• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Tea Party luring US into adventures in irrationality

Status
Not open for further replies.
badcrumble said:
I'm seriously opposed to conservative-led for-profit attempts to 'reform' the education system here, but spouting stuff like this isn't going to get you taken seriously. Conservatives experiment and they do shift things; they just do so in favor of things that I am vehemently against. Any political viewpoint has some things that it wants to keep the same and other things that it wants to change.
Change is a liberal concept

A conservative who wants to change the system is a liberal. They may want to change the system using conservative ideas, but the very concept of them demanding change is a liberal idea.

The tea party has way more in common with the hippies than it does with the puritans.
 
gohepcat said:
I'm totally with you about Bush being pro-science funding. I really don't think he was the bogyman everyone made him out to be...but climate change seems like an easy one for me.

What do the vast majority of the scientific community think about it?
They think it's real?
They think it's man made?

Well ok then. That's who I choose to believe. That's really easy.

I could give a fuck about politics, about going green, about respecting "mother earth"...I just care deeply about logical decision making. Thinking that climate science is "controversial" is just childish.

Those "scientists" also say we came from monkeys, so I'm not sure they're that bright. It's called a theory for a reason you know. I never thought I'd see the day where America placed more faith in a theory than God's word.
 
balladofwindfishes said:
Change is a liberal concept
See, this and the other post of yours that I quoted are platitudes and don't engage in the actual issues or policy talk, which makes it really easy to assume that you're arguing with platitudes because you aren't particularly knowledgeable about the issues at hand.

edit: oh you're just arguing definitions that aren't particularly germane to the discussion going on in the thread n/m
 
balladofwindfishes said:
Change is a liberal concept

A conservative who wants to change the system is a liberal. They may want to change the system using conservative ideas, but the very concept of them demanding change is a liberal idea.

The tea party has way more in common with the hippies than it does with the puritans.
Edmund Burke is rolling in his grave. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
 
avatar299 said:
Another example of Fortified's stupidity. A legislative bill that will cost California over 186 billion in revenue and a million jobs is justified by one poorly sourced article that argues that breast cancer may be linked to air pollution and the hope that the "green industry" that accounts for less than a percent of California's economic output will grow quickly enough to offset that.

It would be laughable if they weren't people as stupid as you voting in my state


yeah you are a joke.

So a country that bases almost all of its energy needs on fossil fuels doesn't have many green jobs? No shit, Sherlock. As long the dependence on fossil fuel is alive and well of course there aren't going to be many green jobs. Green jobs have to be created, genius. And it's so typical of conservatives to do what you're doing with this study. It's so typical to doubt science every time it isn't convenient for you (and in the case of the majority of the republican base because they're too fucking stupid to understand any of it). And for the record this isn't the first study linking cancer to air pollution.
 
avatar299 said:
Edmund Burke is rolling in his grave. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
The defintions of words and the true meaning of a conservative and liberal. The Tea Party, being a radical movement, is actually more liberal than they'd like the believe.

It came as a response to a post claiming that liberals have greatly hurt the school system or something, when the very idea of a public system is a liberal concept.

avatar299 said:
Gotta love this argument.

"Sorry, but you can't comprehend the intelligence of my post, because it's retarded on the surface."
Your response is a little ironic given your previous post.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Another clumsy attempt by someone on the left that tries to tie denying evolution with people that reject alarmism from Global Warming advocates. Pathetic.


Isn't this the same rap that Bush got, yet money for scientific research actually increased during his time in office? Some "anti-science" President.



http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090114/full/457252a.html


Yet, there's millions of "educated" people that believe it to be true.
Bush wasn't anti-science... he just didn't invest in areas that weren't politically expedient. In the last few years of his administration (as reported in the article you linked to), agencies like the NIH were effectively receiving budget decreases every year. More to the point, under Bush's policies government-funded research was generally directed towards certain branches of science (e.g. adult stem cell research) and away from others (the FDA was basically coerced into approving drugs more quickly and minimizing legal damage to corporations whose drugs were eventually found to be dangerous).
 
avatar299 said:
Edmund Burke is rolling in his grave. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
To be fair, movement conservatism (i.e. the ideology dominating the Republican Party from 1980 until today) has absolutely zilch to do with Edmund Burke and everything to do with Joseph de Maistre, Juan Donoso Cortes, Carl Schmitt, Francisco Franco, the John Birch Society, et cetera.
 
Shanadeus said:
Aha, doesn't seem to be that unreasonable but I have no idea what the unemployment rate is at the moment so it might be an unreasonable or unfeasible goal - with the main goal being to stop AB 32.

The unemployment rate is roughly 12.1% or so at the moment.
 
fortified_concept said:
So a country that bases almost all of its energy needs on fossil fuels doesn't have many green jobs? No shit, Sherlock. As long the dependence on fossil fuel is alive and well of course there aren't going to be many green jobs. Green jobs have to be created, genius. And it's so typical of conservatives to do what you're doing with this study. It's so typical to doubt science every time it isn't convenient for you (and in the case of the majority of the republican base because they're too fucking stupid to understand any of it). And for the record this isn't the first study linking cancer to air pollution.
Wow, Fortified talking about job creation like he knows the first thing about it. The green industry is small because it's not profitable, not because of fossil fuels. It's a bubble for god's sake. If you bothered to read my link, or hell knew anything about the current state of the green industry in CA or maybe the world, you would know much of it still doesn't exist for consumer consumption and is still highly expensive for businesses.

But all that aside, it still doesn't touch on why AB 32 is a joke. Most of the costs will be put directly on small buinesses and low-income earners, as low as $3000 in extra taxes, regulations and fees, at the same time costing over a million jobs. The only way CA will see this as a positive in the end is if green industry sees its bubble boom larger and faster than the dot.com bubble, and there is very little evidence that green energy, which already struggles to reach profit with federal and state credits and cuts, will become that by itself by 2020
 
balladofwindfishes said:
The defintions of words and the true meaning of a conservative and liberal. The Tea Party, being a radical movement, is actually more liberal than they'd like the believe.

Just stop. You have no idea what either means.

It came as a response to a post claiming that liberals have greatly hurt the school system or something, when the very idea of a public system is a liberal concept.
So dem policies and reforms which have often hurt or done to little to help schools is irrelevant, becuase public education is a "liberal concept":lol You're living in a fantasy

Your response is a little ironic given your previous post.
That post is spot on for about everything you said in this thread.


badcrumble said:
To be fair, movement conservatism (i.e. the ideology dominating the Republican Party from 1980 until today) has absolutely zilch to do with Edmund Burke and everything to do with Joseph de Maistre, Juan Donoso Cortes, Carl Schmitt, Francisco Franco, the John Birch Society, et cetera.
Ah yes, I forgot Edmund Burke hated change and movements, that why he supported the American revolution, often opposed parliament and his most famous writing where about property being separate from the monarchy. All ideas sustaining the status quo
 
avatar299 said:
Wow, Fortified talking about job creation like he knows the first thing about it. The green industry is small because it's not profitable, not because of fossil fuels. It's a bubble for god's sake. If you bothered to read my link, or hell knew anything about the current state of the green industry in CA or maybe the world, you would know much of it still doesn't exist for consumer consumption and is still highly expensive for businesses.

But all that aside, it still doesn't touch on why AB 32 is a joke. Most of the costs will be put directly on small buinesses and low-income earners, as low as $3000 in extra taxes, regulations and fees, at the same time costing over a million jobs. The only way CA will see this as a positive in the end is if green industry sees its bubble boom larger and faster than the dot.com bubble, and there is very little evidence that green energy, which already struggles to reach profit with federal and state credits and cuts, will become that by itself by 2020

Gee, China that is heavily investing on green industry must be kind of stupid then. And I guess humanity has to continue its destructive path for the sake of the economy. Your fake concern about the jobs is interesting though. You don't seem that concerned about the millions of jobs are going to China, India and Malaysia thanks to globalization or the loss of even more jobs because of the fuckups of free market but when it is for something that will actually benefit humanity then you're suddenly up in arms.
 
bdizzle said:
Those "scientists" also say we came from monkeys, so I'm not sure they're that bright. It's called a theory for a reason you know. I never thought I'd see the day where America placed more faith in a theory than God's word.
Great impression of a tea party leader.
 
fortified_concept said:
Gee, China that is heavily investing on green industry must be kind of stupid then. And I guess humanity has to continue its destructive path for the sake of the economy. Your fake concern about the jobs is interesting though. You don't seem that concerned about the millions of jobs are going to China, India and Malaysia thanks to globalization or the loss of even more jobs because of the fuckups of free market but when it is for something that will actually benefit humanity then you're suddenly up in arms.

This.

Our ignorance and inaction are leading us down a path of runner-up in this field.

To some degree, I'd say that it almost doesn't matter where you stand on green technologies and global warming, everyone should be for alternative energy technology because it has such a large economic impact now and into the future.

When the world's stock of crude starts to fluctuate, the country that has invested the most in the technologies required to replace crude will be the ones that will pull ahead and turn around and sell that technology to those clamoring for relief from $5/gal. gas. In some hypothetical future, while our consumers are hampered by rising fuel prices, countries that have invested in the technology and infrastructure to cope will feel far less of an economic impact.
 
balladofwindfishes said:
Change is a liberal concept

A conservative who wants to change the system is a liberal. They may want to change the system using conservative ideas, but the very concept of them demanding change is a liberal idea.

The tea party has way more in common with the hippies than it does with the puritans.


Change isn't progressive or liberal if it is Reactionary/Regressive change, like demanding we allow unlimited spending in campaign finances so that we stick ourselves in a 19th century political environment.
 
bdizzle said:
Those "scientists" also say we came from monkeys, so I'm not sure they're that bright. It's called a theory for a reason you know. I never thought I'd see the day where America placed more faith in a theory than God's word.
:lol
 
bdizzle said:
Those "scientists" also say we came from monkeys, so I'm not sure they're that bright. It's called a theory for a reason you know. I never thought I'd see the day where America placed more faith in a theory than God's word.

notsureifserious.gif

EDIT: yeah, its definitely a joke post
 
bdizzle said:
Those "scientists" also say we came from monkeys, so I'm not sure they're that bright. It's called a theory for a reason you know. I never thought I'd see the day where America placed more faith in a theory than God's word.

What kind of stuff did you talk about with God?
 
bdizzle said:
Those "scientists" also say we came from monkeys, so I'm not sure they're that bright. It's called a theory for a reason you know. I never thought I'd see the day where America placed more faith in a theory than God's word.

I like how you put quotes over scientists and not "God's word".
 
I'm looking forward to the flood of intelligent americans who will be immigrating here in canada in a few years time
 
X26 said:
I'm looking forward to the flood of intelligent americans who will be immigrating here in canada in a few years time

I really have thought about it. Not too seriously, but in 2004 it was on my mind pretty heavily, and 2010 is not making me feel all that great either.

But... I love my country. I just want the country that put a man on the Moon back, and not the country that demands tax cuts while taking government assistance, while decrying "socialism."
 
avatar299 said:
Wow, Fortified talking about job creation like he knows the first thing about it. The green industry is small because it's not profitable, not because of fossil fuels.
This contradicts itself. It is not profitable BECAUSE of fossil fuels. If gasoline cost $50/gallon, coal was $5000/ton, and natural gas were . . . well whatever 10X its current price is . . . then green energy would be profitable.

However, through technological progress, the price differential has come way down. And if you include the externalities (air pollution, trade deficit, etc.), any difference is even smaller.

avatar299 said:
It's a bubble for god's sake. If you bothered to read my link, or hell knew anything about the current state of the green industry in CA or maybe the world, you would know much of it still doesn't exist for consumer consumption and is still highly expensive for businesses.
Yes, it is more expensive but it is not a bubble. And what do you mean it isn't for consumer consumption? Californians are all using power on our grid that comes from wind & solar.

But all that aside, it still doesn't touch on why AB 32 is a joke. Most of the costs will be put directly on small buinesses and low-income earners, as low as $3000 in extra taxes, regulations and fees,
Oh Pfff . . . it is not that expensive. Most electricity will continue to be generated in the same way as before. We are just upping the % that comes from renewables. Yes, that bumps up the rates a little bit (not that much) but it also creates local jobs, cleans the air, hedges on future fuel price hikes, reduces CO2, etc.

at the same time costing over a million jobs.
How so? Who's jobs are being lost?
 
badcrumble said:
I'm seriously opposed to conservative-led for-profit attempts to 'reform' the education system here, but spouting stuff like this isn't going to get you taken seriously.

That's caricature. It's certainly 1 part of it (though not even the 4th or 5th most important plank), but the nice thing about Democrats totally neglecting education is that they've left almost every policy avenue open to Republicans.

To be clear, this is an anomaly. Republicans have equally few interesting answers about how to sustain the environment and maintain profits at reasonably high levels. But then I don't point to Democrats protesting genetically engineered salmon to prove that they hate the environment. I just note that they have no plans to balance growth and conservation.

Edit: I should say "detailed plans." Most believe that markets will spontaneously build around the government-directed efforts, a la Brazil. I think.

badcrumble said:
To be fair, movement conservatism (i.e. the ideology dominating the Republican Party from 1980 until today) has absolutely zilch to do with Edmund Burke and everything to do with Joseph de Maistre, Juan Donoso Cortes, Carl Schmitt, Francisco Franco, the John Birch Society, et cetera.

Do you have the Secret History Of The Right-Wing on you? It's mythic in your circles and I'd love a copy.
 
speculawyer said:
This contradicts itself. It is not profitable BECAUSE of fossil fuels. If gasoline cost $50/gallon, coal was $5000/ton, and natural gas were . . . well whatever 10X its current price is . . . then green energy would be profitable.

Any attempt to look at the issue in the short term is a losing strategy. I don't even bother with that game.

I keep emphasizing that it's a long term strategy that will pay off in 10, 20 years, not in 1 year, not in 5 years. Infrastructure takes time to build and an investment now is a hedge against an uncertain future.
 
avatar299 said:
Fuck you. You and other environmental assholes only solution to any of these problems is retarded legislation that kill jobs, like California AB 32.

http://sbaction.org/get_resource.php?table=resource_kmqap4_18z4ys&id=kmqaq1_1ed1wo

You want to elevate environmental discussion, maybe the climate change proponents should offer reasonable legislation.
And here is a study coming to the opposite conclusion. Put them in a room and let them fight it out.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/AB-32-and-CA-small-business-report.pdf
 
Kaijima said:
The Tea Party seems to represent many disparate threads in American history all coming to a point of convergence.
It really isn't that different than the John Birch Society or the Know-Nothing movement or any of the other far right groups that have risen and fallen throughout the course of the US's history. This, too, shall pass.
 
dskillzhtown said:
The bigger issue is that most people who are rational and actually think things out have gotten so fed up with politics and the government machine that they have stopped voting.

Pragmatics have no dog in this fight. We've been burned too often by the siren call of effective statesmanship lately to even try to rationalize the current crop of candidates.
 
speculawyer said:
Yes, it is more expensive but it is not a bubble. And what do you mean it isn't for consumer consumption? Californians are all using power on our grid that comes from wind & solar.

And let's not forget there isn't any proof that is actually more expensive. Oil is supposedly cheap but the price especially the US pays to keep it cheap is an insanely steep one. It's the wars, it's the money that have been spent to keep certain middle eastern countries under control, it's international terrorism that is mainly a result of western nations meddling in the middle east to secure oil reserves, it's the loss of human life and the effects wars have to soldiers and subsequently to a society of a nation etc. Oil is only seemingly cheap.
 
Okay so the discussion seems to have veered into Environmental Protection and Climate Change but I just wanted to note that voting for a third party is always an equally valid and useful option. If anybody's interested in Australian politics you'd know that the balance of power in the House of Reps is currently held by three independants and a Greens (third party), while the Greens hold 9 seats in the Aussie senate. Of course Aussie politics aren't 1:1 comparable with the Yanks (and there's no partisan-style TV party and nearly no pundit , but since we've been moving towards partisanship it might be kinda relevent.
 
Jintor said:
Okay so the discussion seems to have veered into Environmental Protection and Climate Change but I just wanted to note that voting for a third party is always an equally valid and useful option. If anybody's interested in Australian politics you'd know that the balance of power in the House of Reps is currently held by three independants and a Greens (third party), while the Greens hold 9 seats in the Aussie senate. Of course Aussie politics aren't 1:1 comparable with the Yanks (and there's no partisan-style TV party and nearly no pundit , but since we've been moving towards partisanship it might be kinda relevent.


The problem is that third parties don't work in the massive government of the United States.
So many are crack pots (in a literal sense) and voting is already split fairly evenly between just two parties.

Honestly, I say we just restart the entire nation and make it so that it's against the law to vote yourself a pay raise (among other things).
That would do wonders.
 
People, please stop using term such as "liberal" and "conservative" when describing the Tea Party as it's the wrong way to define them. The Tea Party are a far right-wing movement, closer to Libertarianism due to the party's focus on the needs (wants) of the individual as opposed to that of others, i.e. society.
 
"Article" is a fucking copy-pasta job with "Tea Party" inserted.

badcrumble said:
The global warming/climate change debate is stupid. If you honestly need the stakes to be eco-apocalyptic to recognize that pollution is terrible for us and that we need to do everything in our power to save the environment, you're an idiot and you need to fuck off.

No, u.

Polluting is bad, and I like the environment (it's where all my stuff is), but AGW is bullshit and Al Gore is a braying jackass.
 
Jintor said:
Okay so the discussion seems to have veered into Environmental Protection and Climate Change but I just wanted to note that voting for a third party is always an equally valid and useful option. If anybody's interested in Australian politics you'd know that the balance of power in the House of Reps is currently held by three independants and a Greens (third party), while the Greens hold 9 seats in the Aussie senate. Of course Aussie politics aren't 1:1 comparable with the Yanks (and there's no partisan-style TV party and nearly no pundit , but since we've been moving towards partisanship it might be kinda relevent.
You guys have instant run-off voting. In the USA, the 3rd parties generally amount to nothing but spoilers.

But T-partiers are not a 3rd party. They are merely a wing of the GOP that got tired of calling themselves the GOP due to failure of Bush.
 
Witchfinder General said:
People, please stop using term such as "liberal" and "conservative" when describing the Tea Party as it's the wrong way to define them. The Tea Party are a far right-wing movement, closer to Libertarianism due to the party's focus on the needs (wants) of the individual as opposed to that of others, i.e. society.
No.

NO!

They are NOT libertarians. That is a popular misconception. When you drill down to what they think, they are merely the Christian-right base. The only difference is that they are trying to hide their culture-war social conservative side. But truth be told, all the "T-party Senator" candidates (Rand Paul, Ken Buck, Christine O'Donnell, Joe Miller, and Sharron Angle) all want to ban abortion EVEN IN THE CASE OF RAPE AND INCEST. They are all on record with that position.


The official Libertarian position is very socially liberal . . . gay marriage, legalize drugs, abortion is a private matter, etc. The T-party is NOT libertarian.
 
Mudkips said:
"Article" is a fucking copy-pasta job with "Tea Party" inserted.



No, u.

Polluting is bad, and I like the environment (it's where all my stuff is), but AGW is bullshit and Al Gore is a braying jackass.
I was basically saying that people should be against pollution regardless of their stance on the climate-change thing; basically, that that discussion shouldn't enter into their notion of whether we should protect the environment or not. I want clean air and water and healthy plant and animal life; the global-warming debate exists because some people apparently honestly need the stakes to be "life as we know it" in order to care about these things. So, in essence, I'm saying you and I agree on that and that our respective positions on global warming shouldn't matter.
 
speculawyer said:
No.

NO!

They are NOT libertarians. That is a popular misconception. When you drill down to what they think, they are merely the Christian-right base. The only difference is that they are trying to hide their culture-war social conservative side. But truth be told, all the "T-party Senator" candidates (Rand Paul, Ken Buck, Christine O'Donnell, Joe Miller, and Sharron Angle) all want to ban abortion EVEN IN THE CASE OF RAPE AND INCEST. They are all on record with that position.


The official Libertarian position is very socially liberal . . . gay marriage, legalize drugs, abortion is a private matter, etc. The T-party is NOT libertarian.

They have elements of Libertarianism (in fact the movement started out on Libertarian principles) but I didn't mean to state that they are purely Libertarian. Sure, now that the GOP have sunk their claws in there's a much stronger push to Christian conservatism but for the most part the voting demographic for the party just want to benefit themselves and fuck everyone else. That's a more general Right-wing approach.
 
Andrew Sullivan was just on Charlie Rose and gave just about the most charitable description of the Tea Party you're likely to find from a critical thinker.

Video here.

Let it buffer and skip to 15:20 to get to the Tea Party discussion.
 
We just had news piece in Sweden about the tea party, seems like a fascinating organisation. What the general opinion i America about the tea party movement, and how powerful are they?
 
Syringe said:
We just had news piece in Sweden about the tea party, seems like a fascinating organisation. What the general opinion i America about the tea party movement, and how powerful are they?


I think most rational Americans think of them as loons, and (hopefully) they have no real power.
 
Syringe said:
We just had news piece in Sweden about the tea party, seems like a fascinating organisation. What the general opinion i America about the tea party movement, and how powerful are they?

They're neo-cons rebranded & repackaged with a 'clever' name.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...of-church-and-state-hyped-as-a-campaign-issue

For the second time in the past two weeks, a tea party Republican has sparked a miniature media furor by questioning the separation of church and state.
"I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state," Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck said in a video publicized yesterday. "It was not written into the Constitution."
Buck made the remark in 2009, but video footage of the event was posted on liberal website ThinkProgress Tuesday-- just one week after tea party Republican Christine O'Donnell made headlines for asking during a Delaware Senate debate where in the Constitution that provision exists.
Many liberal commentators poked fun at both candidates--especially O'Donnell, whom critics claimed was not looking to score a debate point but was demonstrating her own deficient grasp of the Constitution. The same critics derided both tea-party hopefuls as "extremists"--but the absence of any constitutional basis for church-state separation has long been a bedrock belief in conservative circles.

Indeed, a review of recent public statements from prominent conservatives show how widespread the idea is--and how, in a movement conservative context, provoking the derision of liberal commentators on the issue is far from a liability.
+Sarah Palin in April stated: "Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our founding fathers, they were believers. And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life."
+Republican Sharron Angle, candidate for Nevada Senate has repeatedly made clear her position that a separation of church and state is an "unconstitutional doctrine."
+Dan Severson, Republican candidate for Missouri secretary of state, said last week: "Quite often you hear people say, 'What about separation of church and state?' There is no such thing. I mean it just does not exist, and it does not exist in America for a purpose, because we are a Christian nation."
+Republican House candidate Glen Urquhart of Delaware also questioned the separation of church and state--and gained extra media attention for suggesting it was Adolf Hitler who coined the phrase.
+GOP Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, whose insurgent 2008 presidential bid is widely credited as one of the forerunners of the tea party movement, in 2003 wrote in an essay: "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."

Such assertions obviously command little assent among liberal Democrats--but for candidates such as O'Donnell, Buck and Angle, the refutation of a constitutional basis for church-state separation alerts the powerful evangelical conservative base that they are candidate keenly attuned to the worldview of the evangelical right.
Buck spokesman Owen Loftus told the Denver Post that the left is just using the video as a distraction in the closing days of the campaign.
The First Amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." And the idea of a "wall of separation" demarcating the spheres of church and state is credited to Thomas Jefferson, in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1947 that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution prescribes a "wall of separation" between religion and state, but conservative legal thinkers contend that the ruling isn't grounded in the original intent of the Founders or the Constitution's actual language.

The article forgot to mention that the Constitution explicitly says "There shall be no religious test for office." That is pretty damning evidence against their views that mixing church & state was the plan.
 
Again, I iterate the position, that American conservatives are the worst group of people in the world.

No other group has a more deleterious impact on modern human society.

We're not just stalled in progress, we're regressing in some areas thanks to them. I mean, what the shit?

I'm sorry America. Your sun has set. Your glory days are over and you're now looking into a long, hard, cold night. The zombies are rising.
 
Zaptruder said:
Again, I iterate the position, that American conservatives are the worst group of people in the world.

No other group has a more deleterious impact on modern human society.

We're not just stalled in progress, we're regressing in some areas thanks to them. I mean, what the shit?

I'm sorry America. Your sun has set. Your glory days are over and you're now looking into a long, hard, cold night. The zombies are rising.

You just hate their freedom, you terrorist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom