The Reagan 5 o'clock shadow - by GW Bush

[Wil_E_Harden]

REAGAN'S 5 O'CLOCK SHADOW - AKA G.W. BUSH

With GW Bush's latest Cabinet appointments it becomes quite clear that his administration intends to follow the broad themes of the Reagan era:

- lavish spending on the military
- hostility to environmental protection
- attempts to limit or ban abortion
- immense public spending on anti-missle programs that don't work
- increased tax burdens on the working poor and middle class and lesser burdens on the wealthy (AKA "class warfare")
- reduced legal protections for employees, consumers and investors
- a massive hike in the national debt
- attacks on government support for racial justice, women's rights, and social service programs such as Medicare and Social Security

In 1981, the Democrats went along with the Reagan plan. Tip O'Neill's autobiography, "Man of the House," relates how he regretted leading the Democratic party in Congress to cooperate with the disastrous and often criminal activities of the Reagan Street Gang. And even when one Cabinet member after another dashed off to Federal prison, the House let the Teflon President have his way running up the debt and making poverty worse. The American worker is in the worst shape of a century as a result of the ruin Reaganism worked on this nation.

While it appears that GW is not reaching out for greedy, crooked boodlers to fill his Cabinet, as Reagan did, the ideological shape of this Administration promises to be horrible.

After eight years of insane, unprincipled, unjustifiable persecution of the the White House by a Republican Party bent on wrecking the country, there is no reason for Democrats to make the same mistake they did in 1981. It's time to stop this retrogressive band in its tracks, beginning with rejection of at least half the Bush Cabinet appointees. Bush may have stolen the White House with the help of his crooked brothers, but he doesn't need to think his stay there will be a bed of roses.

 

[CreamyLady]

Seriously, some of the appointments are going to be really iffy, and it could be two years before Bush has a cabinet in place. It will be a good thing if the Democrats can stop the bickering and hang together for once, but I'm not sanguine.

They aren't well known for their cooperative abilities.

 

[Wil_E_Harden]

Some many conservatives here

Gee, CL, thanks for that observation! I saw so many conservative or semi-conservative posts around here, I just HAD to speak up!

Bush has signaled clear hostility to all the progressive work done since 1933 with his appointments.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Wil_E_Harden
With GW Bush's latest Cabinet appointments it becomes quite clear that his administration intends to follow the broad themes of the Reagan era:

- lavish spending on the military
- hostility to environmental protection
- attempts to limit or ban abortion
- immense public spending on anti-missle programs that don't work
- increased tax burdens on the working poor and middle class and lesser burdens on the wealthy (AKA "class warfare")
- reduced legal protections for employees, consumers and investors
- a massive hike in the national debt
- attacks on government support for racial justice, women's rights, and social service programs such as Medicare and Social Security

Before you start off on a rant you should get at least some of your facts straight. For example:

- lavish spending on the military - Following the disaster of four years of Jimmy Carter who did roughly the same thing for the military as has Slick Willie, a military repair was very necessary. Part of Reagan's lavish military spending was a pay raise for those of us on active duty which was less that enough for us to recoup our pay cuts under Carter. Remember the 15%-20% inflation under the inept, incompetent bumbling of the hick peanut farmer from Plains, GA? Well, in those years, our cost of living raises were capped at 5% to stop inflation! Effectively a 10%-15% pay CUT which didn't stem inflation in any fashion whatsoever! That happened three consecutive years under that bungling, bumbling, inept, incompetent asshole. Do you have any idea what that does to morale? Of course, you probably wouldn't care, though.

- hostility to environmental protection - Talk about hostility! The environmentalist idiots and the grossly abusive regulations they have put in place rival laws you find in a totalitarian state. And following that model, likewise, knowing the right people or greasing the right palm gets you absolution. They increase the cost for many things by as much as tenfold (or more) and many things they prohibit altogether. Like private property values which are destroyed by such idiocy as wetlands regulations, etc.

California's current electrical power shortage is the direct result of twenty-five years of Democrat control of California's government and the suppression of building any new power generating facilities inside California. There have been NO NEW ones here in fifteen (15) years. And because of stupid environmentalism rules, even plans for new facilities that meet or exceed current air quality requirements can't get permits to start building. It started with Jerry Brown and has reached its culmination under Gray Davis who's now frantically looking for someone else to bail him out lest his total incompetence dash his 2004 presidential aspirations. But he need not worry. Unless Hillary steps on him, the Democrats are stupid enough to support him in furthering his political career.

- attempts to limit or ban abortion - If you refer to the Roe v Wade decision, Reagan did want to overturn that and he was wrong because he was motivated by religious beliefs much as is Bush, I believe. Abortions should not be banned totally and likewise should not be paid out of "public funds" since that violates my freedom of choice as the payer.

What Bush wants to ban is the "partial birth" abortion. My opinion on the whole question of abortion is that this is a moral and medical decision which should be between the woman and her doctor and should probably also include her husband. It does not belong in the province of government at all unless you want a totalitarian authoritarian government. But if you want that, move to Communist China; they have one all ready for you and working well and I'm sure they'd welcome you with open arms. Just don't wish it on me here in the USA!

- immense public spending on anti-missle programs that don't work - Which missile program did not work? The SDI system was never built and deployed so it can't be that one. Although the proof of concept was pretty well finished before the USSR dissolved under its own weight of economic collapse while trying to compete in the arms race against the U. S. A.

I worked with a very sophisticated missile system in the Navy that did work quite well (by that I mean 90%+ uptime for the systems and a 95%+ success rate for the missiles). I'm also familiar with a couple of other systems that worked equally well so give me some specifics if you want to voice a legitimate bitch.

- increased tax burdens on the working poor and middle class and lesser burdens on the wealthy (AKA "class warfare") - Tax burdens on the poor and middle class? Reagan's tax rate reductions did just the opposite. They reduced the taxes paid by everyone. You sound as if you prefer the communistic (graduated) taxation system that's been designed and put in place primarily by the Democratic party more legitimately identified as the American Socialist Party.

As far as the class warfare, that's the exclusive province of the Democrats and one of their favorite tools to foster divisiveness to keep themselves in power. Either you don't pay much attention to the political rhetoric of the Democrats or you've chosen to blind yourself to it. Slick Willie's administration has been so flagrantly blatant in its practice of lies to foster divisiveness that I'm surprised that anyone could miss it. But I guess when all you do is spout the party line, you can miss anything! Daschle and Gephart are living proof of how blind you can choose to be and there are million of people who apparently are stupid enough to believe these thugs actually want to do something good for their supporters!

- reduced legal protections for employees, consumers and investors - I must admit I'm baffled by this one as to what you're trying to blame on Reagan and the Republican party. First of all, these protections of which you speak are more collectivist drivel that never achieve what is advertised. It merely penalizes everyone for the gullibility or stupidity or greed of a few because the astute and competent are penalized to bail out the incompetent and inept which encourage them to just do it again and again.

- a massive hike in the national debt - Again, you have your facts just exactly backwards. If you do a little review of United States government, you'll find that appropriations legislation (laws that illegitimately confiscate the earned income of the citizens through taxation) must originate in the House of Representatives. This body was controlled by the Democratic Party and they drove the budgetary process.

In order to get the necessary appropriations to rebuild the military after fours years of totally inept mismanagement by the Carter stooges, Reagan had to go along with the profligate Socialist spending programs conjured up by the Democratically controlled Congress. And it is their totally incorrigible behavior that caused the massive increases in debt despite increased revenue receipts (more money) in the Federal Treasury which directly resulted from Reagan's tax rate reductions.

- attacks on government support for racial justice, women's rights, and social service programs such as Medicare and Social Security - Again I'm mystified by the attacks you state. Women's Rights is another bullshit idea dreamed up by some collectivist. Right is a term that can only apply legitimately to the individual. Once a "right" applies to a group, it is accurately, properly and legitimately termed a privilege and for government to institute privilege is a signal of a tyrannical government. Note that the Democrats are the major proponents of "group rights" i. e., minority rights, gay rights, women's rights, etc., meaning that Democrats are more inclined to totalitarian or tyrannical governmental institutions. If it doesn't apply equally to me and you as well as them, it ain't a right, it's a privilege!

Go back and read the Declaration of Independence where it says that rights are innate, not that they are provided, granted, or assigned by a government. Government's only legitimate purpose is to protect them.

Originally posted by Wil_E_Harden
In 1981, the Democrats went along with the Reagan plan. Tip O'Neill's autobiography, "Man of the House," relates how he regretted leading the Democratic party in Congress to cooperate with the disastrous and often criminal activities of the Reagan Street Gang. And even when one Cabinet member after another dashed off to Federal prison, the House let the Teflon President have his way running up the debt and making poverty worse. The American worker is in the worst shape of a century as a result of the ruin Reaganism worked on this nation.

Memory fails me here. I don't remember (not a denial, just a failure of memory) anyone from Reagan's cabinet going to prison. I do remember that when the Democrats whipped up facades of wrong doing and demanded access to White House records and information, it was promptly forthcoming. Contrast that with Clinton's response which was lie, deny and delay. How long did it take the Clinton's to find the White Water Billing records in the family quarters of the White house?

Remember Oliver North? The only conviction the Democrats could get out of their witch hunt through the Reagan administration and it was overturned on the first appeal. If the Democrats were so concerned about justice (if that's what they had in mind ever) why did they not pursue having the appeal reviewed? Simply, they knew their witch hunt would not stand up to the scrutiny of an unbiased court.

Remember Clinton's appointment of Hazel O'Leary (sp?) as energy secretary and the subsequent removal. Her ineptitude subsequently led to the debacle at Los Alamos where the Chinese Communists were given or sold our Nuclear Weapons Research data. How many other of Clinton's original cabinet survived the first four years of that disaster? Donna Shalalah (sp?) ring a bell? Henry Cisneros?

Originally posted by Wil_E_Harden
While it appears that GW is not reaching out for greedy, crooked boodlers to fill his Cabinet, as Reagan did, the ideological shape of this Administration promises to be horrible.

What do you have against choosing people who have proven their competence and share his values? Would you choose people to fill your inner circle of advisors and assistants who have proven their incompetence (as did Clinton who chose people solely for the sake of appearance and so stated many times proudly) and who oppose your ideas and objectives? You'd be quite a manager, I'm sure under such conditions!

Originally posted by Wil_E_Harden
After eight years of insane, unprincipled, unjustifiable persecution of the the White House by a Republican Party bent on wrecking the country, there is no reason for Democrats to make the same mistake they did in 1981. It's time to stop this retrogressive band in its tracks, beginning with rejection of at least half the Bush Cabinet appointees. Bush may have stolen the White House with the help of his crooked brothers, but he doesn't need to think his stay there will be a bed of roses.

Your preceding description is much more realistic and far closer to truth and accuracy when applied to the last eight years than to Reagan's administration. Reagan ran on certain issues and followed through on them when he could get it past the Democrats in Congress. Clinton ran on many things and lied on most of them (did you ever see your middle class tax cut?, I never had sex with that woman, etc.). When it came to making a decision, Reagan made the decision without apology or recrimination while Clinton stuck the moistened finger into the wind of the current poll to make a decision. Which of those typifies your image of a leader? Reagan sent American troops into Granada when there was concern that American citizens might be in danger. Clinton sent troops into action when his next scandal was due to hit the news.

So if you wish to compare the two administrations, at least have the character to do it honestly! But then, that would void you whole post, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by Wil_E_Harden
Bush has signaled clear hostility to all the progressive work done since 1933 with his appointments.

If you're talking about the social advances toward Socialism or Communism started by FDR, I hope you are right. But I know well enough that the Republicans won't seriously dismantle any of the Socialist/Communist programs put in place by the progressive efforts of FDR, Johnson, Carter or Clinton. To dismantle any or all of this collectivist crap will require a Libertarian administration.

And if you consider that progress, look at what all that progress did for Russia under the Soviet Union, look what it's done for China, look what it's done for Europe, etc. This is your idea of progress? I'd hate to see your ideas on regression.

So in closing, let me offer a piece of advice. If you wish to mount a credible rant instead of the typical Democrat "throw enough shit and some of it may stick" rule of debate, try getting more that 20% of your facts straight!

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Right on, Dude!

Does this post-election rant of the left hold forth the tried and true spectacle of riots, looting, and burning? El Monte Slick's legacy will be coming in with an all-Democratic Washington, cumming, and then leaving everything in the hands of the Republicans (Because he probably dind't trust any Democrats).

 

[Rosebud]

Way to go Bill...will you be my Uncle????

 

[Wil_E_Harden]

BILL IS WRONG WRONG WRONG

I am dee-lighted Bill answered in such detail because he created a lovely platform for me to respond. I had to DL his post and deconstruct it so I could put back up individual segments, or it would run on too much. Components will appear through the day.

Overall, it is amazing how someone can claim to be using "the facts" when there are practically NONE in his post. For example, I suppose Bill "forgot" about a couple of Republican Governors named Deukmejian and Wilson who bear almost TOTAL responsibility for the sorry state of California's utility system today, including overpriced rates for under-delivered product. It was the REPUBLICAN system, launched under Reagan and the elder Bush in DC, and implemented in the states (in CA by Republican Governors), that has led to the NATIONWIDE debacle of "deregulation." And any of you tried to get somewhere on an airplane lately?

Similarly, this whacko right-wing crazy's post gives me COMPLETE grist for telling the truth and attacking the conservative BIG LIE that has been handed out for more than 20 years. The Republicans are tearing apart America a chunk at a time and the gullible are letting them. The Libertarians are literally the WORST of the bunch affecting that agenda.


[Edited by Wil_E_Harden on 12-30-2000 at 08:25 AM]

 

[Wil_E_Harden]

PART ONE: MILITARY BIG LIES

UncleBilly set up the following leading point:


- lavish spending on the military - Following the disaster of four years of Jimmy Carter who did roughly the same thing for the military as has Slick Willie, a military repair was very necessary.

After this part essentially all Billy has to say is that the money was spent on pay. Actually about the only thing I agree with is that the military deserves much better pay - as do most people working for government (an idea that will surely make Mr. Anarchy throw up his hands in horror - I have heard his ilk actually say that if those people want government services, let them volunteer their time to provide it - Libertarians are such total jerks). One of the biggest military pay increases in history took place in the Clinton Administration. The proposed Bush pay increase is excessive but if GW agrees to help pay off the debt run up by his Daddy and Ronnie, then I think we could go along with this idea.

In point of fact, a substantial part of the Reagan-Bush military budget was on hardware, not pay. SOME of that hardware, a considerable portion of which was developed under design programs launched in the Carter Administration (you have NO memory for truth, Mr. Bill, ohhhh noooooo!), actually worked and is still in use today, although being replaced by advanced design and development programs launched by the Clinton Administration.

The BIGGEST part of the Reagan-Bush military expenditure was for the stuff Nancy's astrologers told Ronnie to buy - zany "Star Wars" projects that produced ultimately a few civilian benefits but otherwise just paid off all of Ronnie and George's big money buddies. Like Ball Aerospace, to name only one of the many.

Until "60 Minutes" exposed the shabby state of military readiness in Europe and other foreign posts, the Reagan Administration did not give a big hoo-hah about the lot of the soldiers or the state of the military. They wanted to spend money on fancy toys, and wasteful contracts for junk that would enrich their pals. They wanted to win glorious "victories" in places like Grenada and Panama to try out some of their stuff (a great deal of which did NOT work). MORE soldiers and their families were on food stamps under Reagan than any other Administration.

Unfortunately it also came out that Ronnie and George Sr.'s pals were not content with ripping off the country legally through defense contracts. Ohhhh, nooo - they had to eliminate practical safeguards in contracting procedures so that Cabinet members and senior Administration officials could do corrupt deals with their buddies. And there went ONE batch of pristine Republican "moral leaders" to the slammer! (The methods adopted by the quickie contracts promoters came straight out of the Libertarian action manual. THis is a PERFECT example of how Libertarian principles FAIL in action.)

The U.S. needed lots more supplies during the Reagan-Bush years because we gave away so much military equipment to Comandante Zero and a claque of crooked American and Middle Eastern arms dealers in the worst policy blunder in modern history, the illegal Iran-Contra deal for which George Sr. and Ronnie should both have been impeached and then jailed. These guys weren't getting BJs from the interns (well, they might have but it hasn't been exposed by Democrats with better sense than Republicans), they were REALLY violating laws, the Constitution and all moral standards. They also exposed themselves as incompetents on the world stage in those debacles.

One of the interesting tidbits today is that the military is NOT in any significant operational or materials difficulty. The TRUTH, again, Mr. Bill!, is that all the senior U.S. military officials and more than a few of the retired leaders, all said the GOP and GW LIED, LIED, LIED during the campaign about military readiness and the state of supply. And YOU REPEAT THE LIES, Mr. Bill.

GW Bush's cabinet nominations and announced program plans threaten to repeat the worst military procurement plans of the Reagan-Bush Administrations. Rumsfeld has not been one of the shining stars of the business world since leaving the Ford cabinet. He has accepted stockholder money for insane salaries and perks while running companies into the ground and whimsically spending millions to relocate corporate headquarters. And THIS is the ding-dong now named to hold the red pickle for a dunce like George W. to push!

OK, Mr. Bill, go back to your Play-Doh foir now. You will be called to attention in another installment of truth versus ideolgical BS in a bit.

[Edited by Wil_E_Harden on 12-30-2000 at 07:52 AM]

 

[Unclebill]

Re: PART ONE: MILITARY BIG LIES

Originally posted by Wil_E_Harden
One of the interesting tidbits today is that the military is NOT in any significant operational or materials difficulty. The TRUTH, again, Mr. Bill!, is that all the senior U.S. military officials and more than a few of the retired leaders, all said the GOP and GW LIED, LIED, LIED during the campaign about military readiness and the state of supply. And YOU REPEAT THE LIES, Mr. Bill.

This is false at the outset if you get information from people actually in the military. Ships that can't get underway because they've already used up their fuel allowance for the quarter. Ships that can't perform their mission because of parts they can't get because they are not in stock in the supply system, etc. Parts are taken from one ship not scheduled to deploy soon to make operable on whose deployment is imminent. I can only wonder where you get your information but it's apparently not from people in the military who deal with this crap on a daily basis. It's not the people getting out because the morale and bull shit is getting worse every day because of a total absence of leadership at the Commander-in-Chief level.

I deal with active and retired military personnel (mostly Navy) day to day and the information I get is coming from the deckplates.

And as far as Libertarian principles not working, it's impressive that you can declare that what has not been tried doesn't work. Obviously your crystal ball is working better than mine. But it was Libertarian principles on which this nation was founded and it's only been since serious inroads of collectivism beginning in the latter part of the nineteenth century that America has started her decline.

Because of the character of the man you seem to idolize, our armed forces as well as our homes are once again under a real threat from a newly defined origin of nuclear assault. That is the direct result of Clinton's transfer of missile guidance technology and nuclear weapons design and research information to the Communist Chinese government in exchange for campaign contributions. The idea that you are willing to endorse and praise a traitor gives me reason to seriously question your proclamations and leaves me with serious questions regarding your integrity.

I believe the attack on the USS Cole was the direct result of the Clinton attitude toward the American military. The perpetrators figured they had little or nothing to fear in the line of retaliation from the Clinton administration as they would from a Republican or Libertarian. Contrast this with the response of the Reagan White House to Khadaffi's support of terrorists in the 80's.

I was on active duty during the Reagan administration and a lot of the hardware for the Navy was upgrades to existing systems to enhance capabilities and improve performance and reliability. SDI (Star Wars) was never deployed and actually never got beyond the proof of concept stage that I remember.

Also, a lot of spending was to upgrade the Navy as a whole to a 600 ship Navy providing the necessary support ships as well as combatants, weapons, ammunition and aircraft needed for parity with the USSR's armament at the time.

The "left" is not out to do anything noble or constructive. They are out to destroy. They were very aptly defined about 40-50 years ago as the Anti-industrial Revolution and have lived up to that identification. The EPA provided by Jimmy Carter has been an invaluable tool in subverting the concept of private property. Your property can be declared some sort of habitat falling in the protected category and hence you lose your property rights. You are not compensated for the loss because you still retain ownership (in the collectivist sense) while your are prohibited from employing it for your personal use and benefit. This is nothing less than tyrannical totalitarian government which you seem to think is just fine.

The two Republicans you cite are in name only. Their public persona belies their actual political beliefs born out by their political actions. All of the California majority for the past 25 years or so has been very strongly collectivist in their politics and their achievements. You can ignore that or deny it but you can't erase the truth of it so long as honest people with intellectual integrity exist. And you can't eliminate all of them. You may drive them away with flagrant denials of the truth and the refusal to accept anything outside the collectivist agenda as truth but that is only your loss at rejection of the ideas of freedom and honesty.

That's the one benefit of adherence to the collectivist ideology; truth is whatever serves the cause. There is no objective standard or consonance with reality required. That's why Republicans and Libertarians have a tough time competing when there is no standard of truth on which the public can depend. The press presents LIES declared by the Democratic party as if they are gems of epiphany which should be obvious to everyone.

For example, look at Algore's statement about Bush's declaration that he would appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme court. Algore actually said that this meant that Bush wanted to return to the days when Negroes were considered 3/5 of a person. Algore was never called on that to my knowledge and was never castigated for such a blatant lie. Are you seriously asking me to believe that you consider what Algore said to have any basis at all in truth or reality? Or do you merely accept that truth and reality are necessary casualties in the quest for the tyranny of collectivist supremacy? It must be a severe sense of loss and political setback that Algore and his thugs didn't manage to steal the election and there you have my sympathy which I offer as sincerely as Clinton offered his apology to the nation.

To give you an example of portrayal of truth and conveying an honest picture, the following example shows how you can present even truth to communicate a complete distortion of reality. In the 1950's, there was an independent comparison of two automobiles made and the results published. One of the cars was American manufacture and the other was Russian (Soviet Union) manufacture. The comparison of design, innovation, styling, performance, reliability, etc., judged the American product superior in every aspect compared. That's the way the results were published in the American news services. In the Soviet News service it was published that this international competition had taken place. How many participants was omitted but it was pointed out the Soviet vehicle finished second while the American vehicle placed next to last. This is collectivist truth illustrated most eloquently.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: PART ONE: MILITARY BIG LIES

GW Bush's cabinet nominations and announced program plans threaten to repeat the worst military procurement plans of the Reagan-Bush Administrations.

As another who served under presidents Johnson through Bush, I certainly hope you aren't as mistaken in this comment as you are about the rest of your "facts" about the military.

The Clinton administration has repeated the mistakes of the Carter administration in failing to buy spare parts, fuel, tools, and everything else needed to keep the military functional.

They did pass a big pay raise -- after they realized that the retention rate in all services was fast approaching zero. It was either redress the years of insufficient cost-of-living adjustments, or lose millions of man-years of experience.

FYI, I am NOT a Libertarian, and disagree with a lot of what UncleBill says on many subjects. Nor am I a Republican or Democrat.

 

[Guest]

So Weird Harold ... You are a military man! I knew there was a reason you are such a nice guy. Got to LOVE those military men. So handsome in their uniform. Maybe if we had saw Clinton in his uniform ... oh yeah ... he never wore one! Some one who's never "been there" does not know how to "do that"!

 

[riff]

Ronald Reagan was assasinated in my frosh year of college. Nancy Reagan ran the country for eight years. George Bush (the elder), a wimpish fingerboy who never had much of a record for being elected to office (but he was pliable enough to make his way in to national politics thru appointments) was elected in 88 against a weak Dem ticket.

Conservatives in America tend to be the very wealthy, the very Protestant, and the very Redneck. In other words, they are the reactionary crowd... put them in Germany of 33 and many would be waving swastikas.

Our new president is a monkey- not a Great Ape- but a monkey- you know, the organ grinder type. He is a true fingerboy because he has not a clue as to what he thinks or feels. He thinks and feels what other people tell him to feel. He is unoriginal, he has no conviction, and his 4 year tenure as president will be mediocre at best. I can say this- he is an excellent mirror of our society: unprincpled, totally conformist, and shallow. At least he might prove tame. I can assure you he won't shaker anything up with a new approach; rather, the monkey will perform as instructed. The courage of conviction is not a typical virtue of fingerboys; they tend to be content to be fingered and sing on cue. Don't you love it?

Conservative love their dear Bonz.. uh, I mean Reagan. They wish it was 1984 again. But it is not. Don't expect anything new from these clowns.

(An apology to America- I know - the monkey did not get elected. That's what a Reaganite Supreme Court will get you.... )

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Democrats in America tend to be the very wealthy, the very Protestant, and the very Redneck. In other words, they are the reactionary crowd... put them in Germany of 33 and many would be waving red flags

Hell, Carville could serve as Herr Goebels!

 

[WriterDom]

Our old vice president is a monkey- not a Great Ape- but a monkey- you know, the organ grinder type. He is a true fingerboy because he has not a clue as to what he thinks or feels. He thinks and feels what other people tell him to feel. He is unoriginal, he has no conviction, and his 8 year tenure as vice president was mediocre at best

there, that's better

 

[fgarvb1]

where is my boots because the shit getting deep.!!!

to many taxes and to many fees. gas is to high..my pay is to low...but where is a person to go.. can't go to hell i already live in texas.. {snicker,snicker,snicker}.

ask me in four years...are we any better off.?? that well
tell the story.

 

[riff]

Our old vice president is a monkey- not a Great Ape- but a monkey- you know, the organ grinder type. He is a true fingerboy because he has not a clue as to what he thinks or feels. He thinks and feels what other people tell him to feel. He is unoriginal, he has no conviction, and his 8 year tenure as vice president was mediocre at best

there, that's better

so much for origniality, eh?