If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   If you're a politician who is aggressively and publically anti-Wall Street, you're going to end up with no money. Oh, did I say no money? I meant "twice as much money as your opponent"   (politics.salon.com) divider line 316
    More: Spiffy, Wall Street  
•       •       •

5498 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Apr 2012 at 6:21 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



316 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-09 07:59:37 PM

WTF Indeed: Businessmen are for the most part bi-partisan and donate to who they think will win the election. News at 11.


They also generally couldn't care less about hot-button social issues. Gay marriage has been quite good for business, in part because now there isn't this ambiguous domestic partner craziness when it comes to benefits. Not to mention that married gay couples tend to be have higher education levels and disposable income.

All the more disappointing that Romney has thrown his hat in with the derp squad of social conservatives. He really wasn't always like this. Or maybe he was, but he didn't act like it.
 
2012-04-09 07:59:41 PM
hydra
Get ready for the avalanche of "BLASPHEMER!"-type responses after this post, dude - you can't disagree with Obama or a Democrat without being a racist/bigot/homophobe/teapartier/Glen nBecklover.

For what it's worth, I expect you'll be wrong about that statement too.
 
2012-04-09 08:00:27 PM

Weaver95: MFL: He's a terrible president and all of those folks who are emotionally invested in this guy have the undesirable task of turd polishing for the next few months.

ya know what's the worst part? lets pretend for a moment that everything you just said was true (it's not but we're going to pretend for a moment). Obama is STILL better than any of the current Republican front runners. THAT is why Obama is going to win. Not because he's the smartest or best guy in the country...no. He's going to win because the Republicans are so f*cking bad at their jobs that this country literally has no other choice than to re-elect Obama to the white house.


Well, no, not literally. Voting to send the country back to the Gilded age/Depression-era IS a choice. A stupid, self-destructive choice, but a choice.
 
2012-04-09 08:01:52 PM

Hydra: Weaver95: so what don't you like about her policy positions?

[Disingenuous hackery redacted.]


Your position boils down to "the problem is huge so we should not even try". If YOU cannot recognize the problem, then you are of course going to disagree with the solutions. The problem is simply that the social contract is out of balance. For the past 30 or so years (wonder why?), all of the increase in productivity has profited the rich. Accounting for inflation, people make less now than before, even though they are more educated, work longer and produce more. All this in spite of technological innovations. There were rich people in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, but a CEO didn't make ten thousand times the lowest paid worker. People paid their fair share in taxes. Banks did not wildly speculate with other peoples' money. The media was not owned by a few entities. All because of regulation. Those regulations have been undone. Time to put them back. Simple.

In fairness, not even sure why I typed out this reply. Anytime you hear someone talk about "class-envy" you can automatically write them off as either a fool or a liar. It's like having a discussion with someone who doesn't believe in evolution.

Warren for President, reinstate Glass-Steagall, restore Clinton-era taxes, end oil subsidies, open Medicare to anyone who wants to buy it, and punish severely "American" companies who offshore jobs or hide profits to avoid taxes.

Of course all that is impossible with the Congresswhores, and the dumb/distracted populace. Sometimes I think your country needs a benevolent dictator.
 
2012-04-09 08:02:02 PM

Hydra: They all eminate from the same central philosophy that so many Farkers here subscribe to: that more top-down solutions imposed by central planners in government bureaucracies can solve the economic malaise that has been plaguing us since the onset of the financial crisis. Exhibit A.


there's an entire universe of false assumptions in this statement alone....

so basically, you don't like Warren because she's...a democrat?
 
2012-04-09 08:03:21 PM

LordJiro: Weaver95: MFL: He's a terrible president and all of those folks who are emotionally invested in this guy have the undesirable task of turd polishing for the next few months.

ya know what's the worst part? lets pretend for a moment that everything you just said was true (it's not but we're going to pretend for a moment). Obama is STILL better than any of the current Republican front runners. THAT is why Obama is going to win. Not because he's the smartest or best guy in the country...no. He's going to win because the Republicans are so f*cking bad at their jobs that this country literally has no other choice than to re-elect Obama to the white house.

Well, no, not literally. Voting to send the country back to the Gilded age/Depression-era IS a choice. A stupid, self-destructive choice, but a choice.


i'm going to assume for a moment that everyone outside the GOP echo chamber is going to vote against putting a bunch of insane dominionist theocrats into power.
 
2012-04-09 08:03:35 PM
hydra

Your next move will be to move the goalposts. We're not pointing out the blatantly obvious winner in Obama vs. Romney or Obama vs. Santorum. We're leaping to the defense of our Dear Leader (or some such lame communism reference)

;)
 
2012-04-09 08:03:45 PM

Shaggy_C: Hobodeluxe: yes we should because corporate money and media being used to drown out the voices of working people is a real threat to democracy and a sure sign of fascism.

If that were the case, wouldn't Ms. Warren's electoral chances also be drowned in a flood of pro-corporate PAC money?


If not for the agreement they both signed (and seem to take seriously, for now), she very well might be.

Brown too, for that matter.

// agreement states that no 3rd-party ads air
// penalty is 50% of the cost of the ad, to be donated by the campaign who benefited from the ad to charity
 
2012-04-09 08:04:12 PM

Close2TheEdge: WTF Indeed: Businessmen are for the most part bi-partisan and donate to who they think will win the election. News at 11.

They also generally couldn't care less about hot-button social issues. Gay marriage has been quite good for business, in part because now there isn't this ambiguous domestic partner craziness when it comes to benefits. Not to mention that married gay couples tend to be have higher education levels and disposable income.

All the more disappointing that Romney has thrown his hat in with the derp squad of social conservatives. He really wasn't always like this. Or maybe he was, but he didn't act like it.


Romney has always been for whatever Romney thought was politically advantageous.

Now that he's more or less sure to win the nomination, he knows that he NEEDS to woo the fundies and teabaggers, who are less than enthused about Romney. Without the base, he has no chance of winning.

Of course, without the moderate vote (which pandering to the base will alienate), he has little chance, either.
 
2012-04-09 08:04:20 PM

Mentat: tenpoundsofcheese: Subby stupid

Warren raised $7M.
Brown has $15M in the bank

how does that mean that she has twice as much money as her opponent?

She RAISED $7 million. When you make up half your opponent's war chest in 3 months, that's a good sign.


sure that is a good sign. she raised 7M Brown raised 3.5M in the same period.

but that is NOT what the subby liar said: "you're going to end up with no money. Oh, did I say no money? I meant "twice as much money as your opponent". She didn't end up with twice as much money as brown.
 
2012-04-09 08:04:45 PM

Weaver95: GreenAdder: Weaver95: not to mention the Rush Limbaugh hate. that right there is money in the bank. if I could get Rush Limbaugh to say he hated my guts....I'd be rich.

Do you make less than seven figures a year? Then he hates you already.

yes, but I need him to speak the litany of hatred and condemnation or it doesn't count.


SHUT UP Weaver, you slut.

Does that help?
 
2012-04-09 08:04:51 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: For what it's worth, I expect you'll be wrong about that statement too.


Why? I am here to state that Hydra and friends are racist bigot homophobes who cavort with fellow teabaggers at lemon parties and watch Glenn Beck porno. They can't come out and say it themselves because they are too bashful and afraid that people will say they are conceited.
 
2012-04-09 08:05:30 PM

Weaver95: Mentat: There was a time in this country where we actually applauded having educated Presidents.

And now we hate/fear anyone with any level of college education.


Well, to be fair, it's human nature to hate and fear those who are unlike us.
 
2012-04-09 08:06:35 PM

Opiate of the Lasses: Warren for President, reinstate Glass-Steagall, restore Clinton-era taxes, end oil subsidies, open Medicare to anyone who wants to buy it, and punish severely "American" companies who offshore jobs or hide profits to avoid taxes..


I don't see how anyone could be opposed to any of that.
 
2012-04-09 08:06:57 PM

Dr Dreidel: If not for the agreement they both signed (and seem to take seriously, for now), she very well might be.

Brown too, for that matter.


Interesting, that. Reminds me a bit of the McCain promise to use public financing in the campaign (though that only lasted until he found out Obama wasn't going to do the same). I guess if the voters actually support people who take such a pledge seriously, all of the advertising in the world won't make a difference. But, of course, that's asking a lot of the ignoramuses that are the American people.
 
2012-04-09 08:07:07 PM

Shaggy_C: Well, if that's the case, then we shouldn't care about Citizens United and unlimited independent expenditures by businesses, eh, Subby?


Just like if I shot you and you didn't die, you shouldn't be worried about being attacked.

/conservatardism requires a ritual sacrifice of your common sense
 
2012-04-09 08:08:13 PM

Weaver95: LordJiro: Weaver95: MFL: He's a terrible president and all of those folks who are emotionally invested in this guy have the undesirable task of turd polishing for the next few months.

ya know what's the worst part? lets pretend for a moment that everything you just said was true (it's not but we're going to pretend for a moment). Obama is STILL better than any of the current Republican front runners. THAT is why Obama is going to win. Not because he's the smartest or best guy in the country...no. He's going to win because the Republicans are so f*cking bad at their jobs that this country literally has no other choice than to re-elect Obama to the white house.

Well, no, not literally. Voting to send the country back to the Gilded age/Depression-era IS a choice. A stupid, self-destructive choice, but a choice.

i'm going to assume for a moment that everyone outside the GOP echo chamber is going to vote against putting a bunch of insane dominionist theocrats into power.


If American politics made any sense, they would.
 
2012-04-09 08:09:30 PM

Weaver95: Opiate of the Lasses: Warren for President, reinstate Glass-Steagall, restore Clinton-era taxes, end oil subsidies, open Medicare to anyone who wants to buy it, and punish severely "American" companies who offshore jobs or hide profits to avoid taxes..

I don't see how anyone could be opposed to any of that.


It doesn't needlessly punish poor people, so poor republicans will hate it.
 
2012-04-09 08:10:58 PM

Dr Dreidel: S

// agreement states that no 3rd-party ads air
// penalty is 50% of the cost of the ad, to be donated by the campaign who benefited from the ad to charity


so you can get all the ads that you want at a 50% discount, and you get the tax write off for the donations to charity and you get to give money to people (who may vote for you as a result).

sounds like a win.
 
2012-04-09 08:11:06 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mentat: tenpoundsofcheese: Subby stupid

Warren raised $7M.
Brown has $15M in the bank

how does that mean that she has twice as much money as her opponent?

She RAISED $7 million. When you make up half your opponent's war chest in 3 months, that's a good sign.

sure that is a good sign. she raised 7M Brown raised 3.5M in the same period.

but that is NOT what the subby liar said: "you're going to end up with no money. Oh, did I say no money? I meant "twice as much money as your opponent". She didn't end up with twice as much money as Brown.


Um, if you make all things equal (like, you negate the fact that Brown's been fundraising since he got into office, while Warren didn't throw her bra into the ring until a few months ago), and set the clock to $0 starting 1JAN2012...

Yeah. She did.

// nobody wears hats anymore; methinks she's more likely to wear a bra than a hat
// sort of want?
 
2012-04-09 08:11:43 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Just like if I shot you and you didn't die, you shouldn't be worried about being attacked


So your saying I should....stand my ground????

/just ribbing subby a bit for his sarcasm, geez...
 
2012-04-09 08:12:27 PM

MFL: ghare
And why is having a primarily academic background a bad thing for a politician?

Barack. Obama.


Yes, because he's done sooooo many awful things.

National elections shouldn't be team sports. Hating on Obama just because of the D doesn't advance the nation at all.
 
2012-04-09 08:13:08 PM
Has there been any word about Warren speaking at the Democratic convention? I'm getting a very heavy presidential feeling about her chances, and I think she should be the next one up there.
 
2012-04-09 08:15:34 PM

Opiate of the Lasses: Warren for President, reinstate Glass-Steagall, restore Clinton-era taxes, end oil subsidies, open Medicare to anyone who wants to buy it, and punish severely "American" companies who offshore jobs or hide profits to avoid taxes.

Of course all that is impossible with the Congresswhores, and the dumb/distracted populace. Sometimes I think your country needs a benevolent dictator.


No, we just need everybody to vote. The Republicans are just organized and fanatically devoted to a party that doesn't give a shiat about most of them. That's the only power they have.

That said, Warren for President. She's starting to come to the forefront like Obama did in 2004.
 
2012-04-09 08:16:14 PM

Guntram Shatterhand: Has there been any word about Warren speaking at the Democratic convention? I'm getting a very heavy presidential feeling about her chances, and I think she should be the next one up there.


if she ran in 2016, she'd have my vote.

Now imagine her on a ticket with Russ Feingold as the VP nominee...

yeah, I could get behind that.
 
2012-04-09 08:16:39 PM

Dr Dreidel: tenpoundsofcheese: Mentat: tenpoundsofcheese: Subby stupid

Warren raised $7M.
Brown has $15M in the bank

how does that mean that she has twice as much money as her opponent?

She RAISED $7 million. When you make up half your opponent's war chest in 3 months, that's a good sign.

sure that is a good sign. she raised 7M Brown raised 3.5M in the same period.

but that is NOT what the subby liar said: "you're going to end up with no money. Oh, did I say no money? I meant "twice as much money as your opponent". She didn't end up with twice as much money as Brown.

Um, if you make all things equal (like, you negate the fact that Brown's been fundraising since he got into office, while Warren didn't throw her bra into the ring until a few months ago), and set the clock to $0 starting 1JAN2012...

Yeah. She did.



um, if you go with reality, she didn't.

now if you want to lie like subby, why don't you say that the only money that counts is the money that was collected this quarter from non wall street sources?

LOOK! She now has 4x as much money as Brown!!!
whoa, she is going to kill Brown in ads volume because she has 4x as much money.
 
2012-04-09 08:17:45 PM

Guntram Shatterhand: That said, Warren for President. She's starting to come to the forefront like Obama did in 2004.


I've almost completely written off democrats as cowering pansies who will never stand up and fight for anything, but I'd actually vote Warren for President.
 
2012-04-09 08:17:52 PM

Shaggy_C: Dr Dreidel: If not for the agreement they both signed (and seem to take seriously, for now), she very well might be.

Brown too, for that matter.

Interesting, that. Reminds me a bit of the McCain promise to use public financing in the campaign (though that only lasted until he found out Obama wasn't going to do the same). I guess if the voters actually support people who take such a pledge seriously, all of the advertising in the world won't make a difference. But, of course, that's asking a lot of the ignoramuses that are the American people.


IIRC, Brown's been "fined" twice, and Warren never. Something like $50k to charity, but that's $50k the campaign has to go fundraise just to break even.

// do campaigns pay serious takes, or is it some lame-ass 15% bullshiat 863(h)(26)(mcmxlvii)(*eagle*)(a) "Potential Future Losses to Laundromats, Ferriers, Pharmacies and Dentists" rate?
 
2012-04-09 08:19:17 PM

Tatsuma: Dahnkster: Duckwoth got hers after I read her opponent tried to minimize her military service.

Anyone who would truly do that deserves to be tarred and feathered outside of America.

Link?



"What else has she done? Female, wounded veteran ... ehhh," he continued. "She is nothing more than a handpicked Washington bureaucrat.
 
2012-04-09 08:19:32 PM

SilentStrider: Now imagine her on a ticket with Russ Feingold as the VP nominee...


Yeah, a liberal woman who couldn't get Senate confirmation for a toothless consumer protection agency and a far-left guy who lost his Senate seat to a Tea Partier. I suppose you were one of the people who thought Kucinich had a legitimate shot, right? I guess we can all have dreams...
 
2012-04-09 08:21:16 PM

Shaggy_C: SilentStrider: Now imagine her on a ticket with Russ Feingold as the VP nominee...

Yeah, a liberal woman who couldn't get Senate confirmation for a toothless consumer protection agency and a far-left guy who lost his Senate seat to a Tea Partier. I suppose you were one of the people who thought Kucinich had a legitimate shot, right? I guess we can all have dreams...


given your usual track record of accuracy, that pretty much makes her a shoe-in.
 
2012-04-09 08:21:40 PM

Dr Dreidel: IIRC, Brown's been "fined" twice, and Warren never. Something like $50k to charity, but that's $50k the campaign has to go fundraise just to break even.


She had a poll to pick a charity. The vast majority of the respondents wanted Planned Parenthood, but she went with an Autism charity, because women's health is partisan.
 
2012-04-09 08:21:48 PM

Shaggy_C: Yeah, a liberal woman who couldn't get Senate confirmation for a toothless consumer protection agency and a far-left guy who lost his Senate seat to a Tea Partier. I suppose you were one of the people who thought Kucinich had a legitimate shot, right? I guess we can all have dreams...


Yeah, the fact that the senate GOP refused to confirm her was totally a failing on her part. I can totally see how you would hold that against her.
 
2012-04-09 08:22:59 PM

TravisBickle62: make me some tea: TravisBickle62: make me some tea: That is a horrible picture of her.

Are there any non-horrible pictures of her?

You could probably pick a few out of this bunch (new window)

She looks homely to me in those. Not that she's the Elephant Man, but none of those photos would make a guy want to bend her over the dining room table and put it to her.


I'm willing to bet the feeling is mutual.
 
2012-04-09 08:23:13 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: um, if you go with reality, she didn't.

now if you want to lie like subby, why don't you say that the only money that counts is the money that was collected this quarter from non wall street sources?

LOOK! She now has 4x as much money as Brown!!!
whoa, she is going to kill Brown in ads volume because she has 4x as much money.


Dude, calm the fark down. I'll pack you a bowl.

Like chemistry and physics, you need to define your units. This quarter, she outraised Brown 2:1. That's a damn fact. Brown has twice as much in the bank as she raised this quarter - also a damn fact.

Whatever your analysis of those facts is immaterial to me. I'm not reading anything into it other than "good quarter". The election is November. That's a long way away.

// I'll be 31 by then...
 
2012-04-09 08:26:31 PM

what_now: Dr Dreidel: IIRC, Brown's been "fined" twice, and Warren never. Something like $50k to charity, but that's $50k the campaign has to go fundraise just to break even.

She had a poll to pick a charity. The vast majority of the respondents wanted Planned Parenthood, but she went with an Autism charity, because women's health is partisan.


Good on her for that. [there's a whole discussion - probably several - I'm skipping]

Point is, this would not be something to troll a donation over. If she ever got fined, I'd expect Brown to pick something like cancer or muscular dystrophy.

// me, I'd have gone March of Dimes
// preemie
// I got better
 
2012-04-09 08:28:08 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Yeah, the fact that the senate GOP refused to confirm her was totally a failing on her part. I can totally see how you would hold that against her.


The usual attack is that "______ is the most liberal nominee in the history of the Earth!" I'm just pointing out the path of least resistance when it comes to the attacks if she were to run for president. I'd support her bid, of course, but it would be a tough campaign.
 
2012-04-09 08:30:01 PM

TravisBickle62: She looks homely to me in those. Not that she's the Elephant Man, but none of those photos would make a guy want to bend her over the dining room table and put it to her.


Is that your requirement for what makes a good senator?

/If so, I wish we could prevent the mentally retarded from voting,
 
2012-04-09 08:30:22 PM

Guntram Shatterhand: we just need everybody to vote.


AMEN. In 2008, in a "transformational" year, only 56.8% of your eligible voting population voted. Even worse, it only took 37.8% to give the right wingnuts the House in 2010 (new window).

But of course, they don't want people to vote. It's always been funny to me why you guys celebrate dumb holidays like Presidents' Day or Columbus Day and don't make Election Day a holiday. It's such a freaking no brainer. More observers, higher turnout, more fun. Every other year, you get the day off, or you make Election Day a Saturday. Whichever. Maybe make voting mandatory and tie tax returns to voting. No vote, you surrender your refund. Something.
 
2012-04-09 08:31:11 PM

Shaggy_C: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Yeah, the fact that the senate GOP refused to confirm her was totally a failing on her part. I can totally see how you would hold that against her.

The usual attack is that "______ is the most liberal nominee in the history of the Earth!" I'm just pointing out the path of least resistance when it comes to the attacks if she were to run for president. I'd support her bid, of course, but it would be a tough campaign.


You know, Warren '16 just might make that label apt in a presidential run for the first time I can remember.

Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama? Not even a single one is solidly left, let alone some sort of monolithic ideologue.
 
2012-04-09 08:33:39 PM

Hobodeluxe: [i208.photobucket.com image 640x471]


That's the most ridiculous "social contract" argument for taxation I've ever read.

If someone used roads/educated workers/police & fire to make their business - well they ALREADY paid for those services. you can't double dip your excuses for taxation.

And more importantly - if these were REALLY valuable services that businesses needed to make a profit, why do we need to socialize them again? Shouldn't this be an argument for privatization of the roads/schools/police/fire?

But beyond that, these services are provided to everybody - the business owner never asked for them, and may not want them. They provided benefit to these people by the point of the gun - and what anyone versed in economics must ask is "at what cost?"

And hasn't a successful business already "given back"? If someone has made a huge amount of money (from a non-govt linked business), then each transaction is a testament to how much wealth they have given to other people. Both producer and consumer benefit from a trade.

So if she wants to be completely consistent with this "you have to pay back" tirade - she should be going after all the consumers in society that have been able to purchase nice new iPods because the roads could deliver them, the educated workers could make them, and the police could prevent riots when new products were debuted (oh wait - they can't even do that, see Nike debacle).
 
2012-04-09 08:35:11 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Weaver95: Opiate of the Lasses: Warren for President, reinstate Glass-Steagall, restore Clinton-era taxes, end oil subsidies, open Medicare to anyone who wants to buy it, and punish severely "American" companies who offshore jobs or hide profits to avoid taxes..

I don't see how anyone could be opposed to any of that.

It doesn't needlessly punish poor people, so poor republicans will hate it.


I mean we can quibble over scope of the reforms and the details on when and how the tax changes need to be applied...but Warren isn't advocating anything radical here. she's actually fairly moderate and remarkably reasonable.
 
2012-04-09 08:36:36 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: LOOK! She now has 4x as much money as Brown!!!
whoa, she is going to kill Brown in ads volume because she has 4x as much money.


you sound rather desperate.
 
2012-04-09 08:37:29 PM

iawai: And more importantly - if these were REALLY valuable services that businesses needed to make a profit, why do we need to socialize them again? Shouldn't this be an argument for privatization of the roads/schools/police/fire?


I was considering doing a point-by-point rebuttal of that post, but after reading this bit, I get the feeling that you might just be having a bit of fun there.
 
2012-04-09 08:38:09 PM

Weaver95: I mean we can quibble over scope of the reforms and the details on when and how the tax changes need to be applied...but Warren isn't advocating anything radical here. she's actually fairly moderate and remarkably reasonable.


Two things the GOP absolutely hates. If you aren't stepping on other people's necks, the GOP has no time for you. They only respect disrespect.
 
2012-04-09 08:41:00 PM

Dr Dreidel: Point is, this would not be something to troll a donation over.


Troll a donation? No. Trolling would be Warren forcing Brown to donate to the Klan and then running attack ads against him for it. Planned Parenthood is a perfectly acceptable choice. A legislator is supposed to represent everybody in his district, not just the people who voted for him. If the thought of donating to PP is too much for him to bear, Brown could always just withdraw from the election.
 
2012-04-09 08:43:05 PM

Biological Ali: iawai: And more importantly - if these were REALLY valuable services that businesses needed to make a profit, why do we need to socialize them again? Shouldn't this be an argument for privatization of the roads/schools/police/fire?

I was considering doing a point-by-point rebuttal of that post, but after reading this bit, I get the feeling that you might just be having a bit of fun there.


Totally serious, but having fun doing it.
 
2012-04-09 08:45:17 PM

iawai: (oh wait - they can't even do that, see Nike debacle)


Ah, you're an idiot. Thanks for making that clear.
 
2012-04-09 08:46:46 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Dr Dreidel: Point is, this would not be something to troll a donation over.

Troll a donation? No. Trolling would be Warren forcing Brown to donate to the Klan and then running attack ads against him for it. Planned Parenthood is a perfectly acceptable choice. A legislator is supposed to represent everybody in his district, not just the people who voted for him. If the thought of donating to PP is too much for him to bear, Brown could always just withdraw from the election.


I mean it in the sense of "don't make the donation something in any way contentious".

It's a handshake agreement (albeit one with a signed piece of paper) - what I hesitate to call a "gentleman's agreement". Make it something we can all agree on.

// huzzah!
 
2012-04-09 08:48:08 PM

Dwight_Yeast: iawai: (oh wait - they can't even do that, see Nike debacle)

Ah, you're an idiot. Thanks for making that clear.


Yup, you got me.

I must be remembering it wrong - why are people trampled and shot at and tazed every recent holiday season? It must be because the govt police system is so good and providing law and order.
 
Displayed 50 of 316 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report