1,099 days until this jerk off Barack Obama is OUT OF OFFICE and we can get a REAL American in there who actually wants this country to lead the world.
Is there ANYTHING this guy is doing that's good for America?
FUCK NO.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Gay Marriage Debate
Now, this is one of the dumbest things being debated today: Should we let two consenting adults who love each other get married? Oh, and they just happen to be of the same sex. This is so retarded that it's one of those topics that just pisses me off. Now, I'm going to post for you an email I received on my facebook account from someone who apparently saw fit to judge me, a very big mistake, then attempted to talk down to me. At least that is the impression I get from this and no one talks down to me. This is what happened:
(First there is some lame remark about the way I spell my name. I have NO idea what the fuck this has to do with ANYTHING but there you go)
I had wondered about this when I saw how you spelled your name. :)
Seriously, I am a native Californian who lived in the Bay Area during the Times of Harvey Milk. While I never went to the camera store - thinking I had time - one of my regrets for many years was never having done so. I was one of those who fought against Proposition 6, the anti-gay teacher initiative for which Harvey was the clearly gifted spokesman one sees today in the documentary. I thought Phyllis Schlafly and Anita Bryant were neanderthals for opposing gay rights initiatives.
With that said, today I have apologized to Phyllis Schlafly and view homosexuality as another sin to be repented. I now understand the 'homosexual agenda' and why gay "marriage" must be resisted. Nevertheless, my admiration for Harvey remains, and I frankly think he would be distressed at the abuse many make of him today, just as I believe Oscar Wilde (whom I greatly admire) would also be alarmed at the deification of him as some sort of gay liberator. All I see, even considering his "love that dare not speak its name" speech, denotes his acceptance that what he was doing was indecent - and like Quentin Crisp (whom I met once) they kept private things private (when they had a choice in the matter).
I write to you at length because while we may disagree, I have and still like your page and much of what you write. We all struggle with our sins. I do not believe that God approves of nonrepentant sin (am talking of acting upon our sinful feelings; we all have them and fall short). As my church - continuing Anglicanism - struggles with extricating itself from the morass of liberalism destroying much of the Anglican Communion (we are as distressed with women as priests as we are with nonrepentant gay bishops), when I saw your statement I felt compelled to make my opinions clear.
As long as you are sincere in what you write, I don't see any reason to de-friend you, just as I do not disclaim my admiration for Harvey Milk or my Oscar Wilde interests (I can't do the latter very well, as I have a very large Oscar tattoo!). As long as you maintain a serious view and commentary, I respect that being a FB friend might be a positive. But I wanted also to make these points clear and answer whatever concerns you might have concerning a public affirmation of 'friendship', even though being a FB friend is not ultimately very important.
Will understand if you aren't interested in fighting this battle.
Now, there was a LOT in this message that pissed me off, the least of which was how this person ended it: Will understand if I'm not interested in fighting this battle? Why? Because you come from a church that thinks God only likes to talk to guys yet hates gay people? Seriously, what the fuck. Okay, so I responded in my own special way:
Curious...what does the spelling of my name have to do with anything? The answer, of course, is nothing but I'm very curious what you're thinking was behind that remark.
A few things that need to be repeated over and over is there is no gay agenda other than the same agenda of everyone else in this country: Live the life we are all entitled to make for ourselves. The myth of a so-called gay agenda was created by people who falsely think gays are constantly trying to 'recruit' young people into being gay. This is a falsehood and to think this way only continues an unfair and disgusting lie about gay men and women.
Gay marriage...I love people who try to oppose this. There is no reason to oppose the union of two consenting adults who love each other and want to be able to spend the rest of their lives together.
The arguments that fail are as follows:
1) It would destroy the institution of marriage. Right, because divorce and adultery have done wonders for it. The institution of marriage was destroyed with the very first divorce and since gays aren't allowed to be treated as humans in this respect the blame for this destruction goes to straight people.
2) the bible says....I laugh at ANY argument that begins with these 3 words. For one thing the bible doesn't say anything. Books don't talk. Beyond joking and being serious, the Bible promotes all sorts of violence and hate yet people like to pick and choose which actually applies? No, sorry, that invalidates the bible defense. Also, not everyone, myself included, subscribes to the stories of the bible as anything more than simple fables, not historic fact to be taken and, pardon the pun, gospel.
3) and a personal favorite: Marriage has always been between a man and a woman because that is how God wants it. Granted this could tie into #2 but this one says God and not Bible. The things is the myth of man and woman marriage only existed in Ozzie and Harriet, an old 1950's era television show. Historically, marriage was more about power, political and domestic, and money, dollars or property. Parents or, in most cases, grandparents would choose who their son or daughter would marry. Not based on love or compatibility but by how much prestige a family could gain. This is the truth behind so-called 'traditional' marriage.
4) if we let a man marry another man then nest thing they'll want is for man to marry a horse. Again, this shows the hate and total stupidity of people who oppose gay marriage. To compare the love of two consenting adults to something as base as bestiality is offensive on more levels than I care to count. Especially when gay marriage is about two consenting ADULTS and not, as most traditional marriages were, between a man in his 40's and a girl from 13-15. That was fine for straight people for centuries but now, suddenly, we have a problem with adults choosing marriage based solely on the premise they are of the same sex?
These are the 4 more popular and common arguments against gay marriage. They hold water worse than a 60 year old man with an enlarged prostate.
Now, I need to make something crystal clear in the only way I know how: Blunt.
I don't really care what some religion says about the way I or my friends are. I'm not a religious man, I refuse to live in fear of a God who is supposed to be all loving and forgiving yet damns me for simply being me. If this God has a problem with me then he needs to look at himself deeper.
From a religious perspective, God created man in his image and God is, presumably, flawless. This would mean that he created everyone as they are for a reason. There are no mistakes and being gay is as much a part of his plan as being straight.
To say God doesn't forgive sins because a priest says so or because someone and some point in history that no one knows wrote something in a book flies in the face of religion. Religion isn't a weapon, you don't use your bible to beat people into agreeing with you, hellfire and brimstone and all that. Religion is nothing more than a helpful crutch to many people who feel they need the approval of some divine entity to get through live. To use the most basic terms available, religion is like group therapy.
Now, I try to stay away from talks of religion, especially Christianity and it's offshoots because there is WAY to much to go one. I don't approve of trashing ones personal beliefs but on the same token I won't sit down and let someone tell me God this and Bible that without defending myself.
If God is a loving God then he knows it because he can see into our very soul. I, or others like me, don't need to be ashamed of who we are because some nameless hack wrote something in a book and claimed it was the word of god, no, God knows the true nature of a man's soul and if a god exists it is only to that entity that we answer to. Not some blowhard Pope or some preacher who claims God spoke to him. Religion, if someone subscribes to it, is personal. And that person's relationship with their God is just as personal.
I think this is what Judge not lest ye be judged means.
Now, I expressed my views calmly and I explained myself clearly and honestly as this person requested. And di this further the dialogue? Well, read on and find out because this was the response I got:
Well, this answers my questions.
I could debate with you, but I am not interested in converting someone to the value of my arguments. Nevertheless, you have provided me with food for thought. One day I shall answer your statements, but not to you and not here. I have learned the value of not attempting to discuss issues with someone who is not interested in searching for the truth, wherever such may lead them.
I attempted to describe my own path in order to see if you would be curious. Even in my own pagan days, I was never so insulting to people of faith. I suppose that's because I always felt connected to God, even though my conceptions of Him have changed over the decades. That's a good thing, for I have less to feel ashamed of now. Your conceptions of the nature of God do not even include basic philosophical (and secular) conceptions of the idea of God. It's sad, for you are so far from understanding things which have preserved many in the worst of times.
I wish you well, I really do. But you will have to have other teachers than me, and be brought to a different place. Good luck.
Now, I understand what this means. It means this person wasn't actually expecting me to have a solid debate and the ability to articulate my views in a forward and solid manner. In other words: This person expected me to be all bluster and no substance. Now, to all you people who read this and think I'm not like this in the real world...well....screw you, I am. So, I ended this in MY was. I get the final word during these so-called debates:
I don't understand what I'm supposed to be curious about. Honestly, religion doesn't mean anything to me, on a personal level. I have a very good friend who is a born again Christian and another who is Muslim. We discuss religion on occasion but both know I see religion as little more than a spiritual crutch and both understand when I say that I don't say it to be demeaning to their beliefs. Everyone needs a crutch from time to time and there is nothing wrong with that.
But you assumed I wanted to be taught about something without even letting me in on what I'm supposed to be curious about.
As for my concept of God, it is whatever you make it to be. God is a personal concept for those who choose to believe in the concept. My friends believe in a God in their way, I choose not to because it doesn't make sense to me.
But you wanted to know my views on this subject. I wasn't curious in the least about anyone's religious beliefs, they believe whatever they wish for good or ill it doesn't matter to me because I'm not a part of that decision. If they feel like they want to share with me, my friends understand to voice their religious opinions from a level perspective and not a judgmental perspective. They understand I have no interest in learning about it most times, though I have asked my friends what they think about certain aspects of their religions and I get what I feel can be trusted answers.
But it's difficult to take an email conversation seriously when it starts with "I had wondered about this when I saw how you spelled your name." as if how my father decided how to spell my name had anything to do with anything. But, as is my nature, I stated, bluntly, my opinion and how I see things. Apparently this offends people. Happens all the time when people get a response from they that their either don't like or don't want to think about. It doesn't matter. Being blunt and not beating around the bush is what people expect of me and it's honestly what people need these days.
I haven't a clue as to your intentions with this so I gave you what I honestly feel. I would have anyway. But now I assume that this is the end because apparently I've said something that you didn't like hearing and want this to end. Just remember: I'm NOT a politically correct person. I don't like candy coating things. I'm sure you've seen the things I say around here and I would have hoped you wouldn't have been surprised.
But not knowing the point you were trying to make other than to learn what I feel I have to think this discussion is ended...
And, for the record, you did start this with me, I neither asked for this or wanted any kind of teacher. I'll leave it at this unless you wish to shed some light as to the purpose of this.
Then, despite what this person said in the beginning, they deleted me from their friends on Facebook. I proved my point. This whole anti-gay marriage thing is retarded. THERE IS NO REASON TO NOT ALLOW IT and I welcome ANYONE who thinks they can defend the stance of anti-gay marriage. Bring it.
(First there is some lame remark about the way I spell my name. I have NO idea what the fuck this has to do with ANYTHING but there you go)
I had wondered about this when I saw how you spelled your name. :)
Seriously, I am a native Californian who lived in the Bay Area during the Times of Harvey Milk. While I never went to the camera store - thinking I had time - one of my regrets for many years was never having done so. I was one of those who fought against Proposition 6, the anti-gay teacher initiative for which Harvey was the clearly gifted spokesman one sees today in the documentary. I thought Phyllis Schlafly and Anita Bryant were neanderthals for opposing gay rights initiatives.
With that said, today I have apologized to Phyllis Schlafly and view homosexuality as another sin to be repented. I now understand the 'homosexual agenda' and why gay "marriage" must be resisted. Nevertheless, my admiration for Harvey remains, and I frankly think he would be distressed at the abuse many make of him today, just as I believe Oscar Wilde (whom I greatly admire) would also be alarmed at the deification of him as some sort of gay liberator. All I see, even considering his "love that dare not speak its name" speech, denotes his acceptance that what he was doing was indecent - and like Quentin Crisp (whom I met once) they kept private things private (when they had a choice in the matter).
I write to you at length because while we may disagree, I have and still like your page and much of what you write. We all struggle with our sins. I do not believe that God approves of nonrepentant sin (am talking of acting upon our sinful feelings; we all have them and fall short). As my church - continuing Anglicanism - struggles with extricating itself from the morass of liberalism destroying much of the Anglican Communion (we are as distressed with women as priests as we are with nonrepentant gay bishops), when I saw your statement I felt compelled to make my opinions clear.
As long as you are sincere in what you write, I don't see any reason to de-friend you, just as I do not disclaim my admiration for Harvey Milk or my Oscar Wilde interests (I can't do the latter very well, as I have a very large Oscar tattoo!). As long as you maintain a serious view and commentary, I respect that being a FB friend might be a positive. But I wanted also to make these points clear and answer whatever concerns you might have concerning a public affirmation of 'friendship', even though being a FB friend is not ultimately very important.
Will understand if you aren't interested in fighting this battle.
Now, there was a LOT in this message that pissed me off, the least of which was how this person ended it: Will understand if I'm not interested in fighting this battle? Why? Because you come from a church that thinks God only likes to talk to guys yet hates gay people? Seriously, what the fuck. Okay, so I responded in my own special way:
Curious...what does the spelling of my name have to do with anything? The answer, of course, is nothing but I'm very curious what you're thinking was behind that remark.
A few things that need to be repeated over and over is there is no gay agenda other than the same agenda of everyone else in this country: Live the life we are all entitled to make for ourselves. The myth of a so-called gay agenda was created by people who falsely think gays are constantly trying to 'recruit' young people into being gay. This is a falsehood and to think this way only continues an unfair and disgusting lie about gay men and women.
Gay marriage...I love people who try to oppose this. There is no reason to oppose the union of two consenting adults who love each other and want to be able to spend the rest of their lives together.
The arguments that fail are as follows:
1) It would destroy the institution of marriage. Right, because divorce and adultery have done wonders for it. The institution of marriage was destroyed with the very first divorce and since gays aren't allowed to be treated as humans in this respect the blame for this destruction goes to straight people.
2) the bible says....I laugh at ANY argument that begins with these 3 words. For one thing the bible doesn't say anything. Books don't talk. Beyond joking and being serious, the Bible promotes all sorts of violence and hate yet people like to pick and choose which actually applies? No, sorry, that invalidates the bible defense. Also, not everyone, myself included, subscribes to the stories of the bible as anything more than simple fables, not historic fact to be taken and, pardon the pun, gospel.
3) and a personal favorite: Marriage has always been between a man and a woman because that is how God wants it. Granted this could tie into #2 but this one says God and not Bible. The things is the myth of man and woman marriage only existed in Ozzie and Harriet, an old 1950's era television show. Historically, marriage was more about power, political and domestic, and money, dollars or property. Parents or, in most cases, grandparents would choose who their son or daughter would marry. Not based on love or compatibility but by how much prestige a family could gain. This is the truth behind so-called 'traditional' marriage.
4) if we let a man marry another man then nest thing they'll want is for man to marry a horse. Again, this shows the hate and total stupidity of people who oppose gay marriage. To compare the love of two consenting adults to something as base as bestiality is offensive on more levels than I care to count. Especially when gay marriage is about two consenting ADULTS and not, as most traditional marriages were, between a man in his 40's and a girl from 13-15. That was fine for straight people for centuries but now, suddenly, we have a problem with adults choosing marriage based solely on the premise they are of the same sex?
These are the 4 more popular and common arguments against gay marriage. They hold water worse than a 60 year old man with an enlarged prostate.
Now, I need to make something crystal clear in the only way I know how: Blunt.
I don't really care what some religion says about the way I or my friends are. I'm not a religious man, I refuse to live in fear of a God who is supposed to be all loving and forgiving yet damns me for simply being me. If this God has a problem with me then he needs to look at himself deeper.
From a religious perspective, God created man in his image and God is, presumably, flawless. This would mean that he created everyone as they are for a reason. There are no mistakes and being gay is as much a part of his plan as being straight.
To say God doesn't forgive sins because a priest says so or because someone and some point in history that no one knows wrote something in a book flies in the face of religion. Religion isn't a weapon, you don't use your bible to beat people into agreeing with you, hellfire and brimstone and all that. Religion is nothing more than a helpful crutch to many people who feel they need the approval of some divine entity to get through live. To use the most basic terms available, religion is like group therapy.
Now, I try to stay away from talks of religion, especially Christianity and it's offshoots because there is WAY to much to go one. I don't approve of trashing ones personal beliefs but on the same token I won't sit down and let someone tell me God this and Bible that without defending myself.
If God is a loving God then he knows it because he can see into our very soul. I, or others like me, don't need to be ashamed of who we are because some nameless hack wrote something in a book and claimed it was the word of god, no, God knows the true nature of a man's soul and if a god exists it is only to that entity that we answer to. Not some blowhard Pope or some preacher who claims God spoke to him. Religion, if someone subscribes to it, is personal. And that person's relationship with their God is just as personal.
I think this is what Judge not lest ye be judged means.
Now, I expressed my views calmly and I explained myself clearly and honestly as this person requested. And di this further the dialogue? Well, read on and find out because this was the response I got:
Well, this answers my questions.
I could debate with you, but I am not interested in converting someone to the value of my arguments. Nevertheless, you have provided me with food for thought. One day I shall answer your statements, but not to you and not here. I have learned the value of not attempting to discuss issues with someone who is not interested in searching for the truth, wherever such may lead them.
I attempted to describe my own path in order to see if you would be curious. Even in my own pagan days, I was never so insulting to people of faith. I suppose that's because I always felt connected to God, even though my conceptions of Him have changed over the decades. That's a good thing, for I have less to feel ashamed of now. Your conceptions of the nature of God do not even include basic philosophical (and secular) conceptions of the idea of God. It's sad, for you are so far from understanding things which have preserved many in the worst of times.
I wish you well, I really do. But you will have to have other teachers than me, and be brought to a different place. Good luck.
Now, I understand what this means. It means this person wasn't actually expecting me to have a solid debate and the ability to articulate my views in a forward and solid manner. In other words: This person expected me to be all bluster and no substance. Now, to all you people who read this and think I'm not like this in the real world...well....screw you, I am. So, I ended this in MY was. I get the final word during these so-called debates:
I don't understand what I'm supposed to be curious about. Honestly, religion doesn't mean anything to me, on a personal level. I have a very good friend who is a born again Christian and another who is Muslim. We discuss religion on occasion but both know I see religion as little more than a spiritual crutch and both understand when I say that I don't say it to be demeaning to their beliefs. Everyone needs a crutch from time to time and there is nothing wrong with that.
But you assumed I wanted to be taught about something without even letting me in on what I'm supposed to be curious about.
As for my concept of God, it is whatever you make it to be. God is a personal concept for those who choose to believe in the concept. My friends believe in a God in their way, I choose not to because it doesn't make sense to me.
But you wanted to know my views on this subject. I wasn't curious in the least about anyone's religious beliefs, they believe whatever they wish for good or ill it doesn't matter to me because I'm not a part of that decision. If they feel like they want to share with me, my friends understand to voice their religious opinions from a level perspective and not a judgmental perspective. They understand I have no interest in learning about it most times, though I have asked my friends what they think about certain aspects of their religions and I get what I feel can be trusted answers.
But it's difficult to take an email conversation seriously when it starts with "I had wondered about this when I saw how you spelled your name." as if how my father decided how to spell my name had anything to do with anything. But, as is my nature, I stated, bluntly, my opinion and how I see things. Apparently this offends people. Happens all the time when people get a response from they that their either don't like or don't want to think about. It doesn't matter. Being blunt and not beating around the bush is what people expect of me and it's honestly what people need these days.
I haven't a clue as to your intentions with this so I gave you what I honestly feel. I would have anyway. But now I assume that this is the end because apparently I've said something that you didn't like hearing and want this to end. Just remember: I'm NOT a politically correct person. I don't like candy coating things. I'm sure you've seen the things I say around here and I would have hoped you wouldn't have been surprised.
But not knowing the point you were trying to make other than to learn what I feel I have to think this discussion is ended...
And, for the record, you did start this with me, I neither asked for this or wanted any kind of teacher. I'll leave it at this unless you wish to shed some light as to the purpose of this.
Then, despite what this person said in the beginning, they deleted me from their friends on Facebook. I proved my point. This whole anti-gay marriage thing is retarded. THERE IS NO REASON TO NOT ALLOW IT and I welcome ANYONE who thinks they can defend the stance of anti-gay marriage. Bring it.
Herry Reid's Negro Dialect
Alright so here's yet another fine example of the bias bullshit we have to put up with in this country. Apparently the ONLY people who are allowed to make remarks about race without being called racists are those on the left.
Harry Reid, the mental midget majority leaver from Nevada was recently exposed as a racist after it came out he said the following of Barack Obama, who happens to be black apparently. He referred to the Punk as a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one"
So what's the big deal you ask? Well, it's simple. Had something like this been said by a Republican or Conservative he would have had his resignation called for. What? You say that would never happen?
When Republican Trent Lott praised former segregationist presidential candidate and long-time senator Strom Thurmond in 2002 the following was said of him by BARACK OBAMA, then a senator who did nothing: "It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do." He then added, "The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party."
So, since this guy, Obama, is supposedly a smart man what is his response to Reid? Is he calling for Reid's resignation? Nope.
"Harry Reid called me today and apologized for an unfortunate comment reported today. I accepted Harry's apology without question because I've known him for years, I've seen the passionate leadership he's shown on issues of social justice and I know what's in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed."
So the case is closed? HELL NO. This is bullshit, people. When Dom Imus made a crack about 'nappy headed hoes' he had that useless piece of trash Al Sharpton calling for his head. The man lost his job because that fat jerk threw a fit over a joke made at least a WEEK PRIOR to the complaint.
When someone on the right makes a remark or a joke it's treated as a personal attack and proof of hate and racism on the right. When some jerk on the left makes the SAME DAMN REMARKS it's forgiven and forgotten?
Yeah, right. And here's the part that REALLY pisses me off: Whenever someone stands up and says Barack Obama is the biggest jerk and most useless man in the White House this side of the man who dusts the pictures, we- I - am called a racist. FUCK THAT. I have NEVER mentioned this twats race and never will.
Now, Reid...I'll go on record as saying this comment WAS racist. If that's the game we're going to play then we will play it. So, from here on this jerk will be called Racist Reid.
Got a problem with that? CLOSE THIS WINDOW because I don't really give a shit if you do.
Harry Reid, the mental midget majority leaver from Nevada was recently exposed as a racist after it came out he said the following of Barack Obama, who happens to be black apparently. He referred to the Punk as a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one"
So what's the big deal you ask? Well, it's simple. Had something like this been said by a Republican or Conservative he would have had his resignation called for. What? You say that would never happen?
When Republican Trent Lott praised former segregationist presidential candidate and long-time senator Strom Thurmond in 2002 the following was said of him by BARACK OBAMA, then a senator who did nothing: "It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do." He then added, "The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party."
So, since this guy, Obama, is supposedly a smart man what is his response to Reid? Is he calling for Reid's resignation? Nope.
"Harry Reid called me today and apologized for an unfortunate comment reported today. I accepted Harry's apology without question because I've known him for years, I've seen the passionate leadership he's shown on issues of social justice and I know what's in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed."
So the case is closed? HELL NO. This is bullshit, people. When Dom Imus made a crack about 'nappy headed hoes' he had that useless piece of trash Al Sharpton calling for his head. The man lost his job because that fat jerk threw a fit over a joke made at least a WEEK PRIOR to the complaint.
When someone on the right makes a remark or a joke it's treated as a personal attack and proof of hate and racism on the right. When some jerk on the left makes the SAME DAMN REMARKS it's forgiven and forgotten?
Yeah, right. And here's the part that REALLY pisses me off: Whenever someone stands up and says Barack Obama is the biggest jerk and most useless man in the White House this side of the man who dusts the pictures, we- I - am called a racist. FUCK THAT. I have NEVER mentioned this twats race and never will.
Now, Reid...I'll go on record as saying this comment WAS racist. If that's the game we're going to play then we will play it. So, from here on this jerk will be called Racist Reid.
Got a problem with that? CLOSE THIS WINDOW because I don't really give a shit if you do.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Well, well, well
Looks like our American Idol President....the jerk Obama...has decided that it's ok to be silent FOR DAYS when a terrorist fails to attack us, fails because he was a moron and AMERICANS stopped him, and I hope kicked his ass.
I've been silent here for far to long myself. I'm leaving town for a few days but when I return there will be at least one new posting here a week. Yes, I will be trashing this jerk Obama and all his ass sucking cronies, but I'll be bringing back my favorite targets PETA. They have decided to hide from me again because these so-called animal rights groups don't like it when you call them out and won't shut up.
Ingrid...tough shit. I won't go away until YOU do.
I've been silent here for far to long myself. I'm leaving town for a few days but when I return there will be at least one new posting here a week. Yes, I will be trashing this jerk Obama and all his ass sucking cronies, but I'll be bringing back my favorite targets PETA. They have decided to hide from me again because these so-called animal rights groups don't like it when you call them out and won't shut up.
Ingrid...tough shit. I won't go away until YOU do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
