Once and for all, to fix the Federal Government. . . .

[Wonky Pundit]

I know it is offensive to those on the left to be papered over with a generality just as it is offensive to those on the right. There is a fine line between "being offensive" and being uncivil however. I didn't think the line re macroeconomics was a sweeping generalization at all, certainly not in the same sense as the illustrations you used. In doing message boarding and teaching management courses for a long time now, I saw the sentence as accurate. Righties are not 'Bible thumbing social Nazis' and that is clearly intended as an insult. But if you said 'righties are not going to agree to increased taxes on the rich or keynesian spending projects' that is also generalizations that might not pertain to each and every 'rightie' but I would see it as an essentially accurate statement.

I would have phrased the macroeconomics line more diplomatically but I don't think it was intended as an insult but rather a statement of fact. Sort of like 'that outfit makes you look fat'.

The fact is, I honestly don't believe leftists do understand macroeconomics or there would not be many economic leftists.

The option on the poll choices taking away the ability of Congress and the President to use the people's money for any form of charity or targeted benefit speaks to that. And I seriously doubt any staunch economic leftist really understands why that is so important.

For that matter probably some on the Right don't see why that is important either, and might not ever agree with it, but if they were inclined to really think through the rationale, I think they would understand it. I honestly have attempted to teach the reasoning to staunch leftists who meant well, but they were unable to grasp the concept well enough to explain it.

'SOME lefties don't understand macro economics' is like 'that dress makes you look fat' because it singles out the particular fat girl like the designated lefties are singled out by the use of the qualifier 'some'.

Teaching right-brained reasoning to a leftist is like teaching most men to clean thoroughly. The smart ones will be able to dig what your saying and perform to proper standards if they want to continue getting laid, but relating to how thorough cleaning makes a woman feel is not going to happen. The beautiful goal of our system is to glean the best of all sides, something sweeping generalizations inhibit.

P.S. - I understand macro economics just fine, thank you very much, I simply see the results of the study and the predictions yielded by them in a slightly different light than many self described 'righties'.

Ah, but you see, 'that dress makes you look fat' does not always infer that the person wearing it is fat. It likely infers only that the dress is unflattering.

Saying that 'leftists don't understand macroecoomics' does not imply that the left is stupid or ignorant. It only implies that the left doesn't understand how their concepts, ideas, and proposals fit into the consequences that are outlined in macroeconomics.

And because I do understand macroecnomics, at least as much as most lay people do, I don't think our system should be looking to 'glean the best of all sides.' Some sides we don't want period. Easing people into economic slavery is only slightly less painful than shoving them brutally into it--think Obamacare or Cap & Trade--but the end result is economic slavery. Sometimes there is no side worth embracing.

Those who understand macroeconomics can look at such programs and see the dangers. Those who cannot--and that will more often than not will be the left--see only the positives and can ignore or blow off the negatives as 'worth it' for some vague altruistic concept they imagine.

That in a nutshell is what separates rightists from leftists in America.

The right accepts short term pain, even if it may include going against their own personal interests, in order to achieve a long term goal.

The left embraces short term comfort in trust that there will be no pain as a consequence for it.

The right wants to govern themselves.

The left wants a central power to govern everybody as the left wants it to govern.

Disclaimer: Statements here are rhetorical and do not imply there will be no exceptions within any group.

All of the bolded items above are meaningless (and unprovable) one-liners that have absolutely nothing to do with fixing the Federal government.

 

[Foxfyre]

'SOME lefties don't understand macro economics' is like 'that dress makes you look fat' because it singles out the particular fat girl like the designated lefties are singled out by the use of the qualifier 'some'.

Teaching right-brained reasoning to a leftist is like teaching most men to clean thoroughly. The smart ones will be able to dig what your saying and perform to proper standards if they want to continue getting laid, but relating to how thorough cleaning makes a woman feel is not going to happen. The beautiful goal of our system is to glean the best of all sides, something sweeping generalizations inhibit.

P.S. - I understand macro economics just fine, thank you very much, I simply see the results of the study and the predictions yielded by them in a slightly different light than many self described 'righties'.

Ah, but you see, 'that dress makes you look fat' does not always infer that the person wearing it is fat. It likely infers only that the dress is unflattering.

Saying that 'leftists don't understand macroecoomics' does not imply that the left is stupid or ignorant. It only implies that the left doesn't understand how their concepts, ideas, and proposals fit into the consequences that are outlined in macroeconomics.

And because I do understand macroecnomics, at least as much as most lay people do, I don't think our system should be looking to 'glean the best of all sides.' Some sides we don't want period. Easing people into economic slavery is only slightly less painful than shoving them brutally into it--think Obamacare or Cap & Trade--but the end result is economic slavery. Sometimes there is no side worth embracing.

Those who understand macroeconomics can look at such programs and see the dangers. Those who cannot--and that will more often than not will be the left--see only the positives and can ignore or blow off the negatives as 'worth it' for some vague altruistic concept they imagine.

That in a nutshell is what separates rightists from leftists in America.

The right accepts short term pain, even if it may include going against their own personal interests, in order to achieve a long term goal.

The left embraces short term comfort in trust that there will be no pain as a consequence for it.

The right wants to govern themselves.

The left wants a central power to govern everybody as the left wants it to govern.

Disclaimer: Statements here are rhetorical and do not imply there will be no exceptions within any group.

All of the bolded items above are meaningless (and unprovable) one-liners that have absolutely nothing to do with fixing the Federal government.

I think all statements hold up in the light of history and legislation proposed and passed, however. Certainly all are debatable and there would be ammo to support all statements in a formal debate.

And these concepts have everything to do with fixing the Federal government because they determine what sort of people we elect to public office and what we expect from the people we elect.

Those who want to govern themselves will expect something much different than do those who clamor for a king to take care of them.

The 10 items in the poll are not idle statements but are a reflection of what and to whom we look to get us out of the current mess we are in.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Ah, but you see, 'that dress makes you look fat' does not always infer that the person wearing it is fat. It likely infers only that the dress is unflattering.

Saying that 'leftists don't understand macroecoomics' does not imply that the left is stupid or ignorant. It only implies that the left doesn't understand how their concepts, ideas, and proposals fit into the consequences that are outlined in macroeconomics.

And because I do understand macroecnomics, at least as much as most lay people do, I don't think our system should be looking to 'glean the best of all sides.' Some sides we don't want period. Easing people into economic slavery is only slightly less painful than shoving them brutally into it--think Obamacare or Cap & Trade--but the end result is economic slavery. Sometimes there is no side worth embracing.

Those who understand macroeconomics can look at such programs and see the dangers. Those who cannot--and that will more often than not will be the left--see only the positives and can ignore or blow off the negatives as 'worth it' for some vague altruistic concept they imagine.

That in a nutshell is what separates rightists from leftists in America.

The right accepts short term pain, even if it may include going against their own personal interests, in order to achieve a long term goal.

The left embraces short term comfort in trust that there will be no pain as a consequence for it.

The right wants to govern themselves.

The left wants a central power to govern everybody as the left wants it to govern.

Disclaimer: Statements here are rhetorical and do not imply there will be no exceptions within any group.

All of the bolded items above are meaningless (and unprovable) one-liners that have absolutely nothing to do with fixing the Federal government.

I think all statements hold up in the light of history and legislation proposed and passed, however. Certainly all are debatable and there would be ammo to support all statements in a formal debate.

And these concepts have everything to do with fixing the Federal government because they determine what sort of people we elect to public office and what we expect from the people we elect.

Those who want to govern themselves will expect something much different than do those who clamor for a king to take care of them.

The 10 items in the poll are not idle statements but are a reflection of what and to whom we look to get us out of the current mess we are in.

You're assuming that the definitions of "the left" and "the right" that you're using for yourself are going to be shared by (nearly) everyone.

As far as I know, there is no definition of either that has such a huge consensus. Look at all the loyal partisans who call themselves liberals or conservatives but are neither.

 

[Foxfyre]

All of the bolded items above are meaningless (and unprovable) one-liners that have absolutely nothing to do with fixing the Federal government.

I think all statements hold up in the light of history and legislation proposed and passed, however. Certainly all are debatable and there would be ammo to support all statements in a formal debate.

And these concepts have everything to do with fixing the Federal government because they determine what sort of people we elect to public office and what we expect from the people we elect.

Those who want to govern themselves will expect something much different than do those who clamor for a king to take care of them.

The 10 items in the poll are not idle statements but are a reflection of what and to whom we look to get us out of the current mess we are in.

You're assuming that the definitions of "the left" and "the right" that you're using for yourself are going to be shared by (nearly) everyone.

As far as I know, there is no definition of either that has such a huge consensus. Look at all the loyal partisans who call themselves liberals or conservatives but are neither.

I didn't use 'left' or 'right' in the post you are responding to. I used two specific definitions: 1) those who want to govern themselves and 2) those who want a government that will take care of them.

These two groups almost certainly broadly differed in which of the the ten items they checked most especially items #5 and #6

 

[Wonky Pundit]

I think all statements hold up in the light of history and legislation proposed and passed, however. Certainly all are debatable and there would be ammo to support all statements in a formal debate.

And these concepts have everything to do with fixing the Federal government because they determine what sort of people we elect to public office and what we expect from the people we elect.

Those who want to govern themselves will expect something much different than do those who clamor for a king to take care of them.

The 10 items in the poll are not idle statements but are a reflection of what and to whom we look to get us out of the current mess we are in.

You're assuming that the definitions of "the left" and "the right" that you're using for yourself are going to be shared by (nearly) everyone.

As far as I know, there is no definition of either that has such a huge consensus. Look at all the loyal partisans who call themselves liberals or conservatives but are neither.

I didn't use 'left' or 'right' in the post you are responding to. I used two specific definitions: 1) those who want to govern themselves and 2) those who want a government that will take care of them.

These two groups almost certainly broadly differed in which of the the ten items they checked most especially items #5 and #6

If I may refresh your memory, from post #140:

The right wants to govern themselves.

The left wants a central power to govern everybody as the left wants it to govern.

Which prompts the questions of, not only how you define "the left" and "the right," but of how those two terms should be defined in a way that everyone can agree on.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're assuming that the definitions of "the left" and "the right" that you're using for yourself are going to be shared by (nearly) everyone.

As far as I know, there is no definition of either that has such a huge consensus. Look at all the loyal partisans who call themselves liberals or conservatives but are neither.

I didn't use 'left' or 'right' in the post you are responding to. I used two specific definitions: 1) those who want to govern themselves and 2) those who want a government that will take care of them.

These two groups almost certainly broadly differed in which of the the ten items they checked most especially items #5 and #6

If I may refresh your memory, from post #140:

The right wants to govern themselves.

The left wants a central power to govern everybody as the left wants it to govern.

Which prompts the questions of, not only how you define "the left" and "the right," but of how those two terms should be defined in a way that everyone can agree on.

Okay in Post #140

You're assuming that the definitions of "the left" and "the right" that you're using for yourself are going to be shared by (nearly) everyone.

As far as I know, there is no definition of either that has such a huge consensus. Look at all the loyal partisans who call themselves liberals or conservatives but are neither.

I didn't use 'left' or 'right' in the post you are responding to. I used two specific definitions: 1) those who want to govern themselves and 2) those who want a government that will take care of them.

These two groups almost certainly broadly differed in which of the the ten items they checked most especially items #5 and #6

If I may refresh your memory, from post #140:

The right wants to govern themselves.

The left wants a central power to govern everybody as the left wants it to govern.

Which prompts the questions of, not only how you define "the left" and "the right," but of how those two terms should be defined in a way that everyone can agree on.

Okay, in Post #140, I was defining the 'left' as those who want a central power to govern everybody as the left wants it to govern.

And I was defining the 'right' as those who want to govern themselves.

And I am prepared to defend my definitions just using #6 on the poll list alone.

Even some of my usual 'conservative' compadres have veered left of center on that one.

By definition in this context: "Right" puts as much power as possible into the hands of the individual and doesn't trust government to govern 'right of center' while "Left" is happy to assign power to a powerful central government that governs left.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

I didn't use 'left' or 'right' in the post you are responding to. I used two specific definitions: 1) those who want to govern themselves and 2) those who want a government that will take care of them.

These two groups almost certainly broadly differed in which of the the ten items they checked most especially items #5 and #6

If I may refresh your memory, from post #140:


Which prompts the questions of, not only how you define "the left" and "the right," but of how those two terms should be defined in a way that everyone can agree on.

Okay in Post #140

If I may refresh your memory, from post #140:

The right wants to govern themselves.

The left wants a central power to govern everybody as the left wants it to govern.

Which prompts the questions of, not only how you define "the left" and "the right," but of how those two terms should be defined in a way that everyone can agree on.

Okay, in Post #140, I was defining the 'left' as those who want a central power to govern everybody as the left wants it to govern.

And I was defining the 'right' as those who want to govern themselves.

And I am prepared to defend my definitions just using #6 on the poll list alone.

Even some of my usual 'conservative' compadres have veered left of center on that one.

By definition in this context: "Right" puts as much power as possible into the hands of the individual and doesn't trust government to govern 'right of center' while "Left" is happy to assign power to a powerful central government that governs left.

Not that these can't be valid definitions, but they definitely buck the conventional terminology.

As you described it, you associate the right with libertarianism and the left with authoritarianism. The problem is that most people associate the left with liberalism and the right with conservatism. In addition, the liberal-conservative spectrum has nothing to do with the libertarian-authoritarian one. The ever-popular quiz grid illustrates this concept fairly well.

 

[saveliberty]

Nice try at keeping the status quo Wonky. We see where liberals are headed and have adjust the definition accordingly and appropriately.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Nice try at keeping the status quo Wonky. We see where liberals are headed and have adjust the definition accordingly and appropriately.

You sound like a flat earther. I prefer to live in reality, thanks.

 

[saveliberty]

Nice try at keeping the status quo Wonky. We see where liberals are headed and have adjust the definition accordingly and appropriately.

You sound like a flat earther. I prefer to live in reality, thanks.

I see you ran out of logic and just jumped right to insults. I understand this was not covered in a party line memo for you. Maybe tomorrow.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Nice try at keeping the status quo Wonky. We see where liberals are headed and have adjust the definition accordingly and appropriately.

You sound like a flat earther. I prefer to live in reality, thanks.

I see you ran out of logic and just jumped right to insults. I understand this was not covered in a party line memo for you. Maybe tomorrow.

I've got plenty of logic in the wings. Just as soon as you can logically explain how liberals are automatically authoritarian. Good luck with that, by the way.

 

[Foxfyre]

If I may refresh your memory, from post #140:


Which prompts the questions of, not only how you define "the left" and "the right," but of how those two terms should be defined in a way that everyone can agree on.

Okay in Post #140

If I may refresh your memory, from post #140:


Which prompts the questions of, not only how you define "the left" and "the right," but of how those two terms should be defined in a way that everyone can agree on.

Okay, in Post #140, I was defining the 'left' as those who want a central power to govern everybody as the left wants it to govern.

And I was defining the 'right' as those who want to govern themselves.

And I am prepared to defend my definitions just using #6 on the poll list alone.

Even some of my usual 'conservative' compadres have veered left of center on that one.

By definition in this context: "Right" puts as much power as possible into the hands of the individual and doesn't trust government to govern 'right of center' while "Left" is happy to assign power to a powerful central government that governs left.

Not that these can't be valid definitions, but they definitely buck the conventional terminology.

As you described it, you associate the right with libertarianism and the left with authoritarianism. The problem is that most people associate the left with liberalism and the right with conservatism. In addition, the liberal-conservative spectrum has nothing to do with the libertarian-authoritarian one. The ever-popular quiz grid illustrates this concept fairly well.

Frankly sir you don't have a clue about what I associate with what unless I tell you. The little quiz is like the several dozen out there on the internet and the conclusions are based on how the quiz designer structured his/her own defintiions.

The quiz negated nothing I have presented here, however, and I have been very specific in how and in what capacity I am applying definitions here. If you can make a good argument for why my definitions don't work as narrowly defined here go for it. But please don't think posting a link to somebody's 'define the ideology' quiz is a valid argument.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Okay in Post #140



Okay, in Post #140, I was defining the 'left' as those who want a central power to govern everybody as the left wants it to govern.

And I was defining the 'right' as those who want to govern themselves.

And I am prepared to defend my definitions just using #6 on the poll list alone.

Even some of my usual 'conservative' compadres have veered left of center on that one.

By definition in this context: "Right" puts as much power as possible into the hands of the individual and doesn't trust government to govern 'right of center' while "Left" is happy to assign power to a powerful central government that governs left.

Not that these can't be valid definitions, but they definitely buck the conventional terminology.

As you described it, you associate the right with libertarianism and the left with authoritarianism. The problem is that most people associate the left with liberalism and the right with conservatism. In addition, the liberal-conservative spectrum has nothing to do with the libertarian-authoritarian one. The ever-popular quiz grid illustrates this concept fairly well.

Frankly sir you don't have a clue about what I associate with what unless I tell you. The little quiz is like the several dozen out there on the internet and the conclusions are based on how the quiz designer structured his/her own defintiions.

The quiz negated nothing I have presented here, however, and I have been very specific in how and in what capacity I am applying definitions here. If you can make a good argument for why my definitions don't work as narrowly defined here go for it. But please don't think posting a link to somebody's 'define the ideology' quiz is a valid argument.

First of all, I never claimed the quiz "negated" anything.

Second, you're correct that I don't know what you associated with what else unless you tell me. So I'm going to ask you two yes-or-no questions in hopes of clearing things up.

Do you associate conservatism with libertarianism, as "libertarianism" is defined in any standard dictionary?
Do you associated liberalism with authoritarianism, as "authoritarianism" is defined in any standard dictionary?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think all statements hold up in the light of history and legislation proposed and passed…

Yet you provide no examples of ‘the left wants a central power to govern everybody as the left wants it to govern.’ and for good reason: there aren’t any.

Indeed, if one reflects on the statement factually and objectively it’s clearly inaccurate and untrue.

The fact is the left is as wary of government overreach as is the right, the only difference being the left places its emphasis on individual civil liberties and the right on business rights and fiscal regulation. The left are advocates of free markets and many are business owners themselves but are pragmatic enough to understand regulation is a necessary evil since the advent of industrialization and mass-produced consumer goods – it’s no longer 1789.

Consequently, there’s noting ‘wrong’ with the government, as it’s merely a reflection of society as a whole. If you want to change things, you’ll need to start at the very lowest levels – not the top down.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not that these can't be valid definitions, but they definitely buck the conventional terminology.

As you described it, you associate the right with libertarianism and the left with authoritarianism. The problem is that most people associate the left with liberalism and the right with conservatism. In addition, the liberal-conservative spectrum has nothing to do with the libertarian-authoritarian one. The ever-popular quiz grid illustrates this concept fairly well.

Frankly sir you don't have a clue about what I associate with what unless I tell you. The little quiz is like the several dozen out there on the internet and the conclusions are based on how the quiz designer structured his/her own defintiions.

The quiz negated nothing I have presented here, however, and I have been very specific in how and in what capacity I am applying definitions here. If you can make a good argument for why my definitions don't work as narrowly defined here go for it. But please don't think posting a link to somebody's 'define the ideology' quiz is a valid argument.

First of all, I never claimed the quiz "negated" anything.

Second, you're correct that I don't know what you associated with what else unless you tell me. So I'm going to ask you two yes-or-no questions in hopes of clearing things up.

Do you associate conservatism with libertarianism, as "libertarianism" is defined in any standard dictionary?
Do you associated liberalism with authoritarianism, as "authoritarianism" is defined in any standard dictionary?

Conservatism is 'libertarianism' in the sense that Classical Liberalism was 'libertarianism'. I define the modern American conservative as being very close in ideology to the Classical Liberalism of the Founders. Conservatives want the central government to secure their rights and then leave them alone to form whatever society they wish to have--to govern themselves. Conservatives generally allow for a more structured society than what is generally acceptable to pure modern libertarians.

I associate modern Americn liberalism with the social statism that began to develop mostly in the 60's and hit its zenith in the last 30-40 years. It is defined by a strong central government that sets and enforces the rules and allocates permissions for all. It is not far removed from the Monarchal or European models and emphasizes government creating the society the liberals expect to be ideal. It advocates authoritarianism only so long as what the liberals define as 'virtue' is enforced.

And neither definition necessarily applies in the narrow scope of the concepts in which I was using the terms 'right' and 'left' on this thread.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Frankly sir you don't have a clue about what I associate with what unless I tell you. The little quiz is like the several dozen out there on the internet and the conclusions are based on how the quiz designer structured his/her own defintiions.

The quiz negated nothing I have presented here, however, and I have been very specific in how and in what capacity I am applying definitions here. If you can make a good argument for why my definitions don't work as narrowly defined here go for it. But please don't think posting a link to somebody's 'define the ideology' quiz is a valid argument.

First of all, I never claimed the quiz "negated" anything.

Second, you're correct that I don't know what you associated with what else unless you tell me. So I'm going to ask you two yes-or-no questions in hopes of clearing things up.

Do you associate conservatism with libertarianism, as "libertarianism" is defined in any standard dictionary?
Do you associated liberalism with authoritarianism, as "authoritarianism" is defined in any standard dictionary?

Conservatism is 'libertarianism' in the sense that Classical Liberalism was 'libertarianism'. I define the modern American conservative as being very close in ideology to the Classical Liberalism of the Founders. Conservatives want the central government to secure their rights and then leave them alone to form whatever society they wish to have--to govern themselves. Conservatives generally allow for a more structured society than what is generally acceptable to pure modern libertarians.

I associate modern Americn liberalism with the social statism that began to develop mostly in the 60's and hit its zenith in the last 30-40 years. It is defined by a strong central government that sets and enforces the rules and allocates permissions for all. It is not far removed from the Monarchal or European models and emphasizes government creating the society the liberals expect to be ideal. It advocates authoritarianism only so long as what the liberals define as 'virtue' is enforced.

And neither definition necessarily applies in the narrow scope of the concepts in which I was using the terms 'right' and 'left' on this thread.

So would that be "no" to both questions?

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Maybe BH will save you some room on his black chopper!

Who is BH?

Bull-shit-vik hunter; he lives in fear of black helicopters, foreign banker ninja types, squirrels, and generally anybody who isn't afraid of his macho internet tough-guy routine.

LMAO! Yeah cacacorn, coming from a yes man slave robot like yourself, I take that as a compliment bro. Yeah, I stand against the international bankers, your doped up mind finally got something correct about me. As far as black helicopters and whatever other bullshit you're blowing out of your dumb ass pie hole, show me the proof where I support conspiracy theories. = You won't, because you're a gutless liar.

Look at you cacacorn, You're are such a sheoplized dumb shit that you can't even recognize the fact that the federal government does need to be fixed, and fixed as soon as possible. Man you're a fucking moron. You're a weak minded idiot who never questions anything that your masters do. You're the biggest joke on this forum. ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Maybe BH will save you some room on his black chopper!

Who is BH?

Where do you dumbass motherfuckers come from?

The colleges and universities of the nation.

We are what you call "the smart people."

Look, you and I have had great fun smacking around "Troofers" in the past, but on this subject, you're nuts.

You can't reason with a coward that stands for nothing. Weak minded slaves like cacacorn are the reason why things have gotten to where they are today. I mean, take a look at this guy? No wonder he's so fucked up. ~BH

cacacorn

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Bull-shit-vik hunter; he lives in fear of black helicopters, foreign banker ninja types, squirrels, and generally anybody who isn't afraid of his macho internet tough-guy routine.

I've seen a black helicopter in my area - it says "KLOS" on the side, looks a lot better than the lime green one I see all over the place; a sleek Sikorsky.

Supporting the constitution isn't a conspiracy theory - it is those like you who seek the dissolution of the constitution who are the nut jobs. The small measure of accountability our rulers have to the populace is purely because of the codified law of the constitution.

Thank's bro, I appreciate that. Yeah, People like cacacorn are a danger to this Republic, or should I say, once Republic. He's the exact kind of sheoplized yes men that these carpetbaggers in D.C depend on. He's so overboard with his blind allegiance to these corrupt liars, whatever the case may be, that you really gotta wonder if he's just doped up on meds 24/7.

I dunno, but I can't think of any other reason why someone could be so stupid and have their head stuck so far up their own ass. He doesn't understand anything about the Constitution. Hell, He doesn't understand anything about The United States of America in general. He's just a gutless robot bro. ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Hey cacacorn, Yeah I see you lurking you gutless toad. Nobody likes you bro. You're a fucking idiot. You tried to break my balls and you got the response that you deserved. It must suck being you. Keep running your mouth about me and you're gonna find yourself with absolutely nobody that supports you. I got alot more respect around here than a puke like you could ever have.

I mean damn bro, You're like the gimp in pulp fiction. You get used and abused here day in and day out. You poor guy you.

~BH