« previous   misc   next »

The GOP's Fox "News" problem


By iwog   Follow   Tue, 20 Nov 2012, 12:31am PST   6,172 views   146 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (3)  

I don't generally link opinion pieces but this one is particularly insightful. It explains how Romney isn't the real reason Republicans failed in an election they should have overwhelmingly won, and details the divide between the reasonableness that some Republicans are trying to exhibit and the raw sewage coming from Fox that many Republican voters keep drinking up like it was manna from heaven.

The GOP Doesn't Have A Mitt Romney Problem, It Has A Fox News Problem
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/20/the-gop-doesnt-have-a-mitt-romney-problem-it-ha/191469

« First     « Previous     Comments 107-146 of 146     Last »

edvard2   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 3:33am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (3)     Comment 107

Oh, and by the way, Obama won the election. That is all. Now back to our regularly scheduled program...

AverageBear   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 3:40am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 108

upisdown says

Really? There's no embassy in Benghazi, but there was an agency annex there. How do we know that? A couple of republicans exposed that tidbit of classified info in their efforts to use the whole situation for political gain. And it hasn't stopped either.

----------------------------------------
Ups, are you reduced to 'picking the flyshit out of the pepper'? Embassy, annex. Do you think the families of these 4 dead guys feel any better knowing they were holed up in 'A BUILDING' that Obama didn't feel like dealing with? Do you deny that these guys asked for help? Do you deny that the obama adminstration didn't do anything? Why did Susan Rice tells 5 different networks that the attack was caused by 'a video' before the election? Oh, I think I have an idea. They couldn't tarnish the pseudo-prowess of Obama's Foreign policy (or lack thereof) now could they? Why did Susan Rice lie? Who in the Obama Adminstration told her to lie?

CaptainShuddup   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 3:43am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 109

edvard2 says

Oh, and by the way, Obama won the election

It's OK ya'll John Boehner said he can be President for four more years.
He'll let him.

AverageBear   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 3:45am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 110

CL says

So, that's some circular logic there. Since the rightwing has called it "the Clinton new network", it means it is partisan?

---------------------------------------------------
Yep. There's a reason why the phrase "Clinton News Network" got everyone's attention and stuck, because it WAS true!

Jeez, and we wonder why water-carrying magazines like "Newsweek" went under. They HAD THE SCOOP ON THE LEWINSKY STORY AND SPIKED IT. Breitbart (IIRC) picked it up, and ran with it.

It goes on and on w/ the liberal water-carrying media. Why, oh why did the National Inquirer break the story on that piece of shit John Edwards? Because the media was protecting him, not covering the story, and hoped it would go away. Same thing w/ Benghazi. Jeez, do we have to spell everything out for you?

AverageBear   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 3:49am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 111

edvard2 says

Oh, and by the way, Obama won the election. That is all. Now back to our regularly scheduled program...

-----------------------------------
Oh, and by the way, the GOP kept control of the lower house. Ain't 'balance of power' a bitch?

edvard2   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 3:50am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 112

BTW: Obama still won. Four more years baby...

upisdown   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 3:51am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 113

AverageBear says

Ups, are you reduced to 'picking the flyshit out of the pepper'? Embassy, annex. Do you think the families of these 4 dead guys feel any better knowing they were holed up in 'A BUILDING' that Obama didn't feel like dealing with

Your incohernet babbling still doesn't make that building an embassy, it just makes you seem ridiculous. Apparently you've never been in an embassy or seen one on tv have you? There's a lot more people in one than that, and the security is bigger and top level along with the fact that the personnel are active duty, not former active duty.

Keep grasping for answers though.

AverageBear   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 3:54am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 114

CaptainShuddup says

Why on Earth would anyone tick "dislike" AverageBear's above post?
That is why no one even bothers to check who has what dislikes and likes.
It's just a vehicle for petty people to vent their frustration on when people tells the truth.

--------------------------------------
Oh, I now noticed this feature. I kinda like it. (or not 'unlike' it). Hhaha.. The way I see it, the more unlikes I get the better...Keep 'em coming...

edvard2   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 4:01am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 115

AverageBear says

Oh, I now noticed this feature. I kinda like it. (or not 'unlike' it). Hhaha.. The way I see it, the more unlikes I get the better...Keep 'em coming...

And why is it better?

AverageBear   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 4:08am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 116

CL says

I assume you'd be as forgiving if the Benghazi story had come to Obama's desk as a PDB?

------------------------------------
Like I'd assume obama is at his desk, let alone reading a PDB.. HAHAHAHAHAA....I'd have better luck finding him on the back 9 smoking a marlboro...HAHAHAA

AverageBear   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 4:14am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 117

upisdown says

Your incohernet babbling still doesn't make that building an embassy, it just makes you seem ridiculous. Apparently you've never been in an embassy or seen one on tv have you? There's a lot more people in one than that, and the security is bigger and top level along with the fact that the personnel are active duty, not former active duty.
Keep grasping for answers though

----------------------------------------------------------
I keep asking why Susan Rice lied to the American people, and who in Obama's adminstration told her to lie. I find these two questions very meaningful, and far from your incoherent babbling on the the meaningless items of this scandal. Who care what the fuck you want to call the building? Is that your cornerstone of your argument? Oooh, so I don't know the difference between annex and embassy.....So I ask yet again. Why was Obama's adminstration reduced to getting Susan Rice to fall on her sword and lie to the 5 water-carrying networks?

upisdown   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 4:31am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 118

AverageBear says

I keep asking why Susan Rice lied to the American people, and who in Obama's adminstration told her to lie. I find these two questions very meaningful, and far from your incoherent babbling on the the meaningless items of this scandal. Who care what the fuck you want to call the building? Is that your cornerstone of your argument? Oooh, so I don't know the difference between annex and embassy.....So I ask yet again. Why was Obama's adminstration reduced to getting Susan Rice to fall on her sword and lie to the 5 water-carrying networks?

You rightys never know anything about the government and how it ACTUALLY works other than the shit you are told by Fox news. Just like John McCain and Rand Paul missing the senate briefing, because they were out whining to the right wing media about the lack of info.
Calling you on your BS doesn't mean to double down on the same crap, so I suggest that you stop digging, not dig faster.

And, regardless of what Susan Rice said, who, or really what agency told he and briefed her on the situation considering that it was their annex/compound?

FYI, the lack of active duty personnel is the key. But I guess that I shouldn't expect some right wing chickenhawk to know that.

AverageBear   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 4:59am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 119

iwog says

There is no liberal media. Reality has a well known liberal bias.

----------------------------
I couldn't give a shit where Obama was born. But what does it tell you when the National Inquirer breaks a story on the piece of shit John Edwards philandering, love-child, and turning his back on his cancer-stricken wife? Why on earth does a lousy rag like the National Inquirer break a story on John Edwards? Because NOOOOOBODY wanted to make him look bad. NOOOOOBODY. So you go on down the line of all the media outlets, till the fuckin' Inquirer breaks the news, because apparently the water-carrying media won't do their fuckin' job. That's the reality IWOG.

AverageBear   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 5:01am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 120

upisdown says

You rightys never know anything about the government and how it ACTUALLY works other than the shit you are told by Fox news. Just like John McCain and Rand Paul missing the senate briefing, because they were out whining to the right wing media about the lack of info.
Calling you on your BS doesn't mean to double down on the same crap, so I suggest that you stop digging, not dig faster.
And, regardless of what Susan Rice said, who, or really what agency told he and briefed her on the situation considering that it was their annex/compound?
FYI, the lack of active duty personnel is the key. But I guess that I shouldn't expect some right wing chickenhawk to know that.

------------------------------------
Ups, keep ranting. You still haven't answered the question. Why did Susan Rice lie to America? Who in the Obama adminstration told her to lie?

iwog   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 5:25am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 121

CaptainShuddup says

Oh but he can stop criminal investigations of his cabinet members, and wave his magical constituent maker wand and give selective classes green cards, but he can't do any thing that really makes a difference in the quality of American life for the American people. Well the world actually. The world is paying harder for wall street greed than we are.

WHAT IN FUCKING HELL DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH REGULATION OF THE FUTURES MARKETS????????

Again...........step back and look at yourself in the mirror. You can't stay focused on a single topic for one post. You know that examination of your core beliefs will destroy them, so you run away like a scared rabbit and jump to something else.

CaptainShuddup says

You told me once Obama couldn't do anything because the Republicans wont let him. Well it is YOU that LIED.

I don't lie. Whatever context that statement was in, it was certainly not "Obama can't do anything whatsoever on any policy without the Republicans in congress".

If you want to be specific, I'll be happy to talk about it and admit fault if I'm wrong. I don't EVER run from anything I've said in the past.

iwog   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 5:27am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 122

AverageBear says

Funny how Watergate was more of a scandal than Benghazi.

Benghazi isn't a scandal. Terrorists killed some people and for a while there was confusion as to the direct cause.

The entire Newscorp led idiot jihad about Benghazi failed with the public precisely because so many Americans think it's retarded.

iwog   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 5:30am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 123

AverageBear says

I keep asking why Susan Rice lied to the American people, and who in Obama's adminstration told her to lie. I find these two questions very meaningful

How are they meaningful? What are the implications between reports of a planned terrorist attack and a mob angry at a stupid video? If you can't answer this question you have no business holding this opinion.

upisdown   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 5:31am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 124

AverageBear says

Ups, keep ranting. You still haven't answered the question. Why did Susan Rice lie to America? Who in the Obama adminstration told her to lie?

How do you know that she did? You have absolutely no way of knowing, or proving that she lied.

But that won't stop you from claiming that she did. Just because Darrel "matchstick" Issa claims that she did, doesn't make it so. And for the umpteenth time a republican disclosed classified info during a political witch hunt and stunt.

You really think that the, or ANY, administration is going to recognize and give press briefings abount a classified agaency annex and it's personnel, and every other detail about it?
That's why you right wingers are such a total failure when it comes to national security, wars, and foreign policy in general. The right wing cheerleaders for gen. Petreus wouldn't acknolwedge his total lack of skills and his failures, and then Obama moved him over to the CIA, not think that he could do any worse, but did. Petreus' whole career revolved around kissing ass and ideology, at least when he wasn't in some classroom learning ideological based foreign policy at right wing institutions.

And somehow you and the rest of the chickenhawk noise squad thinks that you have some type of smoking gun, and it's one that you can never prove beyond some blind insinuation. And saying it over non stop doesn't make it more valid either.

iwog   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 6:50am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 125

If Susan Rice lied to the American people, and knew full well it was a terrorist attack instead of a video enraged mob, and this could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt..........

Who cares?

It doesn't change who was killed. It doesn't change US policy. It doesn't affect the hunt for those responsible. It doesn't change the fact that eventually the truth came out. (Obama called it an act of terror the day after it happened and long before Romney did)

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/17/1031521/obama-called-libya-attack-terrorism-long-before-romney/

So basically you have a scandal that means nothing, affects nothing, and changes nothing even if it is true.

Of course it is not true. There were many opinions about the attack and the cause. It probably was both: A planned attack made easy by an outraged mob. The fact that Newscorp idiots can't get traction on this story is a rare testament to the intelligence of the average American. Not a liberal conspiracy.

dublin hillz   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 8:06am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 126

Stalin and Adolf would have handled the Benghazi situation in the following manner - "100 of you for every 1 of us." That means that 400 of "them" would have "moved on to a better place." That would learn them good - "better be feared than loved with a pocketful of dough."

SoftShell   Wed, 13 Feb 2013, 2:38am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 127

It affected a presidential election.
The country would have cared if they had known the truth.....
Denying security to embassies under threat, resulting in ambassador's death may have changed some votes....may have changed the election.

This is so obvious it brings into question why you even bothered to post....

Your rant below
iwog says

If Susan Rice lied to the American people, and knew full well it was a terrorist attack instead of a video enraged mob, and this could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt..........

Who cares?

It doesn't change who was killed. It doesn't change US policy. It doesn't affect the hunt for those responsible. It doesn't change the fact that eventually the truth came out.

iwog   Wed, 13 Feb 2013, 11:20pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (2)     Comment 128

SoftShell says

It affected a presidential election.

The country would have cared if they had known the truth.....

Denying security to embassies under threat, resulting in ambassador's death may have changed some votes....may have changed the election.

This is so obvious it brings into question why you even bothered to post....

I bothered posting because I consider your premise to be ridiculous and childish. In fact polls show that most people consider it an unfortunate terrorist act and not some brain-damaged Republican fantasy to have one of Obama's own hand picked diplomats killed.

Also most Americans realize that while George Bush was president, our forces were almost totally impotent when it came to killing Al Qaeda members while under Obama we have become deadly and efficient.

In 1983, 241 Americans were killed when a terrorist detonated a truck bomb near barracks in Lebanon. The Reagan administration had ordered that guards NOT carry live ammunition.

It was stunning and gross incompetence yet there were no calls for Reagan's impeachment nor Newscorp screaming like a plucked chicken that Reagan allowed Americans to be killed.

The reality is that you don't give a shit what happens in the world anymore. All you know is what Newscorp tells you to believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

SoftShell   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 1:02am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 129

Your entire rant does nothing to address what I've posted.
You are just dodging the reality that the facts of the incident could have changed votes..mostly from independents on the fence..could have pushed them over the edge towards romney..For you to deny this goes a long way towards measuring the sincerity of your response.

But go ahead and rant on about all the other crap that does nothing to address the subject matter at hand....I always like seeing a dick...er..duck go down in flames....

iwog says

SoftShell says

It affected a presidential election.


The country would have cared if they had known the truth.....


Denying security to embassies under threat, resulting in ambassador's death may have changed some votes....may have changed the election.

This is so obvious it brings into question why you even bothered to post....

I bothered posting because I consider your premise to be ridiculous and childish.

Dan8267   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 2:03am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 130

CaptainShuddup says

I'm registered as no party affiliation.

I don't know if you're a "republican", but I know that you watch Fox News because you parrot all their talking points, i.e. the lies that are humorously exposed in almost every episode of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. I also strongly suspect that you voted for the Republican in every presidential election since 2000.

CaptainShuddup   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 2:05am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 131

They make a funny and it's called Lies exposed?

If I'm such a Fox viewer with FOX talking points, then why are 98% of my posts from CNN with in minutes after the news breaking?

I expose Lies everyday here too, where's My prize?

curious2   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 2:10am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 132

Dan8267 says

I also strongly suspect that you voted for the Republican in every presidential election since 2000.

I think the Captain voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.

iwog   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 2:57am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 133

SoftShell says

Your entire rant does nothing to address what I've posted.

You think so? Here's point by point what you posted:

SoftShell says

It affected a presidential election.

No it didn't. (next time you might want to support your blind assertions)

SoftShell says

The country would have cared if they had known the truth.....

Polls say you're full of shit and the country doesn't care.

SoftShell says

Denying security to embassies under threat, resulting in ambassador's death may have changed some votes..

LOL @ may.

SoftShell says

This is so obvious it brings into question why you even bothered to post....

Apparently it's so fucking obvious that you were totally incapable of providing one shred of support. No polls, no data, no nothing. Just "I SAY SO AND YOU BETTER LISTEN!!!!" temper tantrum.

Nice try but total fail.

iwog   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 2:58am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 134

CaptainShuddup says

I expose Lies everyday here too, where's My prize?

Example?

Dan8267   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 3:03am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 135

curious2 says

I think the Captain voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.

That would be shocking. Ralph Nadar is a real socialist, unlike Obama.

CaptainShuddup   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 3:11am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 136

Dan8267 says

That would be shocking. Ralph Nadar is a real socialist, unlike Obama.

Well then it sounds like you answered your own question then doesn't it.

edvard2   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 3:36am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 137

In general, I think the GOP has a "media" problem. As in right wing media, or as I call it- entertainment- is far more commercialized, packaged, and processed than any other form out there. Its a huge money-making enterprise that follows a simple yet incredibly effective formula:

Never offer anything other than anti-liberal, anti-democrat talking points.

Never allow opposing opinions.

Stoke listener's egos by telling them that the things that they themselves probably don't even actually believe are true, yet desperately want to believe is true IS in fact very true.

The result is that a large segment of the conservative base are running around making statements they heard on the radio, presented as fact, which its simply financially motivated hogwash and junk. This in turn becomes the face of the GOP and that makes them look dumb.

Dan8267   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 3:38am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 138

CaptainShuddup says

Dan8267 says

That would be shocking. Ralph Nadar is a real socialist, unlike Obama.

Well then it sounds like you answered your own question then doesn't it.

Are you saying you voted for Ralph Nadar, not in the primary, but in the actual 2000 election? Nadar is a true leftist socialist. I can see you voting for him in a primary in order to create a spoiler to take down the Democrat, but I find it unlikely that you actually wanted him to win the election unless your politics were way different in 2000.

Dan8267   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 3:40am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 139

edvard2 says

In general, I think the GOP has a "media" problem.

The problem isn't that the GOP's message isn't getting through. The problem is the GOP's goals are ones that scare the shit out of everyday Americans. Most Americans want a strong, stable middle class, want women to be able to terminate abortions in the first trimester, want all adult citizens to be allowed to vote, want social security, and want the rich-poor gap to decrease. In other words, most Americans want everything the GOP wants gone.

CaptainShuddup   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 4:09am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 140

There is no Primary for the Independent elections.
Unless there are two Green party candidates running. But I don't think there's one single state in the union would give a rats ass, who was picked to run in the general election. There's often several Independents candidates on the general election ballot.

Look I have no reason to lie, if I tell you I voted for Ralph Nader in every race he ran, then why would I lie? He was the first person that inspired me to register to vote as an adult at the age of 29 in 96, but that was when the Green movement was more about saving the Earth rather than making White elitists rich, while taking the rest of the country for a ride.

Vicente   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 4:24am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 141

Dan8267 says

The problem isn't that the GOP's message isn't getting through. The problem is the GOP's goals are ones that scare the shit out of everyday Americans. Most Americans want a strong, stable middle class, want women to be able to terminate abortions in the first trimester, want all adult citizens to be allowed to vote, want social security, and want the rich-poor gap to decrease. In other words, most Americans want everything the GOP wants gone.

I read a great article about the GOP problems. And you know the sentence that stuck with me?

"Today Republicans of all age groups strenuously avoid describing themselves as “moderate,” a term that the far right has made radioactive."

That really resonates with me, and why I left the GOP.

From this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/can-the-republicans-be-saved-from-obsolescence.html?pagewanted=3&_r=5&ref=magazine

curious2   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 4:43am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 142

That goes back to Barry Goldwater's complaint about the religious fanatics taking over the Republican party. He called them impossible to work with because they viewed any sign of pragmatism as heresy, and they insisted on their own moral superiority to everyone else.

If Republicans could agree on a particular doctrine, and find enough people to support it, then they wouldn't need to compromise. But they can't, so they fudge the inherent conflicts between opposite camps.

The holy warriors try to re-define conservative to mean "Christian crusaders" with big military budgets and government intrusion into everyone's private life. These policies create huge opportunities for patronage networks to amass money and power, but they are regressive and repressive not conservative.

The more logical definition of conservative, i.e. balanced budgets, environmental protection, being modest stewards of the republic, doesn't create the same opportunities, so it loses out within the party. Then the party loses because it's running on a platform with planks that poll at -40% nationally.

Then the country loses because voters are left to choose the lesser of two evils, i.e. which patronage network will wreck the country more slowly than the other?

Vicente   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 4:58am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 143

curious2 says

That goes back to Barry Goldwater's complaint about the religious fanatics taking over the Republican party. He called them impossible to work with because they viewed any sign of pragmatism as heresy, and they insisted on their own moral superiority to everyone else.

It's not religious fanatics who are for example threatening to FILIBUSTER the nomination of Chuck Hagel.

In a sane universe, there might be grumbling but the vote would pass.

In our universe, any Republican who is judged "impure" is a heretic to be burnt at the stake.

curious2   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 5:02am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 144

Vicente says

It's not religious fanatics who are for example threatening to FILIBUSTER the nomination of Chuck Hagel.

But it is, because he dared criticize their crusade into Iraq. W actually called it a crusade. And while there, the military set about destroying what remained of ancient Babylon, thus fulfilling the prophecy in Revelation, and hastening the rapture.

The fact that endless war is also hugely lucrative for the patronage network, also helps.

It certainly isn't conservative, but it's lucrative and energizes the crusaders. And they don't brook heresy. He was disloyal, went off message, and they can't allow that. Their "faith" depends on everyone repeating the same message.

marcus   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 2:00pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 145

CaptainShuddup says

He was the first person that inspired me to register to vote as an adult at the age of 29 in 96, but that was when the Green movement was more about saving the Earth rather than making White elitists rich, while taking the rest of the country for a ride.

THe captain is a fictional character who supposedly used to be a true liberal, but now he's the kind of guy who's on board with about 60% of the Fox propaganda.

What he or she doesn't realize in creating this fictional character is that this is impossible, even if you were young back then and have supposedly devolved a lot since then,...I just don't buy it.

CaptainShuddup   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 10:14pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 146

Sure what ever you say Mucus.

« First     « Previous comments    

iwog is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best of   about   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net