is an over-simplification if I ever saw one. And people seem to be buying it so far! Please elaborate.

Also, are you explicitly referring to George W Bush's government? Or the American government in general?

Finally, why does it necessarily have to be one of these two? Maybe global warming is currently the biggest threat to the world? Perhaps you wanted to say "who's the bigger threat to the world"?

[PsiKik]

Not enough options in the poll.

[omnirook]

Heh, talk about being simplistic.

With regards to the poll, what exactly do you mean by "biggest threat to the world"? Are you saying, for example, that the US government is more likely to wipe out all of humanity? Because it has nuclear weapons? :confused: I really don't get it. This is an over-simplification if I ever saw one. And people seem to be buying it so far! Please elaborate.

Also, are you explicitly referring to George W Bush's government? Or the American government in general?

Finally, why does it necessarily have to be one of these two? Maybe global warming is currently the biggest threat to the world? Perhaps you wanted to say "who's the bigger threat to the world"?


The poll was simplistic!

By what does one feel more threatened? - by a corporation-dominated world where nation-states are mere legal fictions that "reign but do not rule" w/the "US" and its "Coalition of the Willing" as enforcers - or "terrorists" (presently of the Arab Muslim fundamentalist type), going about and occasionally blowing up whatever they can blow up, serving more as excuses for further diminishing civil rights than as any real threat? I believe that most would choose the former - even if they were told outright where "things" stood. People care about freedom only so long as they can do so on the sidelines, cheering and waving the flag, while other people do the fighting or even just get their hands dirty. So, take your pick.

Nuclear weapons have never been even so much as what parents the world over used to call "the strap" - the beating implement that was kept hanging in a prominent place to warn the children to behave - or else. At least the strap got taken down and used once in awhile. Nuclear weapons were used once - on Japan (because they were not white Europeans), just to show everybody that the weapons did work. Since, merely hinting that one might be used has been enough to bring some of the worst incorrigibles to heel. The US would be the last to use a nuclear weapon! Take a look at the last "Richest List" - more Americans than anybody else - they're not going to allow their investments to be vaporized. Long, protracted wars, where many are killed and where the damage done (fat contracts paid for by the mob!) is easily repaired (no radiation!) are much to be preferred.

Who's buying what? So far, you are the only to respond to my post.

No - Dubya is a figurehead. He represents the jack-booted element of the right-wing of the ruling elites, those who believe that the poor should grovel and beg for scraps while their betters, their lords and masters, grind them further into the mud. There is a left-wing to the ruling elites. Their finest office holder was Franklin D Roosevelt. They prefer that the legal fiction of "democracy" be assiduously maintained and that the mob be treated w/kid gloves. Mostly, this is their idea of correct (efficient) government - but some of them actually do have feelings for the masses and are seen as "weaklings" by Dubya's supporters - and some of their own. If I were going to pick a side, I would pick the left-wing. I agree w/both Caesar and Macchiavelli: be kind when you can, reserving cruelty for exceptions, keep the people fed and entertained, and "things" will go smoothly. People - most of us - are very much like dogs - blind loyalty to a kind master to the bitter end. Brutalize dogs - or us - often enough, and they/we will turn on you. A mastiff will sacrifice his life to defend you if he loves you; if he hates you, w/o even working up a lather, he could tear you limb from limb faster than any help could arrive.

Big/bigger/biggest? "Bigger" is perhaps best. Global warming is partly what we have done - but mostly is the result of the planet's natural atmospheric phases. Warm and cool periods are easily identified in the geologic record. There have been some hot and cold "snaps" (millennia in geologic terms), as well. Less than 1000 years ago, for instance, Europe was markedly colder than it is now. How do geologists know this? The fossils of strains of bacteria: the ones that can live in warmer climates are present now but were absent then - and had previously been present, by the way.

[Stoned_Rider]

Thanks omnirook. Apart from the first line, my post was actually directed at the person who started this thread. He/she started a simplistic poll which US-bashers were more than happy to vote in, without actually having a clue what he originally meant.

For the record, I voted "terrorists", just to balance things out. But I'd still like to hear an explanation of what exactly the poll is about.

[booyalab]

yeah, the American Government is the biggest threat to the world....that's why we should elect an administration of Democrats into office, so it gets even bigger! right guys?!

[omnirook]

Thanks omnirook. Apart from the first line, my post was actually directed at the person who started this thread. He/she started a simplistic poll which US-bashers were more than happy to vote in, without actually having a clue what he originally meant.

For the record, I voted "terrorists", just to balance things out. But I'd still like to hear an explanation of what exactly the poll is about.

Yes, I'm often accused of "US bashing" - and, in a technical sense, I am guilty as charged.

However, since I do not believe that nation-states are of any real consequence any more - and have not been since Yalta - I feel that the accusation is meaningless, is made by fools who believe that the US and other nation-states are more than convenient legal fictions (like the British monarchy) for cloaking reality in a glittering vestament that the mob can "Oooh and ahh" over.

The last real Western - read "white European" nation-state - was NAZI Germany. What made nation-states possible, even necessary, is gone - isolation. Modern technology has made it impossible for even Kim Il Jong to keep his people sheltered from the rest of the world. The nation-state is quite dead - how long its mummy will be propped up and paraded around for the mob to cheer remains to be seen.

Saddam Hussein was destroyed because - he represented an anachronistic nation-state - one w/a large reserve of oil. Only the worst fool, the blindest, dumbest dupe would for a second believe that anyone in power gave a damn about how Hussein treated his people - or even if he had WMD's (Hello, North Korea!). No, Hussein had to go because his "country," Iraq, was - a country - a country that did not understand that "its" oil was really OUR oil and that we were being very kind by allowing our slaves to pay for it until it ran out, when the money would have to be given back just to go on eating - and would come back, but not to our slaves. That was why Hussein had to go, that was why the neo-con powers that be allowed Dubya to pretend that he had some sort of say in things - that he was "doing good" and restoring his Daddy's honor.

So, yeah, I "bash" the US - so long as it it is understood that my "bashing" has as much real meaning as would my kicking King Tut's mummy.

Do I believe that a time will come when people will "wake up" and fight for freedom and establish a democratic paradise on earth? No. Never. I would much prefer it if the US had a firmly entrenched parlimentary constitutional monarchy w/an hereditary peerage that occupied the House of Lords (I so opposed "Lords Reform" that I actually wrote Tony Blair a letter!) Why? Such a system would crystalize and set in place a symbolic edifice that represented the fundamental organizing principle of all human societies, regardless of place or time or of outward trappings: man is an hierarchical pack animal - and nothing more - and is incapable of being anything else. At least w/a monarch and hereditary nobles, one cuts out much of the in-fighting and jockeying for position. The best seats are taken, too bad for you.

[omnirook]

yeah, the American Government is the biggest threat to the world....that's why we should elect an administration of Democrats into office, so it gets even bigger! right guys?!

Hello! The 2 LARGEST expansions of government in US history were - under Ronald Reagan and George W Bush (Homeland Security? Ring a bell?) No Democrat - not even Roosevelt - ever expanded government nearly as much. The Republicans stand for smaller government only when 1)they are in opposition and 2) when it comes to regulating BIG and ONLY big business - not when it comes to small business, not when it comes to the public, not ever. Get over it.

[sbw]

There is so much "illegal" money out there, call it M4.

you might as well call it M3...since they don't even publish the M3 number anymore. if thats not a sign that inflation is gonna kill us all...

Scott

edit: I'm serious y'all--the fed has printed so much money that they are like embarrassed or something and stopped fucking publishing the number...inflation in probably closer to 12% than to the 5 or 6 that they report...but how do you even measure inflation if you don't know how much money is out there?

[kuranes]

At least w/a monarch and hereditary nobles, one cuts out much of the in-fighting and jockeying for position. The best seats are taken, too bad for you.

Is that you, Clave ? :)

[sbw]

Hello! The 2 LARGEST expansions of government in US history were - under Ronald Reagan and George W Bush (Homeland Security? Ring a bell?)

don't forget about the medicare drug benefit that will bankrupt america once all the boomers turn 90...or the abortion that is the no child left behind act...

I don't know the numbers on reagan...but the cato institute--you would hate them omni but they're good people--has told me over and over again that bush's non-defense discretionary spending is in fact worse even than democrat predecessors.

oh yea, the war, too. that cost a few bucks.

Scott

[omnirook]

Is that you, Clave ? :)

No. Claverhouse is a Divine Right monarchist - he believes that the sovereign should actually rule. No. I am a Constitutional monarchist, who believes that the British are currently enjoying the best system of government that anyone has ever devised - the one dent being the recent removal of more than 600 hereditary peers from the House of Lords. That was foolish; that was a shame. The long-term value of a difficult-to-remove conservative element was recognized by even the framers of the US Constitution when they made the federal judiciary an appointed element and made the Supreme Court equal in power to the executive and the legislative branches. Not only would I have not carried forward w/Lords Reform, I would have rolled it back in the sense that I would asked the Queen to go on periodically creating new hereditary peers who were not her blood relatives and, therefore, by convention, prohibited from speaking or voting in the Lords.

I know that you were joking - but sometimes a joke backfires. ;P

Largest mistake made by the Founding Fathers: making the president both the head of state and the head of government - that was a terrible mistake and might prove fatal.

[omnirook]

don't forget about the medicare drug benefit that will bankrupt america once all the boomers turn 90...or the abortion that is the no child left behind act...

I don't know the numbers on reagan...but the cato institute--you would hate them omni but they're good people--has told me over and over again that bush's non-defense discretionary spending is in fact worse even than democrat predecessors.

oh yea, the war, too. that cost a few bucks.

Scott

The Cato Institute presumably was named in Cato's honor - since I would have been an ardent Caesar supporter had I lived back then, I have never paid much attention to the Cato Institute. I know that their "white paper" provided much of the impetus for going forward w/Lords Reform - from the above, you know that I was deeply opposed to that. If, as I believe, the Institute was named in Cato's honor, then, like Caesar, I am prepared to respect them and consider them honorable - if blind and stupid and stubborn.

[Stoned_Rider]

So did you actually receive any reply (or acknowledgement) from Tony Blair? :D

[sbw]

The Cato Institute presumably was named in Cato's honor

actually, its named after some dudes who used cato as a nom de plume:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato's_Letters

Scott

[FranG]

Actually, I think it depends on what one considers threatened.

Up until the election last week, it seemed that the US Government was poised to continue on a neo-con path that would lead to the US becoming an openly dictatorial police-state under the control of multi-national corporate interests; in other words, the "legal fiction" that the US was a nation governed "of the people, by the people, and for the people" would no longer be maintained w/the same vigilant attention to "democratic" forms but would become a nation where little or no attempt was made to continue conning the public into believing that their opinions mattered much if at all. Now, at the least, something of a return will be made to the conditions that have prevailed since the death of Lincoln: the US Government will put effort into courting public "opinion" (sentiment) and making the "nobody" believe that he is a "somebody."

Whether this "kinder, gentler" domestic policy affects foreign policy remains to be seen. I think that it will - to some extent. Something of a return to economic dominance masquerading as "foreign aid" will be made, so that the multi-nationals will have to be more patient in imposing their logo's on every visible surface in the world.

If the rest of the world wants what we have - as much of it seems to - then, ultimately, the official "terrorists" - code word for those who oppose our taking over and doing as we please - will ultimately lose. If the world does not want what we have, then the "terrorists" will become history's "freedom fighters," and we will - in an ironic twist of fate - become the "evil empire" that brutalized and terrorized and mass-murdered in our cruel attempts to take over.

Just what does the US have?

90% of the nation's wealth is in TEN percent of the people's hands; 60% of that 90% is in the hands of ONE percent of the people's hands.

80% of the American population is - officially! - classed as "working class" - in other words, everybody from those who are "getting by" to those who are starving. 20% of those who are classed as working class make enough money and are likely enough to vote that Carl Rove includes them in his "35% who matter."

The other 15% of the 35% who matter are the "middle class" - the college-indoctrinated drones who swarm in office towers, nesting in cubicles, churning out massive mountains of "data" that - hardly anyone ever looks at. They are maintained not because of the work they do; they are maintained because they provide a semi-literate, semi-cultured "buffer" who have enough of a vested interest in the status-quo to help to preserve the status quo. They are hardly guard dogs - no, those are the police - they are too soft and too chicken-shit to be guard dogs - but they are excellent lap dogs, and they serve several purposes, not the least of which is as examples of how well "things" turn out for "good little boys and good little girls." You, too, can live in a house that you do not own, drive a car that you do not own, be in debt over your unborn grandchildren's eyeballs, wear the latest fashions, and, best of all, never have to sweat or get your hands dirty!

The vast majority of the American population is - invisible. Roseanne was the closest that American television has come to representing the working class since All in the Family 15 years earlier. In TV Land, all are well-to-do - money is hardly ever mentioned - everybody lives large and has a nice home and plenty of free time to get involved in "situations." Why, even on a minister's salary, one can have a stay-at-home wifey and 7 or 8 or 10 kids who can all look forward to life at college in a cushy dorm!

Who's a greater threat to humanity's well-being - the sand-blown "terrorist" who makes bombs in his tent - or the "American Way?" At least the sand-blown terrorist is (officially) fighting for something besides oil companies, Disney, Starbucks, and personal debt.

Toss a coin!


Brilliance!

[omnirook]

actually, its named after some dudes who used cato as a nom de plume:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato's_Letters

Scott

Interesting. Perhaps there is a difference between the outlet in the UK and the outlet in the US. I seem to remember seeing Cato's famous profile on some logo or letter-head once. It doesn't matter: they are staunch republicans, and I do not hold (aesthetically) w/the outwardly republican form of OLIGARCHY - which is the true substance of all human governments throughout history, regardless of their form. In short, a dry, outwardly "democratic" republic robs the "little people" of their lovely illusions and pretends to foist the unwanted responsibility of caring on the public. I suppose that you could put it down to the similar taste that drives me to identify myself as a "cultural Catholic," despite being a thorough going agnostic: the Catholic Church is simply prettier!

[FranG]

Heh, talk about being simplistic.

With regards to the poll, what exactly do you mean by "biggest threat to the world"? Are you saying, for example, that the US government is more likely to wipe out all of humanity? Because it has nuclear weapons? :confused: I really don't get it. This is an over-simplification if I ever saw one. And people seem to be buying it so far! Please elaborate.

Also, are you explicitly referring to George W Bush's government? Or the American government in general?

Finally, why does it necessarily have to be one of these two? Maybe global warming is currently the biggest threat to the world? Perhaps you wanted to say "who's the bigger threat to the world"?

LOL I forgot I'm talking to INTPs. Let me be more specific.

Biggest threat to the world

Here I meant who's the bigger threat out of those two entities. Of course it's a simplification, most if not everything in life is. I coulda added global warming, car accidents, prostitutes, insects, etc. but the poll has a limit of only 20 choices. You reading way too much into this yo. I'm basically comparing the American government (in general, not just the Bush regime but the American Way as omnirook said I guess) to the terrorists as a threat to humanity. If you want to look at it as if because they have nukes, then fine. But I'm saying, whatever method (doesn't have to be violence, another form of coercion or manipulation would suffice) the parties would use; who's the bigger threat.

George Bush's Government or just the Government

I'm talking about just the Government in general here. Although George Bush's Government probably represents the worst face of American Government in history.

Why does it have to be one of these two?

I think I addressed that above too, but I'm addressing these two because that's what I was curious about. I'm focused on the Government and the "Terrorists". No since of me putting lightning storms in the poll, even if they are a bigger threat (they're not), because we have a pointed question (which could be pointed in infinite directions but then it wouldn't be pointed though right?). I know you're INTP but don't overthink the question.

[omnirook]

So did you actually receive any reply (or acknowledgement) from Tony Blair? :D

No. Not even the promised "receipt" of having gotten my letter - a promise made by a very nice lady who works - or worked, maybe she's gone - at the UK Consulate in New York, where I went to get the correct address for writing to the Prime Minister. I did not expect him to respond; I did not expect him even to read my letter - but someone, even if just security, did - and I should have gotten my postcard, informing me that the PM had received my letter but is too busy to respond. I mean, Her Majesty's staff have done as much whenever I have sent cards, etc to the Queen, for instance the one congratulating her on her Jubilee.

[PonderBee]

Who are "The Terrorists"? Too vague.
Very narrow poll. I chose "The Terrorists" because we all have the potential to be defined as such by "The Enemy".

[Stoned_Rider]

Thanks. No, I just genuinely didn't understand the poll.

Right, so it's the "American Way" versus "The Terrorists". It does not matter who's in charge. Whether it's Clinton, Bush, or Chris Rock, the US government is, has always been, and will always be the bigger threat to the world.

Thanks for clearing that up, as I really don't think that's what people had in mind when they voted "American Government".

[PonderBee]

America should shut up for a couple of years and see what happens.

Yeah. Let's take all our balls & toys out of the sandbox and stay out of everyone's hair for half a decade or so.

[booyalab]

Hello! The 2 LARGEST expansions of government in US history were - under Ronald Reagan and George W Bush (Homeland Security? Ring a bell?) No Democrat - not even Roosevelt - ever expanded government nearly as much. The Republicans stand for smaller government only when 1)they are in opposition and 2) when it comes to regulating BIG and ONLY big business - not when it comes to small business, not when it comes to the public, not ever. Get over it.

yeah that's likely.

do you realize that the times appointed Republican officials have spent the most are the times when they have been most disappointing to their voter base? On the other hand, Democrats love it when their elected leaders spend tons of money on regulations and programs. But even when Republicans disappoint, they're never as dangerously socialist as their Democrat equivalents would be in the same situation. The Democrat platform is always more government spending.

[booyalab]

i should have mentioned this in my first post, but how do you figure that Bush is the leading culprit thus far for big government with the $2 trillion in tax cuts he pushed through congress in his first term?

[MacGuffin]

i should have mentioned this in my first post, but how do you figure that Bush is the leading culprit thus far for big government with the $2 trillion in tax cuts he pushed through congress in his first term?
Cause it didn't come with a corresponding $2 trillion budget cut?

[Dr. Haight]

The Democrat platform is always more government spending.Democrats tax and spend, and Republicans barrow and spend - historically. Either way, they both spend. Don't believe the Conservative "small government" spin; it's just an empty promise used to gather votes from a small proportion of their base that's sympathetic to that vision.

[omnirook]

yeah that's likely.

do you realize that the times appointed Republican officials have spent the most are the times when they have been most disappointing to their voter base? On the other hand, Democrats love it when their elected leaders spend tons of money on regulations and programs. But even when Republicans disappoint, they're never as dangerously socialist as their Democrat equivalents would be in the same situation. The Democrat platform is always more government spending.

So? No matter who is in charge, the nation's largest employer and biggest spender is the government - and has always been so. What difference does it make if it the government makes noise when it does what it does or is quiet? ... You do realize that I discount the "Republican base." The average voter - there's a laugh! - who identifies as a Republican is even more of a dupe than the average voter who identifies as a Democrat.

Republican: Fuck me harder! Harder! HARDER!!! Make me bleed, goddammit!

Democrat: Do you mind putting a little vaseline on that before you plug me in my ass again?

Let's face it, any party that has among its strongest supporters the "religous right" is the party of the establishment minus its smiley face. The American religious right is no better and is in some ways worse than the Taliban: at least the Taliban has the excuse of being from a part of the world where "democracy" has never been a tradition (a traditional farce, where cartoon characters like Ronald Reagan can act as floats as the parade goes by).

[FranG]

Cause it didn't come with a corresponding $2 trillion budget cut?

And only the wealthiest people got the money.




Republican: Fuck me harder! Harder! HARDER!!! Make me bleed, goddammit!

Democrat: Do you mind putting a little vaseline on that before you plug me in my ass again?

by).

LMAO yeah the Democrats are pretty lame.

[sbw]

i should have mentioned this in my first post, but how do you figure that Bush is the leading culprit thus far for big government with the $2 trillion in tax cuts he pushed through congress in his first term?


bush's non-defense discretionary spending

:joft:

Scott