The U.S. Senate Thinks America Is Stupid

by: David Sirota

Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 13:19


In case you thought this whole debate over the bailout wasn't an insult to your intelligence, I have news from the U.S. Senate: While Bernie Sanders' amendment taxing millionaires to pay for the bailout will be allowed up for a vote tonight, it will ONLY be allowed up for an anonymous voice vote - that is, the unanimous consent agreement allowing the amendment to be voted on requires it to be voted on in a way that allows senators to not take a public position on it. Because of this, the outcome of the "vote" is already decided - it won't pass.

This is a perfect symbol of how this whole thing is a disgusting travesty designed to fool the country. They pretend to allow a simple vote on whether to make the wealthy pay for this - but they will only allow such a vote in a way that no U.S. Senator actually has to take a position, and therefore in a way that the presiding officer can simply say "the nays have it" and that's it. They can PRETEND to have a vote on something responsible, even though the vote is RIGGED FROM THE START.

Whether you support this amendment or not, it is the process that should insult you. This is the behavior of a politburo - pretend to the cameras that the government is acting on behalf of "the people" while the only vote that is about people is one that is already decided - and decided negatively.

The U.S. Senate thinks Americans are idiots.  

David Sirota :: The U.S. Senate Thinks America Is Stupid

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The U.S. Senate Thinks America Is Stupid | 43 comments
I know that the Senate doesn't use Roberts (0.00 / 0)
but I thought that anyone who was unhappy with the chair's call on a voice vote could challenge the outcome and force a roll call vote.
That's only in the house I believe (4.00 / 1)
it's probably already in the unanimous consent agreement that the chairs rulings in this matter are not subject to a roll call vote.

Or if they are, then any senator can object and stop it.  

[ Parent ]
I'd be opposed too (0.00 / 0)
...and I consider myself a progressive.

1) It isn't at all clear that the bailout will cost $350 billion dollars. If I had to hazard I a guess, the final cost of the bailout will probably be in the -$100 billion range.

2) I want meaningful and comprehensive tax reform. I don't want a tax code that  has random added layers of tax code added on at the whim of the crisis of the day.

Maybe I'm influenced by watching the California budgeting process, but trying to make the tax code more progressive this way is just going to make government dysfunctional.

What I'd rather see is a well-thought out and executed reform that increases the progressivity of the tax code gradually, rather than random, one off 10% jumps in tax rates.

Just as screaming for action on a bailout now is going to produce some potentially really damaging downstream consequences, so are attempts to ad in progressive values - any hastily added tax just makes real reform down the road that much harder.


Except the Senate (0.00 / 0)
added the Bush taxcut extension, so the "hastily added" tax fiddling horse is already out of the barn. The Sanders amendment would take some of the poison out of that wound. Pretty much everybody here wants what you want, but what's at issue here is a panicky, self-interested maneuver by cowardly Senate Democrats and their GOP co-conspirators.

I could hold my nose and swallow the Senate bill with the Sanders amendment, but without it, hell no.

PS to David: If Americans weren't idiots we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
I'm opposed to the newly added tax changes too. While some of them are laudable (continuation of green tax credits), I'd rather see it all done as part of a comprehensive package.
[ Parent ]
interesting points (0.00 / 0)
The point about the bailout paying for itself is raised constantly.  What it misses is that this is no longer a market situation once the government holds assets related to people's homes - it also becomes a political situation and the government is going to have to write off more bad assets than a company would have to because it can't afford, politically, too many foreclosures.  Further, you have to give me a net present value of the 100 billion i.e. when do you think the market will recover to the point where these assets that are currently worth very little will actually be worth something?  What is the cost of debt servicing on the money put out over time?  What is the cost in geopolitical clout?  Basically, any estimate that anyone gives is in the service of a political agenda or highly highly uncertain, imo - or is just a gut feeling.  My gut feeling is that this is going to cost a lot - and how much will depend on the exact conditions of the bailout plan and specifically related to oversight and the extent to which the congress will actually engage in oversight.  It will help that the next president won't be a dip$hit.

The second point is more interesting, but honestly, if they're going to have a huge giveaway (at least in the short term), I want something in return.  I'd like a repeal of the trillion dollar tax cuts or stronger demands for an end to the war (how much money would that save?), but I'll take $350 billion in taxes from the wealthiest.  This is also good because it taxes profiteering off of the recession.

There's also an argument that comprehensive plans can never be fully implemented at one stroke in the U.S. aside from during crises - e.g. see the 60 year (plus) journey to national health insurance or the 60 year (plus) failure to kill social security.   This is basically to do with how slowly the political system works here and the numerous ways in which you can kill changes, compared to say, Britain where they created the Scottish Parliament over night.  So you take what you can get piecemeal and the argument is whether what you get will help you generate further changes in the future or will hurt you in doing that, as well as the near term benefits.

[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
Sure, the government is going to be strongly against foreclosure. Likely what they'll do is work hard to rework terms so that people can stay in their homes, turning them into performing assets. This is the value of having a player with a long time horizon. I think this is a good thing.

As to the net present value, no one knows. I doubt that the government is going to take a bath of 50% on their investment though (including opportunity costs). Getting securities by reverse auction methods would probably put the amount that we are overpaying for them (compared to the bank's internal valuations) at a minimum. So the taxpayer's expected value from the transaction shouldn't be all that much lower than the cost.

I'm aware that comprehensive tax reform is not an easy proposition. But I'm also equally leery of a 10% surcharge on those making over 1 million. It will create all kinds of perverse incentives that a more graduated progressive tax structure will not. And once tax structures are in place, it's almost impossible to get rid of them. I'd be much more in favor of a sunset tax provision on stock trades than on this tax.


[ Parent ]
Disgusting (4.00 / 1)
well, i already knew how I'm voting in the coming years. if you're in office now and voted for this bailout, you don't get my vote. I don't care if the person is running against Hitler. Remove the incumbents in the house and senate.

Sadly I think there are many suckers in ny state who won't hold Chuck-E-Cheese Schumer or HRC or their reps accountable.

sigh. well, all you can do is vote and try to persuade your friends.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

And there you have it (4.00 / 3)
The perfect exemplification of how off the deepend some folks around here have gone in terms of oversimplifying and exaggerating what is an inherently problematic, complex set of issues:

if you're in office now and voted for this bailout, you don't get my vote. I don't care if the person is running against Hitler.

[ Parent ]
do you honestly believe he was being serious? (0.00 / 0)
aren't we allowed to express frustration? The economics might be complex but the politics is pretty clear, and that's what's determining the shape of the final bailout more than the economic situation, which simply created the demand for a solution.  It's really not that nuanced - the Senate Democrats and most of the House Democrats rolled over for President Bush, and the only thing that stopped them was a group of progressives, fiscal conservatives, and free market ideologues.  It's ugly.  And ignorant - I still can't believe that the major forces shaping this plan are the outgoing Treasury Secretary, a former  FDIC chairman, lobbyists, and Congresspeople who probably understand this about as well as McCain does.  

And us.  I'm PROUD that I helped get some signatures on the Sander's petition - I'm upset that there weren't more.  If we want that politics to change in a particular direction (and I'm not saying you have to, but if you do), aren't we allowed to take stands?  Aren't we compelled at some point to take stands if we've done everything we think we ought to and still no results?

[ Parent ]
By all means (0.00 / 0)
express yourselves and fight for what you believe in. I know there's a lot of frustration out there.

For me, though, the whole thing seems so...reflexive and exaggerated given what we know and don't know.

[ Parent ]
here's what i know (0.00 / 0)
it's very likely a bill will be passed and signed into law given the current political regime in the u.s. (congress, administration etc.)

this bill will be a compromise mostly between various forces whose agendas I despise, and will do very little to nothing for the people I would like to see helped economically (particularly those outside the u.s. who have had to deal with this $hit for decades now).  

which is why the best case scenario is probbaly the No BAILOUT bill for me- it attempts to decrisis the situation while passing something and allowing scope for future action.  This is the right approach, I think, for progressives.

What I'm not sure about is whether the bailout bill that's more likely to be passed will resolve the structural problem it purports to solve, which inevitably raises the question - how much more will they want and how much longer can we wait?  Or will the markets rely on us to push through measures to allow unionization momre easily which will help real wages rise which will then provide adequate wages for the repayment of debt and for consumption and even savings?  How long do you think that will take? ;)

What I'm pretty confident of is that very few people in Congress have considered these possibilities or even the ones related to more narrow problems like the bad mortgages strongly enough to actually think them through.

So throw the bums out.  They've proved themselves quite literally useless.

[ Parent ]
I have some sympathy for Will's take... (0.00 / 0)
I think we should attempt to hold this vote over some of our Congresspeoples' heads.  I think this is a good wedge issue for a primary challenge that some of these senators and representatives need and deserve.  It will be hard because not all of these people will be so obviously as bad as Lieberman was, but I think the Lamont candidacy should be the model and this vote, rather than the Iraq war, could be the tipping point.  I think Lieberman's behavior post-2006 should also make these challenges somewhat easier and make the GE prospects somewhat better since no state wants to end up with someone likened to Holy Joe representing them.
[ Parent ]
fine, then what's your alternative? (0.00 / 0)
It isn't about being negative.  It is about change, real change.  I have watched this charade for almost 35 years.  Nothing ever changes.  I've tried to vote Republican, vote Democrat, vote third party, split my ticket, don't vote - nothing ever changes.  There's got to be a message in that. If there isn't, then its futile; and we might as well give it up.  Who cares?  I ask again, what's your alternative.  I've love to have one.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
I'm with Krugman (0.00 / 0)
and others like him. He knows it's flawed, he thinks it's as good as we're likely to get at this stage, and he thinks it might work. And all of these godawful qualifications lead him to support it anyway because he knows there really is a big problem that has to be addressed pretty damn quickly (if not this very exact instant.)

I don't know if it will work but I don't think that supporting it is cause for demotion below Hitler, frustration or not.

[ Parent ]
Even if its Obama and Biden in 2008? (0.00 / 0)
"well, i already knew how I'm voting in the coming years. if you're in office now and voted for this bailout, you don't get my vote."

Or, its OK to elect them P and VP, but not Senator?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
there will always be people getting disillusioned (0.00 / 0)
those people have EVERY right to turn away from this kind of politics, imo.  Whether or not its strategic is a different question, but at heart is whether the politics is responsive to the people and not the other way around.  

So yeah, I undersatnd if someone gets really alienated, they vote for Nader or McKinney or Barr or whoever.  And I understand if someone doesn't feel alienated, they vote for Obama.  Both should just put some thought into it, think about what message they're sending, who they're empowering.  personally, given that there probably aren't going to be any tipping point states in this election the way things are going, i see no reason not to vote however you want.   and more!

[ Parent ]
I think there will be a lot of them (0.00 / 0)
as the railroad job the Senate is running seeps into the national consciousness. It wouldn't be very surprising if Barr, Nader, McKinney all get over the 5% threshhold. Assuming the Senate bill passes as is, of course.
[ Parent ]
You're right, Nader is out there. (0.00 / 0)
Won't change anything, but it would make me feel better.  They know we know.  They don't care.  If I vote for Nader, at least my vote will count.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
Clarity (0.00 / 0)
I was not implying that I would change my vote over this issue, I just wanted some clarity.

Although I may disagree with the final bailout that passes, this whole incident (well starting with choosing Palin, actually) has driven home the point that John McCain would be a gawd awful President.

So, while Obama's comments, actions, and likely vote on this bailout issue have not endeared me to his positions, McCain's erratic and flat out panicking have made him so much more unacceptable that I feel as though I have to vote for Obama.

Of course, if he gets into landslide territory, then I may have to follow through on my threat to withold my vote from any Democratic candidate that voted yes on the AUMF (like J. Biden).


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
i was pretty ashamed to be an obama supporter these past few weeks (0.00 / 0)
i can't believe that NO one, not even Mr. Change, with any amount of power stood up for the people who are most marginal in American society or globally or used the occasion to promote some take backs from the rich.  Instead, we hear about FDIC.  It's godawful.

Unless something dramatic happens (like Tyson biting off someone's ear dramatic), McCain is a non issue for me now because he's almost certainly going to lose.  What they do about this bailout IS the election  for me.

[ Parent ]
Well, all 3 senators are ready to vote "yes" (0.00 / 0)
so how does that impact the election?  Wasn't that one of the arguments against Biden? His ties to the banking industry?  And OpenSecrets shows who is paying for this campaign. On both sides.  Guess I'm not that surprised at the outcome.

Leaning toward McKinney?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
nader actually (0.00 / 0)
it seems like a clearer statement of opposition, even though i hupothetically agree with mckinney more.  but i haven't thought it through.  what do you think?
[ Parent ]
My vote is rapidly becoming against McCain (0.00 / 0)
rather than for Obama. From there, its a small step to protest votes. In MN there's another twist with regard to alternative parties and state wide races. If any alternative party on the ballot can muster 5% in a a state-wide race then they get their name on our state tax forms and we can send the party $10 from the state fund. Plus, any candidate from that party can get on any ballot with the ease of the main stream party candidates, and in general, this stature gets them a place in public debates. Nader doesn't have any party affiliation, so voting Nader (as opposed to Green, or Independence) is a "waste" in the sense of building alternative parties, too. That's one of the things I have against Ralph, I think he should be promoting alternative parties, but mostly promotes himself.

Bottom-line: I really don't want McCain to pick any supreme court judges, and that's one area where I would trust Obama's judgement. The recent displays of erratic behavior and nastiness on McCain's part have also made me more certain that he needs to lose this election. So, if Obama needs my vote to win MN, I'll give it to him, but if he's looking good, I'll withold it. This is his third strike, by my accounting. (Picking a pro-AUMF senator as VP, FISA, and BailOut)

The bailout fiasco is hard to pin solely on Obama.  Every last one of the folks that represent me in DC voted for it. Coleman. Klobuchar. Ellison. I've found myself in the very uncomfortable position of agreeing with Michelle Bachman over the last 3 days. That, above all else, gives me pause. But, of course, all we REALLY agree on is that we smell a rat in the shit-pile, and I'm not even sure she actually agrees, I think she's trying to win re-election by spouting faux populism.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
that's actually why i want to vote for nader (4.00 / 1)
people keep a) falsely attributing "spoiler" tendencies to me; and b) assuming that i have no ability to think.   It's really irritating and if the point is to send a message, then confrontation might be the best way.  The institutions and other candidates are fairly lackluster right now, or else I'd support one (and Democrats would be kvetching about it anyway).

The only reason I can think of, at this point, to be pro-Obama is that a) he's smart and b) it's really really really important to have a Black president.  And casting a vote for that, as a friend of mine told me, is something that might be more important to do in solidarity than anything else.  Other than that, the debates and the bailout collectively made me anti-McCain.  It feels like he's well past three strikes for me - at least as a candidate.  Moreover, the whole point is the more deference we have, the more problems it causes.  So, f-em all I say :)

I don't think we should pin the bailout on Obama because he's the one responsible for it by himself - but we don't live in a monarchy despite the best efforts of Cheney Rove et al and he is an important person and I think he dropped the ball.  And he's the one that's supposed to be carrying it in my name.  If he's not going to do that and isntead argue with McCain about the appropriate way to talk about unilateral bombings of Pakistan and compete to state how great Kissinger is - well, I'll go throw up somewhere else.

[ Parent ]
Voting Nader is confrontational? (0.00 / 0)
Anti-McCain is not the same as Pro-Obama, IMHO.

You make a good point about Obama and race. The fact of a black American president will have long-lasting impact, in a positive way for this nation. Strangely, his ethnicity had slipped my mind, somehow.

But, if Obama wins the election, who will have noticed our protest votes?  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
oh someone will notice, maybe not now (0.00 / 0)
...it's part of a process of building.  if you do it right, then it gets noticed.  If you do it wrong, then it's pretty pointless :)  that's why it's not an individual enterprise but a collective one :)

anyway, yes, i think nader pisses off party line democrats more than mckinney does, and it suddenly occurred to me that that might be better than anything else - maybe because they don't really care what i think.  

hey you want to vote together? :)  we can come to a consensus and decide. :)

[ Parent ]
I'll match you on Nader (0.00 / 0)
why not? Unless I still feel hesitant about letting Palin/McCain pick supreme court judges.

Its that, or go back to clogging up the vote scanning machines, which really didn't affect anyone but the nice old ladies at the polling station.

Actually, after talking to a couple poll workers, it has become clear that they, uniquely, see our protest because they have to count the votes. They hate write-in votes because they have to record them by hand, thus they are biased to toss these ballots out as "invalid" because then they don't have to record all the votes for "Snoopy" and "Shrek". I sometimes think about volunteering to be a poll judge and subverting the system from inside. Not by manipulating any ballots, but by simply documenting, in a public way, the sausage factory from the inside perspective.

Like I said in an earlier exchange, I'm an anarchist at heart - a 1920's Anarchist, not the shoddy imitation of the Black Bloc (of which we have also digressed). The kind of Anarchy that can only be imagined. So, you can see how the "reality" of the "Democratic" Party faills to fit my heart, while making far more "sense" than the Republicans.

I lack the courage (or insanity) to set fire to the voting booth and so I generally vote for Democrats.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
lol (0.00 / 0)
please don't set fire to the voting booth :)  i like reading your comments and it would be hard if you were in jail.

the trouble is i vote in new york and you vote in minnesota?  so is the equivalent of nader in minnesota someone else?  Or is it still nader?  Or is it mckinney?  Or Barr?  Mainly, I just want to piss someone off - it seems like a good enough strategy at this point :)

The minnesota thing is tricky too - i'm not you, but if it was me, i would think really hard before voting for nader there, even though it's unlikely to matter (well, it's unlikely to matter anywhere).

Maybe we should come up with a standard - like if Obama is up 2% nationally or 4% in Minnesota on election day, then you vote Nader?  Otherwise, you vote Obama?  And I can vote for Nader (or McKinney or whoever you want) in New York.  I like Calero personally :)

Or are those numbers not reasonable?  being an anarchoradical leaves you with less skillz on electoral politics :)  Maybe a diehard obama supporter could chip in here :)

[ Parent ]
That "standard" ensures a meaningless protest vote (0.00 / 0)
I'm not attacking you, understand.

But, if we only cast a protest vote (for Nader, or Art Temple, or whomever) when we are relatively certain that the "lesser of evils" candidate will win, then its not much of a protest, is it?  They don't need our vote, so witholding it doesn't effect the outcome.

If you want to "get attention" with your vote, then you have to make it matter. Like Nader in 2000, you have to play the "spoiler".  I think Ralph should have embraced his "spoiler" role in 2000, because only by having the ability (percieved or real) to determine the outcome of an election does Nader (or any other alternative candidate) gain any leverage. If Nader could hold his supporters unless and until he extracted some policy positions out of one of the mainstream party candidates, then encourage them to vote for that party, maybe he could have some actual influence.  In the current system, it really doesn't matter which protest vote you lodge, if your vote isn't for a M$P candidate, its a "waste".

No, there as no Nader substitute in MN. If the Greens are running a candidate, I doubt they have any chance of getting to the 5% threshold. Bob Barr is running from the Independence party and he may have a chance at the 5% mark, so that's an option that could have some local impact.  It may be good too, because the other state-wide race that features an Independence Party candidate is the Senate race (Dean Barkley) and while he has a good chance to make 5%, I think I'll be voting for Al Franken because Norm Coleman makes me want to vomit.

So, that's becoming my choice: Obama or Barr.  Right now, I choose Obama.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
yeah i agree, given the clause about certainty (0.00 / 0)
i just can't figure out the best way to wring concessions.  If I vote for McKinney it lends some institutional support to the Green Party, but I don't think it's really going to emerge as anything useful in the near future.  If I vote for Nader, it will at least cause a little fear.  If I vote for Barr, it will be read as a Republican defector from McCain.  If I vote for McCain, I'm not sure how that will read but it might be the strongest challenge I can mount.

And then there are a host of 5th and 6th party candidates - Roger Calero and other people - whom I'm more inclined to agree with than any of the above except maybe Nader.  But I think those will get written off completely almost in the category of nonvoter.  Don't know.

Anyway, I think I've spent too much time being neurotic about this.  Maybe the Art Temple movement is the way to go :)  Though it costs money to government.

Please do vote for Franken - I think the more and better democrats is a good standard, at least until we can start pushing for more and better progressives.

[ Parent ]
Art Temple is your "none of the above" (0.00 / 0)
If elected we will not serve.

use it for unopposed candidates, please.

How many "art temple" votes make a movement?

I will vote for Franken. I think he'll be a good Senator, but he sure has run a poor campaign. He underestimated Coleman at every turn.

I find humor helps with the neuroses.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
i dunno (0.00 / 0)
but the guy i voted for in the last election got about 4000 nationwide.  i don't see any reason Art Temple can't draw that many votes.  But yes, will restrict to unopposed candidates :)

I'm tempted just not to vote.  It seems like a waste of time.

[ Parent ]
My Brother turned me on to this link (0.00 / 0)
most of it is a reiteration of our discussion, but it might give you some guidance.

http://www.crisispapers.org/fe...

It has some interesting descriptions.  Like: "Progressive Democrats are like Linus in the Peanuts comic - they can't let go of their security blanket; the Democratic Party".  I paraphrase, of course.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
one of my flaws (4.00 / 1)
is that i can't deal wtih poor aesthetics...especially on the web :)  But i'll try to give it another go soon :)  thanks!
[ Parent ]
of course Obama and Biden are not exempt. (4.00 / 1)
Decisions matter, and big bailout-type decisions really matter.  How many FISAs and bailouts will it take for progressives to seriously question supporting these guys, I wonder?  It's one thing to occasionally "run" to the center to get independent votes.  It's an entirely different animal when you're voting center-right on major issues, yet running as the progressive change candidate.  Which of Obama's two Janus faces will we get if he is elected?  Only a Progressive Democrat beaten down by 8 years of New Democrats, 8 years of Neo-Conservatives, and 30 years of runaway neoliberalism would cross their fingers and hope they get the candidate they want.
[ Parent ]
DSCC (4.00 / 1)
in addition to telling your individual Senator that you think that this is a travesty, you can email the link to this post to info@dscc.org so they know that we notice this sort of thing
The acorn of government (0.00 / 0)
never falls far from the tree of The People.

The answer, as it has always been, is education; moral as well as technical. Is Obama educating the people? Or is he approaching them as an elemental force, to be reacted to (feared?) but never tutled?

The People are  ripe for an education; they are alert and listening (not like usual). Is Obama going to talk about the next four years? Or will he cowardly limit his approach to the next four months? (until the next bailout...)

The People need to be told that we need to consume less than we produce, and direct the savings differential to science and technology.

If the Democrats cannot govern properly, then we must find or form a party that will.

even in a fracturing hegemony? ;) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
We aren't stupid (4.00 / 1)
we are watching yelling from the other side of the glass the auto wreck that is the Democratic Party leadership. They will not listen to us, or look up from their obsessive compulsive submission to Bush the dominator. They are like abused wives who fear leaving and hope for a different result from the last beating.

They don't know about power, their own; they only know what submission feels like and it feels comfortable and right. They have forgotten or never knew what power feels like, what their real job is, who we are over here, over here! look at us behind the glass! Hear us! They can go to the microphones, look straight at us, and tell us their lies that, worse, they believe.

"It didn't really hurt. He's sorry. If it ever happens again, he knows I'll leave. He loves me. I need him. It's my fault."  

Wow (0.00 / 0)
This could be a big part of it. I never thought about it from this angle before
[ Parent ]
This bailout changes my morality (4.00 / 1)
I pretty much feel like a fool for ever leaving the Latin Kings and trying to live 'according to the rules', especially after this bailout.
Exactly (0.00 / 0)
I did not enrich myself during the orgy of greed that created this "crisis", yet I will have to pay the consequences for it when the shit hits the fan.

I missed the S&L scam, too, because I have these hang-ups about being "fair" and "playing by the rules". Why bother?  I can't eat the self-righteous feelings in my soul, can I?

Next time, I'm gonna get in on the orgy part, too!


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
The U.S. Senate Thinks America Is Stupid | 43 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox