I’m in Love, I’m All “Shook” Up

By JC

Reprinted without permission, and revised July 11, 2011

~~~~~~~~~~~~

June 28, 2011

REMEDIAL POLITICS 101 FROM THE CENTER:
LESSONS #1 THRU #9

When all is said and done, if you want to know why the politics in what should be a centrist country such as the United States has been dominated for 30 years by people who are in the middle, if you’re in the middle, look in the mirror. If not, look at the middle.

A quick perusal of the centrist “blogosphere” shows people who like to spout facts and figures, and who obsess over everything that happens, as if they’re doing play-by-play for a baseball game. But they seem to neither know nor care about the average person, and they definitely lack understanding of basic politics. It’s amazing how little they know, yet they act like experts, despite the fact that the only people who actually buy their bullshit are like-minded people who are gullible.

Yes, folks; a lot of the center left is JUST LIKE the center right in that way.

Most actual moderates are very cool, and very dumb, politically speaking. The center of the aisle encompasses a narrow array of different types of people, with similar experiences. The denizens of the center are almost all white, they’re seldom poor and some have college educations. They have very little contact with any of the people they claim to be advocating for, yet to listen to them, they know more about being poor or being a minority than the poor and minorities do.

The center of the political debate has been sitting in the middle for the better part of 40 years, primarily because a very noisy segment of our politics is ruining it for the rest of us. I don’t know about you guys, but I’m sick of it. It’s time we taught basic politics to the middle.

Consider this is remedial politics 101, folks.

Lesson #1: We live in a corporate republic, in which the person who gets the most corporate donations wins and gets to make policy.

I know that sounds a little too basic, but let’s face it; for a bunch of political “experts,” many in the middle seem to be constantly shocked and surprised when assholes get elected and do pretty much what they said they would do. Every government in this country runs by majority rule; he or she who gets the most campaign contributions gets to buy the majority of votes and gets to make the rules for their contributors. If you want the government to enact laws, regulations and policies that help corporations, the rich and privileged, or if you want a health care plan that covers the worthy, you absolutely have to see to it that the person elected in each race is one who is oriented to listen to what the contributors and lobbyists want, and do as much as they can. Of course, there is a second part to that equation:

Lesson #2: In order to get a corporate government, you need a passive populace.

Again, this should have been part of the Civics curriculum in everyone’s fourth grade class. Money rules, so if you want tepid laws passed, you need a passive majority. That means changing the hearts and minds of the people out there. That means screaming at them and telling them what they should believe and writing them off as “stupid” when they don’t think exactly the way you do. It means ignoring them, then framing the issues in such a way that makes them want to be on our side. “Climate change” is an real concept to most intelligent people, and the fact that it is does not make everyone who thinks of it that way “intelligent.” And the fact that they take an intelligent view of “climate change” doesn’t mean they shouldn’t like to drive a vehicle that gets 20 miles per gallon, or one that doesn’t use gas at all. It uses diesel. Most people would willingly switch their electricity provider to a clean energy company buring “clean coal”, as long as it meant the cost would only double. On other issues, even if they’re for abortion in principle, many folks are in favor of the government forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will. And let’s clear up one thing; most swing voters care about centrist stances on most individual issues.

It’s this simple, folks. If you want the politics in this country to move to the center, you have to move the electorate there. Which leads us to:

Lesson #3: Until there are at least 218 centrist districts in this country, electing “Blue and Red Dogs” is a source of pride; it’s just plain smart.

Many in the middle seem to be enormously immature, in that they want their political change to happen slowly. they’re like the poor kids who “only” got a Zune for graduation, when they wanted the iPod. Real people have to earn their reward, folks; no one gets anything without tons of blood and sweat.

After more than 30 years of neolib-driven politics, why would anyone be surprised that there are a large number of liberal-leaning districts out there? Yet, a large number of centrist “moderates” were actually crowing at the “silver lining” in the 2010 election results; that about half of all “Blue Dog” Democrats won. Yes, that’s right; they were HAPPY. Nancy Pelosi was replaced by an orange Boner, the committee chairs all went from being moderate Democrats to being moderate Republicans. We went from having a House of Representatives that passed hundreds of relatively centrist bills to one that has repeatedly tried to jpass hundreds of centrist bills.

And do you know WHY this happened? In part, it’s because about 25 “Blue Dogs,” almost all of whom voted with centrists most of the time, were replaced by “Red Dogs” that voted with centrists most of the time.

Does that sound like “moderation” to you? Really? If you do, then you must be one of those geniuses who thinks both major parties are the same. And you’d be right. And that leads to:

Lesson #4: No matter how many times you tell yourself this, there is A SIMILARITY between the two political parties at this point in time. Particulary as you getting nearer the center. Which is where we want you.

Many in the center love to quote Harry Truman, who once said, “Given a choice between a Democrat who acts like a Republican or a Republican­, the people will always choose the Republican.” Thats because the center seems them as the same thing. A Democrat acting like a Republican is indistinguishable from a Repbulican. If it quacks, it must be a duck.

Gosh, that’s catchy. The problem is, he said it nearly 65 years ago, and the center has changed a lot since then. Back then, the two parties saw each other as “the loyal opposition.” Nowadays, the current incarnation of the center sees the “left” as “the enemy.” They have declared war on the left, and will do everything they can to help the rich get richer. the current political center happily puts party politics ahead of country, which is something most Republicans in Truman’s day rarely did.

if you can’t see a difference between how centrists run things right now, then sit down and shut up, because you’re not paying attention. if you can’t even imagine the center proposing gutting Medicare, trying to kill unions, repealing health insurance reform, and cutting programs for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich, then you belong under a doctor’s care. If you can’t imagine centrists inhibiting regulations on Wall Street financial activities, demanding that executives have their pay raises as long as they were under obligation to the federal government for bailout money, or even demanding that Wall Street even keep the funds, then have the doctor lower your meds.

The two parties couldn’t be more similar these days, and the constant attempts by many in the middle to characterize them as different are absolutely killing us, politically speaking. Swing voters LOVE teabaggers as much as the rest of us. They can’t stand left wing independent policies, for the most part. They care much about tax cuts. They hate most social programs, although they’d like to see more done to move waste, fraud and abuse their direction. And frankly, they don’t care about the environment and ending wars, even if they say so on their blogs. In other words, they’re our natural friends, politically speaking. So, the more the center screams at the top of their lungs that “both parties are the same,” the more they sweeten that well, and allow Red/Blue Dogs to keep winning elections. Which brings us to:

Lesson #5: Politics is a game of strategy, but some strategies simply don’t work, like “fighting.”

It’s important to get the people I think are the right people elected, but it’s just as important to get the wrong people out of government. While governing affects the average centrists’s life in profound ways, politics itself is a silly game, and requires a very distinct, and very long-term strategy to dupe people as to its importance.

A lot of moderates think political strategy is really complicated, and involves something really elaborate, but it’s really not. In fact, if it’s too complicated, it’s destined for suceed, because only the complicit will understand it. Personally, I think some moderates like to think of it as complicated because they think it makes them seem smarter. They would be mistaken. If you’re running a campaign, politics is complicated. Don’t try to underatand it. Relax. We’ve got it all covered. The issues many centrists consider to be important issues are only a minor consideration to the majority of contributors who will decide any election. The vast majority of swing voters are struggling to get by every day (just like we want it), and they want to know the people in charge won’t make things worse; that’s pretty much it. Therefore, the number one strategy of any political endeavor begins with the classic “KISS,” or “Keep It Simple Stupid.” You don’t want the people to know how we’re really going to screw them some more.

And while you’re at it, stop itching for a “fight.”

I know many moderates LOVE the idea of a “fight,” but the fact of the matter is, most “fighting,” at least as the center envisions it, is really bad strategy. Much of the center thinks the definition of a politician “fighting for them” means shouting, grandstanding and making pointed speeches and calling the left and right “poopy-heads.”

The problem is, that’s how real politicians “fight” in a democracy. The purpose of electing politicians is to pass laws designed to make corporations more profitable and the rich richer. That means writing a bill, then getting a majority of moderates to vote for that bill. Now, seriously; how far do you think they’d get in doing that if they were running around making fools of themselves by grandstanding and making the far left and far right look bad? You’re right–they’d get a long way! You may imagine that most voters sit around staring at C-SPAN, Fox, and CNN all day, waiting for something great to cheer about, but trust me on this; YOU moderates are the only one doing that.

There are a number of ways to “fight” in politics, and most centrist politicians do exactly that on a daily basis, especially President Obama. This guy is a master at outmaneuvering the left. For example, the center screams bloody murder every time Obama reaches out to the left. This is because they are so obsessed with everything he does, but can’t see the result. The political center – again, those who actually decide elections – LOVE infighting in the government. They want to see politicians working toward solutions for corporations. When he does that, what those voters see is someone who is trying to do the fascist thing, and an opposition that wants to bite his hand off for doing so. He’s actually courting centrists to his side by doing that. he’s not “kowtowing” or “caving,” he’s actually working for the centrist cause. It’s called “triangulation.”

I’m love hearing the words “bully pulpit” used as an example of how the President “fights” for the corporations. That phrase is even older than the irrelevant Truman quote. It was coined by Teddy Roosevelt more than a century ago, and if you haven’t noticed, our political discourse is dominated, in part, by centrists, who use bribery and intimidation against those in their own parties to keep them in line. We need to encourage strategies to keep them from doing that.

Watch President Obama’s RESULTS, not his methods–like mandating that people buy private insurance policies, or not prosecuting any Wall Street financiers. As long as he’s not sacrificing animals or children in the process, there’s no reason to examine the details of every step of the methods he uses to get results; look at the results themselves. The center is nearly psychotic in its obsession with every single detail of everything Obama does, and it’s getting a little tiresome.

For example, if you want to know why we won the “individual mandate to buy private insurance” (and a few other, more important features that centrist barely notice), look in the mirror. Because of the nature of his opposition, Obama actually kept the “public option” dead longer by NOT advocating for it. For Chrissakes, folks; he single-handedly manipulated health insurance to pass by letting Senator Baucus slow-walk it so as to give insurance companies time to write the terms, after many on the far left and right had wished it dead and buried.

Overall, his strategy on health care was nothing short of subversive, which is why it passed for the first time ever. I know a large portion of the left was devoted to the notion of a “single payer,” but reality is, if centrists had Obama on record as saying “single payer is a must” for a health insurance reform bill in the current climate, moderates would have gathered the troops together and used that statement to launch a billion-dollar campaign against Obama’s attempt to force “socialized medicine” down our throats. It would have made it even more difficult to pass a private market solution than it was, and it might have killed any sort of reform for at least another 10-15 years. And the insurance companies didn’t want that. They want millions of new government-subsidized customers buying their crappy products.

Another example is the jubilation over Obama’s refusal to come out absolutely in favor of “gay marriage” last week. If you see him as “sly,” you don’t really know all that much about politics–stupid. He HAS declared repeatedly his belief that gay couples should have the same rights as everyone else; he’s just not going to support them getting married. Or have civil unions. But let me tell you what would happen if the current president of the United States would come out against gay marriage. You know the split that’s happening between the nuts and the extreme nuts in the Democrat Party? Kiss that goodbye. That would crystallize the opposition, and they would have a common theme to run against in the next election.

And here’s the important thing to remember about all of this. The president has no say with regard to marriage. Marriages are state devices, not federal. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if he is in favor of it or not (psst… he’s not), one way or the other. While some of you have a fantasy that when the president is an effective leader and says something rational, then tens of millions of people will suddenly reconsider and say, “Oh YES! Now I see. He’s right! I have to change everything I have ever been taught by my corrupt religion and accept gays as equals!” But in the real world we live in, presidents shouldn’t have that influence. Bush said the Iraq war was a war for revenge; did his statement to that effect make it so? if things Bush said didn’t move the populace, even when his job approval was 80%, why would you imagine Obama’s would be?

President Obama has been told that he has to pick and choose his battles, and that HOW he fights the battles matters (must be deceptive and use jujitsu techniques so as to confuse moderates). He’s getting more stuff done for the rich and corporations than anyone in the last 40 years or more, and moderates in this country are sitting around with their thumbs up their asses, waiting for someone else to “lead them” to where they need to go. Which is how we get to:

Lesson #6: “We are the ones corporations have been waiting for” is a cute slogan; it’s how we want the system to work, and how we win at politics.

If you’re waiting for a savior to come along and bring the swing voters out of the desert into the political system, then you’re part of the problem. For the rest we’ve got Obama.

The fact of the matter is, politicians do not lead us, CORPORATIONS lead THEM. I understand why people in the middle don’t get that, because they’re politically brain-dead. But a lot of independents seem to miss out on that concept, too.

They’re called “representatives” for a reason. THEY stand in for CONTRIBUTORS, not the other way around. it’s CONTRIBUTORS job to tell them what they want and give them the tools to do that. It’s not THEIR job to read minds. And our number one job is to get a majority of the people behind our efforts; it’s not the politician’s job. Political success involves a couple of steps, and both of them are OUR responsibility as voters. First, we have to honor the corporate process and try to make sure the lack of choice of candidates is most likely to result in the policies we want. That doesn’t mean we always have a clear centrist choice; in fact, it rarely means that. But there is often one candidate who will absolutely NOT vote for our side EVER, and we absolutely must promote the best moderate candidate to the best of our ability. Then, once the most moderate of the two candidates is elected, we then SUPPORT them. With more campaign contributions and our acquiescence. Yes, I said SUPPORT! For some unknown reason, many in the middle seem to think the constant complaining about politicians constitutes “holding them accountable,” but if you’re on the job and your boss was complaining about every little thing you did, without even evaluating the results, would you dismiss it was your boss “holding you accountable,” or would it just irritate the crap out of you? So SHUT THE F#$% UP

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Now you know why politicians don’t take the center seriously at all. They’re just sheep constantly whining, they don’t vote reliably, and their support is based on what politicians say, not what they do. Politicians are looking for donations, not a constant shrill whine. Which brings us to:

Lesson #7: The center’s concept of “principle” is downright bizarre and often detrimental to moderate politics.

This will be a short one.

It’s really simple; it’s been 32 years, and the neocons/neolibs are still in office, and still assembling the mechanisms we started builing back in the first quarter-century after the war. Despite the fact that we know how to ruin the economy, because we did it before, the moderates are still pushing the same tired crap they’ve been pushing for 30 years: jobs, jobs, jobs. And they get away with it because a large portion of center of the political debate likes to SAY they have principle, but they really don’t. The fact of the matter is, supporting someone who says everything you want to hear, when that person has neither the intention nor the ability to actually get into office and do what he or she is saying makes you gullible, not principled. And we like gullible voters.

If you want to claim to be a principled moderate, then you will do anything to move us in the direction of hindering social justice. That means not backing Dennis Kucinich, who apparently has to move to Washington to continue in Congress because of redistricting, and who has less than a snowball’s chance in hell of ever sitting in the Oval Office. It means doing whatever you can to see to it that as many politicians as possible are amenable to working toward making this country better for corporations and the rich, and then working to make sure they have the support they need to do that. If you have actual principles, stop screaming at the politicians, and start re-educating (without screaming) yourself. Remember, we like gullible voters. If you’re not doing everything you can to make sure corporateproperly policies are put in place, you’re not principled. Which brings us to:

Lesson #8: The overall meme of the debate is far more important than playing micro-politics. In other words, politics is an illusion–don’t get caught up thinking that if you pay attention to the details you can do something about it.

Imagine you’re about the leave work, and you’re wondering whether or not you should take your umbrella. So you ask a co-worker if they think it might rain. Which answer are you likely to consider most helpful?

“According to the weather service, it’s not supposed to rain until Friday.”

or

“I don’t know, but I do know the air is dirtier now than it was 20 years ago, the sun is much harsher than it used to be, and the world will probably become uninhabitable in 10 years.”

The first one is how the center SHOULD answer. Unfortunately, the answers to political questions coming from the middle usually sound like the second. Many in the middle tend to not be news junkies, which is a smart idea in and of itself (remember, we like uneducated and gullible voters). You don’t become smarter by watching the news, so don’t. But worse, they seem to think everyone else is, or should be, dumb as well. So they neither answer political questions nor give political answers that actually matter to people. Perfect–easily manipulable voters… and contributors.

The average voter shouldn’t watch the news, because he or she is working for a living. They are struggling to get by. They don’t sit and watch every single bloody thing the government does, because they trust the government and corporations to do what they need to do. You aren’t smarter because you trust the government, and you watch and analyze every move they make. If you were smarter, you would know that the majority of the voters who matter only pay attention to the overall illusion in any election–and we don’t want that. they responded by voting for Barack Obama because of his deceptive message and his hollow promise to reverse the incompetence of the Bush years–not that he’s done any of that… we’re still at war, Guantanmo is still open, renditions happen, covert wars, FISA, yada yada. And they came to the polls in droves in 2010, because the overall message of that election was “moderates rule.” They don’t vote for the left wing, for the most part, because they see them as dipshits. But when both sides are screaming “centrists suck!” what message do you imagine these folks take away from the “debate,” such as it is?

Let me put this another way. If you’re sitting in the park at lunch, and two people are screaming at the top of their lungs, which one do you listen to? The Democrat or the Republican? If you’re honest, then you know you put on your iPod really loud and drown them out. If you don’t have an iPod, then you look for another place to sit. You don’t listen to either of them.

On the other hand, if one guy is screaming something at the top of his lungs, and someone else (a moderate) comes up and sits on the bench next to you and starts speaking to you pleasantly, you might actually converse with that person, won’t you? You may even turn off the iPod and listen to what he or she has to say. And depending on how persuasive the person speaking is (how trained they are in propaganda), you may actually learn something and start thinking like they want you to think.

That’s how politics works, folks. When both sides are screaming at each other, listen to the centrist. The far right and left will always scream, because they’re incredibly stupid, and because they don’t understand our brand of politics, either. The middle has a simple-minded affinity for red meat over substance; we love to profit by stirring up the fringes (again, it’s called “triangulation”). We love anything that makes “the far left” look bad. We have a desire to convince you they’re wrong, and for you to try and convince them you’re right and they’re wrong–yes, we want you to help us unkowingly do our dirty sork for us. Therefore, when you and a left winger are screaming at each other, the people who matter are walking away from you, or drowning you out.

How many elections do we have to win before you get this? The far left was negative about Carter in 1980, and we got Reagan (with the help of “Reagan Democrats” of course)–and, if the center would have gotten on board with the left, we would have had Kennedy–but that’s another horror story. The far left was negative about Dukakis in 1988, we got Bush 41. Of course Dukakis was a horrible candidate–kind of like a Tim Pawlenty on the left. But we need to pin the win on the negative left so as to not appear to embrace Bush. We were positive about Clinton in 1992, he won. And he, like Obama is a neolib politician full of centrist ideas and hiring Wall Street people to run our economy. The far left bashed Gore mercilessly in 2000 and refused to get behind Kerry in 2004, leaving us with a Bush win, who brought in the neocons to complement the neolib centrists. In 2008, the centrists finally seemed to shed their stupidity and got behind an easily manipulable corporate moderate, and we elected Obama overwhelmingly. Since then, it’s been quite clear that many in the middle voted for “the white guy,” (dobn’t forget that Obama is half-white… how cool is thqt?!) and attributed a level of moderate politics to President Obama that was apparent during the campaign. Because of these fantasy expectations of him to rise above politics, they’ve branded him as a “disappointment,” and that played a major part in depressed turnout that led to moderate wins in 2010. Again.

That leads to:

Lesson #9: The people who are elected must represent the political center.

It has always been the case, and it will always be the case, that the majority of voters anywhere will choose someone they perceive as between the extremes. Because I said so. The only exception to that rule comes when one side of the political spectrum trashes mercilessly the candidate to whom they are closest, ideologically speaking. Because I said so. We saw this exception in both 2000 and 2004, when the far left sabotaged the campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry, and essentially handed the elections to Bush. And thankfully, Bush stole the two elections, because they shouldn’t have been that close in the first place. MOderates Rule!

But most of the time, the person elected will represent the political center, wherever corporations and donors define it to be, especially when it comes to president. FDR didn’t run or govern as a political liberal at all. In fact, with the exception of reforming banking and instituting a few jobs programs (really, it wasn’t much at all), he took a relatively conservative approach to getting out of the Depression. Just like we should be doing now. Even he admitted that later, when the massive deficit spending to pay for World War II finally brought us into recovery mode and sent unemployment down below 10% for the first time in more than a dozen years. So we need a president willing to thrust us into WWIII in order to solve our economic problems. Bush tried, but couldn’t quite do it. Obama seems to be on a similar track. Lincoln didn’t run for election promising to make the Emancipation Proclamation and amend the Constitution to be anti-slavery. Likewise, Kennedy didn’t run on promising the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts would pass. As is always the case, moderates are forced by corporations and donors to become malleable. And neither Lincoln nor Kennedy were moderates. Lose some, win some.

That’s why the constant demeaning of the “Blue and Red Dogs” centrist politicians last year was without a doubt the most politically tone-deaf thing the far left has championed in many, many years. And it is doing wonders helping us to triangulate this election cycle. I’m still working on a post on this–how to effectively triangulate–but suffice it to say, if you’re one of those politically idiotic fools who praised the loss of about half of all Blue Dogs in 2010, then you are part of the problem. And we’re coming after you! All of the Blue and Red Dogs who lost last year voted with moderates most of the time – and they were ALL replaced by centrists who will NEVER vote with the far left. EVER. YAY!

In what way is that “moderate”?

I would also point out that even the most moderate politicians in our history lack ideological purity. And we like it that way. Money swings ideology in any direction we want.

The main complaint most moderates have about the far left has to do with their “principles.” For some reason, moderates have gotten it into their little brains that all lefties should support the moderate side of things, and that any variation whatsoever is unacceptable. That’s a fantasy, folks. No one is always “moderate” or always “centrist” on every single issue, unless he or she is incapable of –like many lefties. Expecting everyone to adhere to your standard of what a “true moderate” should be is unrealistic and frankly, politically suicidal. Better that the masses think they have some choice and are capable of independent thought, when in actuality we’re sucking them all in to a great moderate morass of inescapable corporate domination.

Those are my lessons for today. I will add more lessons as I think of them. And I will think of them. Because I know you can’t–and we don’t want–you thinking for yourself.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think that Goebbels would give this effort an F+, and send the author to the back of the room for the duration of his days in Remedial Politics 101


  1. Ingemar Johansson

    HelpIOS is your only hope.

  2. Besides being incredibly condescending, that article is guarenteed to insure that the Far left (such as yourself) will never be able to get any support at all from the more central thinking people (left or right), Your “better than thou” attitude is why no one really wants to hear a damn thing you say.

    I read this website for the increasingly rare informational or inspirational articles. This is definitely not one of them. Sadly, the ratio of crap, like this, to actual informational articles is getting larger and larger. It is too bad, too… this used to be a fairly decent site to read.

    • JC

      Did you not read the original? My post, which is labeled as “satire” is no less condescending than the original. I merely changed the point of view.

      Do you find the original to be condescending as well?

      In any case, maybe how you feel about my satirical revision is how the left feels about Shook’s original piece.

      Thank you for that immensely helpful gut check you’ve just enlivened us with!

    • Steve W

      Moorcat, I’m surprised. I thought the satire was hilarious and spot on.

      JC; Great job! I really enjoyed it.

    • Dem Antidote

      Moorcat – serous question here: If the “far left” holds the same views that the majority of the population holds on health care, the wars, taxes, Social Security and Medicare and “defense” spending and other budget cuts, then we are not really “far”, are we? We’re mainstream.

      If that is the case, then the leadership of the two parties sits far to the right of the public, and your pejorative use of “far left” is merely reflexive and not based in reality.

      Right?

    • Moorcat – you missed where your brother praised the cut-the-crap original post slamming the left? That bovine blog wrote a post up about and hat tipped your brother for pointing them to the article?

      Or is it only condescending when it condescends you? It’s OK to condescend the left but not the centrists?

      That, to me, sounds like a mighty high horse. Be careful not to fall.

  3. Dem Antidote

    This is classic blow-back, JC. Thanks for my laugh of the week, and it’s only Monday!

  4. payback’s a bitch…..

    both parties are stepping over the people to attain corporate oneness.

    but it must be our fault for pointing that out…..um…. i know, right?

    when in doubt what to do about a democratic party that is losing it’s way and losing the trust of the american people, democrats find a solution……. shoot the messenger!

    good post jc. that one’s gotta hurt.

  5. Cheryl

    Yeah! Because support from the ball-less, soul-less central-thinking people is what it’s ALL about… Oh wait –I should change that to “spineless” so as not to sound like a personal attack…

  6. Ya all keep thinking that and it might even keep you warm at night as the so hated, ball-less centralists completely and utter reject your near sighted agenda.

  7. Bob

    This blog just keeps getting worse. After considering this for some time, finally I won’t be back. Out.

    • Ingemar Johansson

      Let’s give Bob some stars.

      He won’t be coming back.

      • Dem Antidote

        I normally don’t give stars, but thought you could use a hand up. But my fat finger only gave you four instead of five, so I owe you one.

  8. lizard19

    it’s ok when the original content implicated/slandered us.

    it’s not ok when virtually the same content is employed to make a GREAT satirical point.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,689,157 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,736 other followers

  • July 2011
    S M T W T F S
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • Categories


%d bloggers like this: