Menu Bar
Needs Plugin: Flash
Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
Mark Larsen of 1040 AM WWBA interviewed Mitt Romney on the morning of 1/29/2008.
The sneers and chuckles from slippery Mitt Romney pushed him over the edge and drove him to support Ron Paul.
The sneers and chuckles from slippery Mitt Romney pushed him over the edge and drove him to support Ron Paul.
Jan 29, 2008 5:39 PM
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
Punk F*cking Rock.
When rabid Right Wingers like Mark Larsen are turning on Elitist Corporatists and saying we don't need the CIA, how far away is revolution?
When rabid Right Wingers like Mark Larsen are turning on Elitist Corporatists and saying we don't need the CIA, how far away is revolution?
By: buckinghamgreen
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
it's good to know that some people who have a voice (i.e. a radio show, tv show, etc) know that honesty and integrity matter, and then share that truth with all their listeners/readers/viewers.
i really think, hope and pray that after this election....the american public wakes up to realize the only people running for office are greedy, self-centered, party-minded idiots. and that for 2012, worthwhile, honest candidates will come out of the woodwork.
i truly hope everyone votes for ron paul. i hope you realize he is our best chance to recover from the hole we've been digging. and if you think his ideas are outrageous...then good. radical change after a stagnant time period is a GOOD THING.
i really think, hope and pray that after this election....the american public wakes up to realize the only people running for office are greedy, self-centered, party-minded idiots. and that for 2012, worthwhile, honest candidates will come out of the woodwork.
i truly hope everyone votes for ron paul. i hope you realize he is our best chance to recover from the hole we've been digging. and if you think his ideas are outrageous...then good. radical change after a stagnant time period is a GOOD THING.
By: macgregor
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
Not when it's radically wrong. I'm a crazy, left wing, liberal nut, but Ron Paul is not the answer. Romney is actually right about the universal sales tax - it just wouldn't work. 1% tax on everything is a horrendous idea that would hurt the poor way more than the rich.
By: WoodenTaco
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
Yeah, what this country needs is a virulent racist who wants to close the doors to immigration, and then fire-bomb our economy by going back to the gold standard!
Don't you Rontards realize the the R[LOVE]UTION is [OVER]LUTION?
Don't you Rontards realize the the R[LOVE]UTION is [OVER]LUTION?
By: iheartponeez
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
Actually, I'm not a Ron Paul guy either. I'm voting Edwards. (so perhaps I'm a Johntard?) And Paul may indeed be a racist.
But I have to say that Ron Paul is the only GOP thinker who's not a white-haired spokesmodel for multinational corporations.
And no matter what the wingnuts and Fox News tell you, there's nothing wrong with the gold standard.
The Fed is what causes our inflation.
The Fed is a *private for-profit business* created in a shady deal back in 1913. The Fed is owned not by the We The People but by private investors who use our US money supply to build a profit for themselves and their stakeholders.
Hence the recent loose money supply which allowed many Americans to buy a house and then use their home equity to spend, spend, spend to keep a poor economy afloat. Ah, but it can't last forever...
This tragic practice which is now causing the banks to foreclose was foreseen and planned. It allowed (and continues to allow) the banks to scoop up lots of property at bottom-dollar prices. Feudal society anyone? Plus it ensured that the economy stayed as strong as possible for Team Bush.
But now we see the Fed playing yo-yo with the money supply in hopes to keep it stable for the rest of this administration. First they tightened the supply, but that caused a recession too soon. Now they're loosening it in hopes to keep some level of stability until hand-off to the next administration.
These aren't theories. These are just the facts we know.
While on the other hand, gold is simply an international currency with an intrinsic value.
The Fed itself owns an enormous stockpile of gold.
So if backing paper wealth with gold was silly, the Fed would divest itself of all gold and sleep well at night on mattresses of nothing but paper fiat cash - which is based on air.
The gold standard may have its own challenges, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it - no matter what the corporatists and mass media tell you to say.
Ugh, I just heard Edwards is dropping out. It's the first time he got a headline in a campaign where corporate media largely ignored him. They have their own candidates, and he wasn't one of 'em. Bye bye, Middle Class...
But I have to say that Ron Paul is the only GOP thinker who's not a white-haired spokesmodel for multinational corporations.
And no matter what the wingnuts and Fox News tell you, there's nothing wrong with the gold standard.
The Fed is what causes our inflation.
The Fed is a *private for-profit business* created in a shady deal back in 1913. The Fed is owned not by the We The People but by private investors who use our US money supply to build a profit for themselves and their stakeholders.
Hence the recent loose money supply which allowed many Americans to buy a house and then use their home equity to spend, spend, spend to keep a poor economy afloat. Ah, but it can't last forever...
This tragic practice which is now causing the banks to foreclose was foreseen and planned. It allowed (and continues to allow) the banks to scoop up lots of property at bottom-dollar prices. Feudal society anyone? Plus it ensured that the economy stayed as strong as possible for Team Bush.
But now we see the Fed playing yo-yo with the money supply in hopes to keep it stable for the rest of this administration. First they tightened the supply, but that caused a recession too soon. Now they're loosening it in hopes to keep some level of stability until hand-off to the next administration.
These aren't theories. These are just the facts we know.
While on the other hand, gold is simply an international currency with an intrinsic value.
The Fed itself owns an enormous stockpile of gold.
So if backing paper wealth with gold was silly, the Fed would divest itself of all gold and sleep well at night on mattresses of nothing but paper fiat cash - which is based on air.
The gold standard may have its own challenges, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it - no matter what the corporatists and mass media tell you to say.
Ugh, I just heard Edwards is dropping out. It's the first time he got a headline in a campaign where corporate media largely ignored him. They have their own candidates, and he wasn't one of 'em. Bye bye, Middle Class...
By: buckinghamgreen
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
The US converting to a gold standard would require them to re-issue all currency in circulation as a fixed amount of gold. Since the US government doesn't have a lot of gold, it would mean a lot less currency. Thus, they would need to purchase gold — as a result, the price of gold would skyrocket. The US government would have to sell assets in order to purchase the now absurdly expensive gold, or run a deficit. Taxes would be forced to rise to finance this.
However, this would be pointless, since approximately 1 trillion dollars of goods flows out of the US economy every year. Thus, the economy would literally bled gold bullion. The only way to balance out is a recession, so deep and crippling, that it would eliminate the US trade deficit.
Okay, the regulatory mechanism for the gold standard works like this. Suppose we have two countries, A and B.
Now, for whatever reason, country A is on the gold standard. It doesn't matter what country B is on. Now, A and B buy and sell goods to one another. In order to buy and sell goods, the people in these countries need to purchase currency from one another to buy them.
When an economy buys things from another economy, they need to purchase money from the other economy to buy goods. So, for instance, country A needs to buy country B's currency (call it B$) to buy goods from country B. And vice versa.
Now, as they buy and sell, there usually will be an imbalance been how much people buy and sell in a given country. For instance, country A may be buying more from country B than it is selling. This leads to an imbalance in the currencies, because people in country A will be buying up B$ and selling A$. When it all comes out in the wash, there is a surplus of A$ on the market -- that is, the demand for A$ is lower than the amount supplied.
Now, people will work to correct this surplus, because it's pointless for them to have A$ sitting around no one wants to own. In a quasi-fiat system of freely traded currencies, the exchange rate does this. Bankers and financial dealers adjust the relative values of the currencies to make the "price" of A$ optimal. Currencies wax and wane in value based on their economies and variety of other complex mumbo jumbo which doesn't really matter here.
However, in the gold standard this doesn't happen, because A$ are linked to a fixed amount of gold -- that is, a commodity. Instead, people who hold A$ start redeeming them for gold, in order to sell them as a useful commodity. As a result, Country A's stockpile of gold, which they use to back their currency on, dwindles. In turn, the supply of money for country A falls.
Not enough money is circulation causes the economy to constrict, since doing basic business becomes increasingly difficult. It also can cause deflation, and a host of other problems. In short, the only way for A's domestic economy to come into equillibrium is for it to crash. Businesses shut down, and domestic demand for goods slows as the economy stalls.
While this is a bad thing, it does do one very good thing. If you have no money, because the economy is in recession, you can't very well afford to buy items from country B. Thus, the supply of A$ on the market falls, and people stop redeeming the excess for gold. The process brings the two markets into equilibrium again, and all is well in the world of international commerce.
Of course, the side effects are not exactly pleasant for people in country A.
Please think.
However, this would be pointless, since approximately 1 trillion dollars of goods flows out of the US economy every year. Thus, the economy would literally bled gold bullion. The only way to balance out is a recession, so deep and crippling, that it would eliminate the US trade deficit.
Okay, the regulatory mechanism for the gold standard works like this. Suppose we have two countries, A and B.
Now, for whatever reason, country A is on the gold standard. It doesn't matter what country B is on. Now, A and B buy and sell goods to one another. In order to buy and sell goods, the people in these countries need to purchase currency from one another to buy them.
When an economy buys things from another economy, they need to purchase money from the other economy to buy goods. So, for instance, country A needs to buy country B's currency (call it B$) to buy goods from country B. And vice versa.
Now, as they buy and sell, there usually will be an imbalance been how much people buy and sell in a given country. For instance, country A may be buying more from country B than it is selling. This leads to an imbalance in the currencies, because people in country A will be buying up B$ and selling A$. When it all comes out in the wash, there is a surplus of A$ on the market -- that is, the demand for A$ is lower than the amount supplied.
Now, people will work to correct this surplus, because it's pointless for them to have A$ sitting around no one wants to own. In a quasi-fiat system of freely traded currencies, the exchange rate does this. Bankers and financial dealers adjust the relative values of the currencies to make the "price" of A$ optimal. Currencies wax and wane in value based on their economies and variety of other complex mumbo jumbo which doesn't really matter here.
However, in the gold standard this doesn't happen, because A$ are linked to a fixed amount of gold -- that is, a commodity. Instead, people who hold A$ start redeeming them for gold, in order to sell them as a useful commodity. As a result, Country A's stockpile of gold, which they use to back their currency on, dwindles. In turn, the supply of money for country A falls.
Not enough money is circulation causes the economy to constrict, since doing basic business becomes increasingly difficult. It also can cause deflation, and a host of other problems. In short, the only way for A's domestic economy to come into equillibrium is for it to crash. Businesses shut down, and domestic demand for goods slows as the economy stalls.
While this is a bad thing, it does do one very good thing. If you have no money, because the economy is in recession, you can't very well afford to buy items from country B. Thus, the supply of A$ on the market falls, and people stop redeeming the excess for gold. The process brings the two markets into equilibrium again, and all is well in the world of international commerce.
Of course, the side effects are not exactly pleasant for people in country A.
Please think.
By: iheartponeez
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
"Please think." "Rontards." Easy there, big dog. :)
Don't fall into the Fox News / conservative corporate media trap which encourages us to divide into sides and fight amongst ourselves - while ignoring larger issues of change such as addressing The Fed.
And speaking of The Fed, you missed or ignored the majority crux of the previous post which was...eh, The Fed.
Because of our current Fed-managed fiat system, per your excellent trade example, the US is still buying goods overseas long after we ran out of money.
How do we do pay for it? We sell off our assets. Yup. Already doing that.
And just because we can also "print more money" based on nothing but air doesn't make it a good thing. (see: our recession and inflation)
Also, just to correct a few things...
When you state "the US government doesn't have a lot of gold..." - actually the US holds the largest amount of gold reserves in the world. Though that is changing as we need to sell metal assets to make up for...wait for it...our trade imbalance, corporate greed, inflation caused by The Fed’s actions...
Plus nations are divesting themselves of the dollar now. They don’t need it to be based on gold to dump it and for us to sit here with nothing…
Also per your assertion that "the US government would have to sell assets..."
You haven’t been paying attention the last 20 years. The US has long been selling off major assets - at an alarming rate and due to our current policies. (which can’t be blamed on the Gold Standard)
And we're just in your first paragraph.
Anyhoo, suffice to say you have some great stuff in addition to some faulty assumptions/errors. But I like your 'tude. Though if you're gonna sass, you better have everything right, son.
Still, I agree with the overall gist of your argument that the Gold Standard's challenges may include forcing folks to have a more responsible monetary and banking system.
And, though I'm not a huge Gold Standard guy, I often think this could be a decent benefit.
So we're probably in some level of agreement. And the sharing of knowledge is always positive. Heck, we don't even have to agree. But in sharing knowledge through respectful discourse we'll lead to change...
Don't fall into the Fox News / conservative corporate media trap which encourages us to divide into sides and fight amongst ourselves - while ignoring larger issues of change such as addressing The Fed.
And speaking of The Fed, you missed or ignored the majority crux of the previous post which was...eh, The Fed.
Because of our current Fed-managed fiat system, per your excellent trade example, the US is still buying goods overseas long after we ran out of money.
How do we do pay for it? We sell off our assets. Yup. Already doing that.
And just because we can also "print more money" based on nothing but air doesn't make it a good thing. (see: our recession and inflation)
Also, just to correct a few things...
When you state "the US government doesn't have a lot of gold..." - actually the US holds the largest amount of gold reserves in the world. Though that is changing as we need to sell metal assets to make up for...wait for it...our trade imbalance, corporate greed, inflation caused by The Fed’s actions...
Plus nations are divesting themselves of the dollar now. They don’t need it to be based on gold to dump it and for us to sit here with nothing…
Also per your assertion that "the US government would have to sell assets..."
You haven’t been paying attention the last 20 years. The US has long been selling off major assets - at an alarming rate and due to our current policies. (which can’t be blamed on the Gold Standard)
And we're just in your first paragraph.
Anyhoo, suffice to say you have some great stuff in addition to some faulty assumptions/errors. But I like your 'tude. Though if you're gonna sass, you better have everything right, son.
Still, I agree with the overall gist of your argument that the Gold Standard's challenges may include forcing folks to have a more responsible monetary and banking system.
And, though I'm not a huge Gold Standard guy, I often think this could be a decent benefit.
So we're probably in some level of agreement. And the sharing of knowledge is always positive. Heck, we don't even have to agree. But in sharing knowledge through respectful discourse we'll lead to change...
By: buckinghamgreen
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
Part of what was so frustrating about that was that it seems Romney doesn't know what a VAT is. That's sad, for a presidential candidate. The other part that was frustrating was that he didn't even listen. He just wrote it off at first mention. "1% tax? That's way less than a 23% tax rate."
Truth is, a 1% total VAT (Value Added Tax) would probably add up to more than a 30% tax at the consumer level, so it probably would pull in plenty of revenue. But it would also be incredibly regressive to the poor, and would give large corporations an unfair advantage over small business, and yet it wouldn't give us the tax advantage we need to bring business back on shore. But the point is, Mitt didn't even listen when it was obvious he didn't comprehend.
I truly believe that anyone who doesn't support the Fair Tax either hasn't read the Fair Tax Book--that is to say they don't understand what the bill proposes--or they have a stake in keeping the IRS, such as lobbyists, lawyers, and the rest of the "tax industry."
Oh, and there's already an infrastructure to integrate the CIA into the military. It's called the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), and they're already actively operating. It wouldn't be that hard to expand their role, and I'm sure their operatives would prefer the likely reduction of red tape if they were made completely autonomous.
Truth is, a 1% total VAT (Value Added Tax) would probably add up to more than a 30% tax at the consumer level, so it probably would pull in plenty of revenue. But it would also be incredibly regressive to the poor, and would give large corporations an unfair advantage over small business, and yet it wouldn't give us the tax advantage we need to bring business back on shore. But the point is, Mitt didn't even listen when it was obvious he didn't comprehend.
I truly believe that anyone who doesn't support the Fair Tax either hasn't read the Fair Tax Book--that is to say they don't understand what the bill proposes--or they have a stake in keeping the IRS, such as lobbyists, lawyers, and the rest of the "tax industry."
Oh, and there's already an infrastructure to integrate the CIA into the military. It's called the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), and they're already actively operating. It wouldn't be that hard to expand their role, and I'm sure their operatives would prefer the likely reduction of red tape if they were made completely autonomous.
By: Oh-Deeh
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
<gets squirmy at mention of DIA>
Yeah, the DIA is terrifying. Next step is to simply privatize everything so there's no red tape or accountability trail...
Yeah, the DIA is terrifying. Next step is to simply privatize everything so there's no red tape or accountability trail...
By: buckinghamgreen
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
Entertaining stuff. But come on, Larsen didin't dump Romney, it's quite clear from the opinions aired that he is a supporter of Ron Paul. Ron Paul does represent concerns and opinions that Americans have, you may certainly not agree with all he has to say(some of it is fiscally or functionally unsound) but there are legitimate points or questions to be made.
Laughing off these opinions and questions is disrespectful especially for a presidential candidate, and Romney is certainly not the only guilty party, watch any of the debates for that.
As President you represent a larger scope of people than you would wish for, but you must serve them ALL to the best of your ability with humility, integrity and understanding. Out of all the candidates, Democratic or Republican, I'd have to say John McCain is the frontrunner in my mind. He has a history of serving the needs of others, while still being able to stand as an individual when he sees wrong being done. He ain't perfect but who is ?
Laughing off these opinions and questions is disrespectful especially for a presidential candidate, and Romney is certainly not the only guilty party, watch any of the debates for that.
As President you represent a larger scope of people than you would wish for, but you must serve them ALL to the best of your ability with humility, integrity and understanding. Out of all the candidates, Democratic or Republican, I'd have to say John McCain is the frontrunner in my mind. He has a history of serving the needs of others, while still being able to stand as an individual when he sees wrong being done. He ain't perfect but who is ?
By: gilga
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
I think Mitt Romney came across better, by far, in this interview. I'm tired of these people thinking that SIMPLICITY is the answer to our problems (Larsen, Obama, 1% tax etc.) Guys -- simplicity is the way you get votes (I am good and honest, my opponent is a coward) not a way to confront reality. The best way to confront simple-minded fools, who confuse mass appeal with actual politics is -- yes, to laugh at them.
The announcer is nothing but an anti-intellectual demagogue, as are most people in show business. Simplicity is a way to appeal to stupid people, as if equality had anything to do with numbers (flat tax, 1% etc.). Being president is not about being a simple man -- Bush proved that -- it's about knowing what to do with secrets, knowing there is no right and wrong, knowing things are complicated rather than simple, and being able to think through these things. So, I'm voting for Clinton.
The announcer is nothing but an anti-intellectual demagogue, as are most people in show business. Simplicity is a way to appeal to stupid people, as if equality had anything to do with numbers (flat tax, 1% etc.). Being president is not about being a simple man -- Bush proved that -- it's about knowing what to do with secrets, knowing there is no right and wrong, knowing things are complicated rather than simple, and being able to think through these things. So, I'm voting for Clinton.
By: q335r49
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
knowing there is no right and wrong? are you serious? why not vote in sadam if you don't care about your dictator having a sense of morality?
By: macgregor
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
But Clinton is a corporatist who doesn't value you or your class. I'm not saying Obama will do any better. Or even Edward. (sniff)
But I do think we should hold our "public servants" to standards of right and wrong. And there should be no "secrets" when it comes to how they spend our money or serve our interests - rather than the corporations.
And whil I don't support Larsen, I think that's the ultimate reason for his anger. He saw Romney as a company man who wouldn't deign to talk about how we might best help the common man.
And heck, maybe Occam's razor really is the best...
But I do think we should hold our "public servants" to standards of right and wrong. And there should be no "secrets" when it comes to how they spend our money or serve our interests - rather than the corporations.
And whil I don't support Larsen, I think that's the ultimate reason for his anger. He saw Romney as a company man who wouldn't deign to talk about how we might best help the common man.
And heck, maybe Occam's razor really is the best...
By: buckinghamgreen
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
where do you people find the time to understand what the hell is going on? fuck it. i'm so confused. i'm ready to call it quits and make like Henry David Thoreau.
By: Wondahboy
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
Guys, I don't care a bit about (classical) morality. Stupid people kill themselves all the time for what they believe is right -- good and evil, as are all oppositions, is the sign of stupidity, and ... unfortuneately, it is mandatory in elections.
More fundamental than values is intelligence and JUDGMENT, and with intelligence comes a generosity of spirit that is more moral than any superficial "value". Only with intelligence and a kind of cosmopolitanism does one realize that there is no black and white, and that it's not about self interests, and that one doesn't have an obligation to one's party/school/race, etc. -- and one can maintain, therefore, a kind of independence amidst all the fools who act out of self-interest merely out of stupidity. Ordinary people see everything as a self-interest, they get into fights sooo easily.
How I know Obama is NOT right for president: because he seems to genuinely believe the idiotic rhetoric of "honesty", and the opposition between "past and future". Obama does not seem to know ANYTHING about how politics works, the way to confront an ancient machinery is not with an emtpy mind and an open discussion. Obama is an idiot. It's like showing up for an exam with a commitment to be honest and virtuous. Again, that stupid simplicity over sophistication and JUDGEMENT. Bravery, judgment, independence, and sophistication are all hallmarks of great statesmen, NEVER simplicity and self-righteousness.
More fundamental than values is intelligence and JUDGMENT, and with intelligence comes a generosity of spirit that is more moral than any superficial "value". Only with intelligence and a kind of cosmopolitanism does one realize that there is no black and white, and that it's not about self interests, and that one doesn't have an obligation to one's party/school/race, etc. -- and one can maintain, therefore, a kind of independence amidst all the fools who act out of self-interest merely out of stupidity. Ordinary people see everything as a self-interest, they get into fights sooo easily.
How I know Obama is NOT right for president: because he seems to genuinely believe the idiotic rhetoric of "honesty", and the opposition between "past and future". Obama does not seem to know ANYTHING about how politics works, the way to confront an ancient machinery is not with an emtpy mind and an open discussion. Obama is an idiot. It's like showing up for an exam with a commitment to be honest and virtuous. Again, that stupid simplicity over sophistication and JUDGEMENT. Bravery, judgment, independence, and sophistication are all hallmarks of great statesmen, NEVER simplicity and self-righteousness.
By: q335r49
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
Shoot, you may be right. You make some very good points about personalities and politics.
And when you say <Ordinary people see everything as a self-interest, they get into fights sooo easily>, I immediately thought about the debates between him and Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton and he are indeed just ordinary people who act out of self-interest and get in fights very easily. We've seen the slimy stuff going on - especially with Bill Clinton implying to disregard South Carolina because it's "just blacks." Ugh, that was disgusting.
And even so, these candidates are heads and shoulders above the GOP.
Well, I may be silly, but I still think I'm going to vote in the most hopeful manner and keep calling my Rep and Senators to remind them that they work for us. They are spending our money. And the more we organize, the louder our voice gets.
And perhaps the louder the voice We The People have, the more they'll hear us in the face of the corporations.
Well, I hope so anyway... :)
And when you say <Ordinary people see everything as a self-interest, they get into fights sooo easily>, I immediately thought about the debates between him and Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton and he are indeed just ordinary people who act out of self-interest and get in fights very easily. We've seen the slimy stuff going on - especially with Bill Clinton implying to disregard South Carolina because it's "just blacks." Ugh, that was disgusting.
And even so, these candidates are heads and shoulders above the GOP.
Well, I may be silly, but I still think I'm going to vote in the most hopeful manner and keep calling my Rep and Senators to remind them that they work for us. They are spending our money. And the more we organize, the louder our voice gets.
And perhaps the louder the voice We The People have, the more they'll hear us in the face of the corporations.
Well, I hope so anyway... :)
By: buckinghamgreen
Re: Mark Larsen Dumps Mitt Romney for Ron Paul
I don't care what Kato says...I'm not on board until The Green Hornet's on board.
Boy, he sure morphed into Daddy Big Talk once Mitt hung up, didn't he? You've really got to take douchery to the next level for me to think that the single biggest creep to run for President in my lifetime got the better of you.
Boy, he sure morphed into Daddy Big Talk once Mitt hung up, didn't he? You've really got to take douchery to the next level for me to think that the single biggest creep to run for President in my lifetime got the better of you.
By: mholc68
