GOP'ish candidates

[smc]

This is unrealistic, because in my experience cats are generally more intelligent than Republican primary voters.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

I'll be glad to discuss that, we can make a thread about that.

And PLEASE lay off the god damned tinfoil hat thing, it's like someone says something so non mainstream that the typical American Idol/Dancing with the Stars slobs can't even think of, makes it's so 'conspiracy theorist'. I mean why are so many of these fellows found dead? And big companies doing despicable things is not a new concept. I mean if rich individuals can get away with heinous crimes....just look at any of those folks who get off with murder or narcotics because he or she had the $$$ to pass around. Could see big oil doing that, too.

And back to the other bit, before some people start screaming tinfoil hat (again), the when the first American satellite was launched, several key, mainstream physics were not just broken, but thrown out the window during the course of those events. I'll post that stuff up later, once I can gather up all my notes and papers on it.

I wish you luck on your anomaly hunting.

Breaking News: the earth is expanding! (also it's flat and all the scientists are keeping it quiet)

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Zero point energy does just fine without us and already exists in nature. It is the reason that liquid helium can not freeze, no matter how cold it gets.

It's been many years since I took physics and chemistry, but I do remember reading that everything freezes at absolute zero -273*C.

btw cannot is one word not two.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Breaking News: the earth is expanding! (also it's flat and all the scientists are keeping it quiet)

Where's a good middle finger smiley when one needs to use one?


People like you make me sad, Enoch.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

It's been many years since I took physics and chemistry, but I do remember reading that everything freezes at absolute zero -273*C.

Remember quantum mechanics? Due to the heisenberg uncertainty principle, you can never bring particles (like electrons) to absolute rest, like you might think would happen at absolute zero. The minimum energy would be (1/2)hf, where h is planck's constant and f is the oscillation frequency associated with the De Broglie wavelength of the electron. This would be the zero-point energy, and does prevent liquid helium from freezing... at least below a pressure of 25 atms.

Originally Posted by ila

btw cannot is one word not two.

seriously?

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/cannot.html

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

Where's a good middle finger smiley when one needs to use one?

It's like this: ,,|,

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Remember quantum mechanics? Due to the heisenberg uncertainty principle, you can never bring particles (like electrons) to absolute rest, like you might think would happen at absolute zero. The minimum energy would be (1/2)hf, where h is planck's constant and f is the oscillation frequency associated with the De Broglie wavelength of the electron. This would be the zero-point energy, and does prevent liquid helium from freezing... at least below a pressure of 25 atms.

All the references that I checked said helium would freeze at 1 - 1.5*K, but they also agree with your statement that helium has to be compressed before it will freeze. Of course compressing gases is one way to bring down the temperature.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

seriously?

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/cannot.html

Yes, seriously and your reference backs up my statement as does the Oxford English Dictiionary.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

All the references that I checked said helium would freeze at 1 - 1.5*K, but they also agree with your statement that helium has to be compressed before it will freeze. Of course compressing gases is one way to bring down the temperature.

Without raising the pressure helium would stay liquid at absolute zero. You can not bring it down any further than absolute zero, but raising the pressure will still do the trick.

[franalexes]

Not exactly:
The devil is in the details. Increasing pressure increases temperature.
If the gas temperature is increased, then you have a heat source that can be cooled. Releasing the pressure after cooling will cause more cooling since without pressure the helium would boil and evaporation is a cooling process.
Result: froozen!

Just put water in a closed container and create a vacuum. The water will boil without adding heat, but boiling / evaporation is a cooling process and the boiling water will change to ice.
It's like telling the boys they can't play with me; they get boiling mad and their attitude turns to ice. ( I don't have to give a referance do I ? )

[TracyCoxx]

I'm very pleased with the way this thread is going. Physics is so much more interesting than politics

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'm very pleased with the way this thread is going. Physics is so much more interesting than politics

I won't further derail this thread by posting anything more on physics, however feel free to start a thread about physics.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by ila

I won't further derail this thread by posting anything more on physics, however feel free to start a thread about physics.

The thread isn't derailed. It seems to be on a different track.
Wouldn't a good moderator be able to move the physics posts to a new thread? Would be a shame to loose the continuity.

Please Ila, pretty please. or are you going to sleep on the couch anyway?

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by ila

The part in bold text is a rather foolish statement to make. Gays in the military are not a distraction nor do gays put anyone's life in danger because they are gay. You should really check your facts on this, Tracy. Start by consulting countries that allow openly gay people in their military and you will find that there are no problems.

I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction. And, Tracy was alluding to the potential danger TO gays serving openly, not they they were putting others' lives in danger.

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by ila

I am continually amazed at how far into debt the US is going (they aren't the only country either). I am also amazed that the solution seems to be to keep printing more money. Eventually the US dollar will be worth nothing. Unfortunately the money traders of the world have yet to wake up to this fact. I keep reading in newspapers the currency fluctuations are due to money traders fleeing for the safe haven of the US dollar. Gives one food for thought.

That's why i'm holding onto my gold & silver. but the dollar won't be worth nothing, there is no other currency that can replace it. Of course that won't prevent quite the mess if we keep on down this spend into oblivion and then print money causing further dilution of our currency.

We haven't quite gotten to the level that Germany was in when you needed a wheelbarrow full of marks to buy a loaf of bread, and if you waited until the next day, you needed TWO wheelbarrows of marks!

[smc]

Originally Posted by paladin68

I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction. And, Tracy was alluding to the potential danger TO gays serving openly, not they they were putting others' lives in danger.

And yet the U.S. Marines commandant has acknowledged that he made a mistake in opposing the repeal of DODT. But congratulations on keeping the backward, prejudiced, unsupportable position alive.

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by smc

And yet the U.S. Marines commandant has acknowledged that he made a mistake in opposing the repeal of DODT. But congratulations on keeping the backward, prejudiced, unsupportable position alive.

Now you are putting words in MY mouth. I didn't register an opinion one way or the other. And i have had to contend with initial fallout as a result of the repeal already. There is a sub-culture in primarily the Army and MC that is going to try and make this difficult. At best it will cause "distractions"; I don't want to think of the wost that could result.

The MC commandant was carefully toeing a party line. He remembers quite well what happened to the CJCS of a just a couple years ago - who was also a Marine. Step out of your lane at immediate peril to your career is the watchword in higher circles. Look at the USAF MG who was cashiered a couple weeks ago. For saying what most people on THIS forum would agree with...

[ila]

Originally Posted by paladin68

I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction. And, Tracy was alluding to the potential danger TO gays serving openly, not they they were putting others' lives in danger.

There are other countries that allow gays to serve openly in the military and they don't find it a distraction nor are these people in danger. There are countries that allow transgenders to serve and they haven't had a problem. So why is the US military so different? Could it be fear of the unknown or perhaps that the US military is so backwards?

[smc]

Originally Posted by paladin68

Now you are putting words in MY mouth. I didn't register an opinion one way or the other. And i have had to contend with initial fallout as a result of the repeal already. There is a sub-culture in primarily the Army and MC that is going to try and make this difficult. At best it will cause "distractions"; I don't want to think of the wost that could result.

The MC commandant was carefully toeing a party line. He remembers quite well what happened to the CJCS of a just a couple years ago - who was also a Marine. Step out of your lane at immediate peril to your career is the watchword in higher circles. Look at the USAF MG who was cashiered a couple weeks ago. For saying what most people on THIS forum would agree with...

I put NO WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. Perhaps a remedial course in reading is in order.

And as for the notion that you "didn't register an opinion one way or another," well, I'll leave it to all the sentient beings who might read your post to come to the obvious conclusion.

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by ila

There are other countries that allow gays to serve openly in the military and they don't find it a distraction nor are these people in danger. There are countries that allow transgenders to serve and they haven't had a problem. So why is the US military so different? Could it be fear of the unknown or perhaps that the US military is so backwards?

We certainly aren't backwards, but there are factors, mainly personnel factors that are and will cause problems. It'll take some time to weed out the trouble-makers, could take as long as 10 years or more to be completely free on the underlying problems.

As for the all great and powerful oz, er, um, smc, he doesn't have the first hand knowledge that i have on this and isn't going to get it from me.

And he MISTAKENLY thinks i am against the recent policy change (which also required an underlying regulatory change that people don't even know about). But that's something i expect from him.

[smc]

Originally Posted by paladin68

We certainly aren't backwards, but there are factors, mainly personnel factors that are and will cause problems. It'll take some time to weed out the trouble-makers, could take as long as 10 years or more to be completely free on the underlying problems.

As for the all great and powerful oz, er, um, smc, he doesn't have the first hand knowledge that i have on this and isn't going to get it from me.

And he MISTAKENLY thinks i am against the recent policy change (which also required an underlying regulatory change that people don't even know about). But that's something i expect from him.

You wrote:

"I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction."

Deny it all you want, but it's right there on the page.

As for what I've highlighted in bold: you know nothing of what I might have first-hand knowledge of. Perhaps I have a gay child in the miltary. Perhaps a sibling who was bounced out of the Corps for being gay. You know nothing of me. I don't write that I have any more knowledge than you, nor do I write that you have any knowledge than me. I state my opinion and go from there.

As for the insulting remark in bold, I will refer that elsewhere.

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by smc

You wrote:As for the insulting remark in bold, I will refer that elsewhere.

No sense of humor either.

Originally Posted by smc

You wrote:

"I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction."

Deny it all you want, but it's right there on the page.

As for what I've highlighted in bold: you know nothing of what I might have first-hand knowledge of. Perhaps I have a gay child in the miltary. Perhaps a sibling who was bounced out of the Corps for being gay. You know nothing of me. I don't write that I have any more knowledge than you, nor do I write that you have any knowledge than me. I state my opinion and go from there

Stating it will cause a distraction is NOT taking a position one way or the other.

You are referring to PAST events. I am referring to the present and future. There IS a difference.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

The part in bold text is a rather foolish statement to make. Gays in the military are not a distraction nor do gays put anyone's life in danger because they are gay. You should really check your facts on this, Tracy. Start by consulting countries that allow openly gay people in their military and you will find that there are no problems.

Originally Posted by smc

Of course, there are, just as there are in any other segment of society.

Ila, the quoted section from transjen illustrates the reality in America. It may be different in other countries, but for now, this attitude exists here, as smc confirms. I don't know why, when we're talking directly about DADT, everyone pretends like this problem between gays and certain rednecks don't exist, but while not directly discussing DADT it seems everyone knows this to be true.

Yes, smc is right. These people who believe it's their god given right to beat up gays & transgendered people exist in the military, just like in any segment of society (unless there are a greater percentage of rednecks in the military than in the general population?). It is a distraction. I'm certainly not saying it should be a distraction, but it is. If I want a job to get done, I'm not going to put a bully and his target together to work on the job right? Unlike in the general population, distractions in the military can potentially cost lives.

[transjen]

In a few hours Iowa will start the primaries kicking off the offical run for the white house
I find it funny when you hear all the talking heads debate and bicker over the reason why most of the GOP voters still are shopping for who to support
Just about everyone except Huntsman have had there 15 min of being king of the hill
Sadly the real reason behind this goes unsaid
Yes there is a reason why this is happening
While the talking heads are scared to say the reason i'm not
The reason the poll numbers are up then down and the top keeps changing is all so simple they are all interchangeable and all there ideas are pretty much the same, everyone is on there own lower taxes for the rich do away with all regulations do away with corprate taxs do away with all goverment spending except miltary and start war with Iran
So really it doesn't matter who runs in 12 they are all promising the same thing for those who miss W just vote GOP and it'll be like W term three
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

So really it doesn't matter who runs in 12 they are all promising the same thing for those who miss W just vote GOP and it'll be like W term three

Which allows you to continue to blame Bush. Brilliant!

[franalexes]

When Clinton defeated the first Bush, he took credit for an improving economy even before he took office.
When, for god's sake when is this current president going to take responsability for what happens in his term? He's got 1 year left!

[transjen]

Originally Posted by franalexes

When Clinton defeated the first Bush, he took credit for an improving economy even before he took office.
When, for god's sake when is this current president going to take responsability for what happens in his term? He's got 1 year left!

when is W going to admit he screwed up the country? he still cliams he made no mistakes
durng W's final year we were losing a average of 75 k jobs a month
Obama has stopped that trend and the private sector has been adding jobs each month and this is while the GOP governors have been on a job cutting spree cutting state jobs just to keep the unemployment numbers high
And how can he do anything when the GOP always says no to everything
The GOP goals to to wreck the econemy just to take over
Jerseygirl Jen

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Which allows you to continue to blame Bush. Brilliant!

Well W deserves all the credit, he made this mess and Obama has been fixing it which isn't easy when he's blocked at every turn by the GOP
Jerseygirl Jen

[franalexes]

Obama has stopped that trend .....
Too bad you are wrong. We were promised the rate would not go over 8% un-employed. It went to over 10%.
Governors regardless of D's or R's with the help of their legislatures have had to cut funding because the poor economy results in lower income for the States and they wish not to become as indebted as Obama has pushed this nation.

Borrow all the money you can, increase your debt, and then tell me how rich you are. REALLY!and if you aren't rich after doing that it's not my fault because I convinced you to do it.

[franalexes]

Today's news, 1-5-2012 "There are 1,800,000 fewer jobs today than when Obama took office."

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Today's news, 1-5-2012 "There are 1,800,000 fewer jobs today than when Obama took office."

I am no defender of Obama, as I have made clear in post after post. But this notion that Obama is personally and directly responsible for the loss of jobs is ridiculous and hardly even merits serious discussion.

If the politicians of both major parties were serious about ensuring jobs, they would have created them ... period. There are tremendous needs in this country to do things that only government does. The private sector doesn't fix roads and bridges, build schools, or take on any of the other infrastructure projects that modern societies undertake.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

I am no defender of Obama, as I have made clear in post after post. But this notion that Obama is personally and directly responsible for the loss of jobs is ridiculous and hardly even merits serious discussion...

Then do you also agree that it's also ridiculous to blame George W. Bush for job losses that occured during his terms?

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by smc

I The private sector doesn't fix roads and bridges, build schools, or take on any of the other infrastructure projects that modern societies undertake.

"schools",,,, be carefull with that one. Most colleges are private even thou they receive government grants. At lower levels, private schools of faith based origin are being financed totally free of government support.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

Then do you also agree that it's also ridiculous to blame George W. Bush for job losses that occured during his terms?

Job losses can be attributed in part to the policies of presidents. Presidents of both parties have enabled the offshoring of jobs. Clinton presided over NAFTA, a huge job-killer in the United States. Bush's policies (easing or ignoring regulation of the financial markets, allowing for the casino environment from which the world has suffered) that helped lead to the financial system collapse in September 2008 contributed to job losses, to be sure. Obama's failure to pass a stimulus plan with a real job-creation component and that was much, much larger than what he did get also contributed. But in no case are the associated job losses the direct blame of any president. They are the result of a system propped up through collusion by both major parties, a system that puts profits before people, and rewards profit making even when it comes at the direct expense of people.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

"schools",,,, be carefull with that one. Most colleges are private even thou they receive government grants. At lower levels, private schools of faith based origin are being financed totally free of government support.

Of course, anyone reading this would have reasonably assumed I meant public schools, K-12. But you are technically correct.

I could have listed lots more examples of how government creates jobs by building for society. But perhaps you'd like to defend the notion put so eloquently by Grover Norquist: "I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

Job losses can be attributed in part to the policies of presidents. Presidents of both parties have enabled the offshoring of jobs. Clinton presided over NAFTA, a huge job-killer in the United States. Bush's policies (easing or ignoring regulation of the financial markets, allowing for the casino environment from which the world has suffered) that helped lead to the financial system collapse in September 2008 contributed to job losses, to be sure. Obama's failure to pass a stimulus plan with a real job-creation component and that was much, much larger than what he did get also contributed. But in no case are the associated job losses the direct blame of any president. They are the result of a system propped up through collusion by both major parties, a system that puts profits before people, and rewards profit making even when it comes at the direct expense of people.

That's the answer that I was looking for. I would think, though, that the financial collapse was the result of policies put into effect long before either Bush Jr took office. I would also suggest that no administration did anything to correct those policies.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

That's the answer that I was looking for. I would think, though, that the financial collapse was the result of policies put into effect long before either Bush Jr took office. I would also suggest that no administration did anything to correct those policies.

The deregulation of the financial markets began, in earnest, with the repeal of provisions of the Glass?Steagall Act via the Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act in 1999. Clinton was president. Bush Jr. accelerated the process. This is why I continue to make the point that both major parties -- which serve the interests of the monied class -- are the political architects of the current situation. Obama brought into his administration the very people who started all this crap under Clinton, including Lawrence Summers.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by smc

Of course, anyone reading this would have reasonably assumed I meant public schools, K-12. But you are technically correct.

I could have listed lots more examples of how government creates jobs by building for society. But perhaps you'd like to defend the notion put so eloquently by Grover Norquist: "I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

First, I am not anyone. I am Franalexes. By what assumption do you believe I should assume? You say I am technically correct. Then are you technically in-correct? Should I assume that's what you meant?
Why do you think conservatives want to kill government? We want the same things you do. We just disagree on the manner that government does things.
I have no idea who this "Grover" is, nor do I care, and furthermore I do not find his notion eloquently stated. Am I obligated to defend it just because you asked me to? Probably not.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

First, I am not anyone. I am Franalexes. By what assumption do you believe I should assume? You say I am technically correct. Then are you technically in-correct? Should I assume that's what you meant?
Why do you think conservatives want to kill government? We want the same things you do. We just disagree on the manner that government does things.
I have no idea who this "Grover" is, nor do I care, and furthermore I do not find his notion eloquently stated. Am I obligated to defend it just because you asked me to? Probably not.

I'll let you play your rhetorical games while I engage in serious discourse.

You are correct that I should have stated more precisely that I meant public schools. But pretty much anyone with a brain who was also inclined to have a serious discussion would have known what I meant, and that I did not mean that private schools are built by the government (although nearly every private school in this country, even those of what you call "faith based origin," get some government funding in one form or another). There ... satisfied now?

And while you may claim not to know who Grover Norquist is, I dare say that you certainly know of his work. He is the founder and leader of Americans for Tax Reform, and the author of the ridiculous "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" that has been signed by 95 percent of all Republicans in Congress and all but one of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates. You know the pledge; it's the one that makes Republicans do ridiculous stuff like working against extending the payroll tax cut extension because it can be interpreted (only in the most asinine way) as a tax increase by simply turning logic on its head.

That pledge, by the way, of which you are aware (I know this, franalexes, because you could not possibly be aware of many of the things of which you write without being aware of the pledge, since they are mentioned in the same sentences on websites, in news reports, and elsewere, without respect to party or end of the political spectrum, and to be unaware of it would require a type of filtering of which the human brain is not capable), reads as follows:

ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Today's news, 1-5-2012 "There are 1,800,000 fewer jobs today than when Obama took office."

Isn't that the number of lost jobs he inherieted from W
lets look at just the last six months of W and each month the econemy lost between 600k to 800k jobs each month and when the rein of W finaly came to an end his record had way more jobs lost then jobs added
For 2011 100k on average was added not great but we are headed in the right direction even with the GOP doing everything they can to the econemy and hinder job growth
Jersey's piece of crap governor since day one has been on a job elimition program
Jerseygirl Jen

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by transjen

Isn't that the number of lost jobs he inherieted from W
Jerseygirl Jen

In a word, NO.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by franalexes

In a word, NO.

YES!!!!!!! W lost those and more jobs under his failed policies
W destoryed the US encomny
And Obama has been rebuliding it with no help from the GOP

[GRH]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Obama has stopped that trend .....
Too bad you are wrong. We were promised the rate would not go over 8% un-employed. It went to over 10%.

And we were promised that free trade, deregulation, union-busting, and cutting the top marginal tax rates for the 1% would cure all our economic woes under W (and earlier administrations). We see where that got us. So it's far from the first time that political promises were, at best miscalculations, and at worst, outright lies.

[parr]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Chichester, I saw your posting in Justice and wasn't sure how it fit in there, but it is a subject on its own that I'm concerned about. It's time to see if a GOP candidate that doesn't in some remote way relate back to Reagan, can win. And if ANY GOP candidate can't win against Obama the GOP really should pack it up and never show their face again, and the curse often attributed to Alexander Tytler has become a reality.

I think many of the current GOP candidates will have the same problem McCain had: Conservative voters were not impressed that McCain was conservative enough, so bizarrely they elected the most far left president the country has ever had.

The obligatory GOP haters who respond to this thread will of course be obvious, but to the few conservatives out there, what do you think of this round of GOP candidates?

TRACY, ANY ONE OF THE GOP'S EXEPT RON PAUL, WOULD SURELY BE THE
LESSER OF THE EVILS, DON'T YOU THINK.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by parr

TRACY, ANY ONE OF THE GOP'S EXEPT RON PAUL, WOULD SURELY BE THE
LESSER OF THE EVILS, DON'T YOU THINK.

I don't know if this is sarcasm or not...But among the GOP candidates, Ron Paul is the ONLY sane candidate who actually believes in individual liberty and the Constitution. Further, he believes in sound fiscal policy...A policy that would starve the Fed's ability to blindly print dollars and devalue our currency. This in turn would starve our ability to deficit finance multiple trillion dollar wars, globe trotting adventurism, and our ever-ballooning federal government. Other candidates like to talk about small government-- but their voting records often betray their talk. Paul is the one GOP candidate that has at least been consistent over the past couple of decades, and in my mind, he is the ONLY GOP candidate who actually stands for what Republicans of history have stood for.

[parr]

Originally Posted by GRH

I don't know if this is sarcasm or not...But among the GOP candidates, Ron Paul is the ONLY sane candidate who actually believes in individual liberty and the Constitution. Further, he believes in sound fiscal policy...A policy that would starve the Fed's ability to blindly print dollars and devalue our currency. This in turn would starve our ability to deficit finance multiple trillion dollar wars, globe trotting adventurism, and our ever-ballooning federal government. Other candidates like to talk about small government-- but their voting records often betray their talk. Paul is the one GOP candidate that has at least been consistent over the past couple of decades, and in my mind, he is the ONLY GOP candidate who actually stands for what Republicans of history have stood for.

No sarcasm.

[parr]

Originally Posted by smc

This is unrealistic, because in my experience cats are generally more intelligent than Republican primary voters.

Really, I am a republican primary voter.

[transjen]

OK i'm sick to death of the various GOP bozos going on and on about actavist judges
Well let me fill you in on the true meaning of the term Actavist Judge an actavist judge is any judges ruling you don't like
Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

Originally Posted by transjen

OK i'm sick to death of the various GOP bozos going on and on about actavist judges
Well let me fill you in on the true meaning of the term Actavist Judge an actavist judge is any judges ruling you don't like
Jerseygirl Jen

And then there's that Judge Judy idiot!

[TSKarinaGiselle]

I don't know which party he's at but, he'd get my vote for sure!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=DFXXAuDK1Ao

[Young_facial]

Hahaha that's way better than cat bowl