Despite holding the country to ransom by refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless the Dems promised not to add revenues by letting tax cuts on the top 1% lapse, these same people are threatening to block the President’s plan to allow short term tax cuts on their beloved corporations in order to stimulate a stalled economy. The quid pro quo is obvious: tax breaks for companies means more hirings i.e. means more jobs – more jobs means less unemployment- it also means more people working ( that’s what happens when you have less unemployment,) – more people working means more taxes paid into the coffers AND more people able to buy stuff ( which stimulates commerce, ergo the economy,) which means a healthier economy all round- which means more tax revenue – which can start to pay off the debt – sounds like a plan to me. But oh, no! not if it means the economy might start to recover!!! That might make Obama look good before the next election! So, once again, the “loyal” opposition will obstruct the plan because their own avowed agenda is more important, more relevant, more sacred than the welfare of the American people. He’s giving these Republicans everything they want ( to the fury of his own party,) but it is still not enough. They shout for compromise- he gives them compromise – they call it weakness and throw it in his face. There’s just no pleasing these people!
Only Connect! 
Oh, Charlie, we NEED you to join us in Washington, DC at the "Enough Is Enough" rally sponsored by my group "The Coffee Party." We welcome anyone/Democrats, Republicans, Independents – anyone who is sick and tired of elected officials only listening to us if we have large sums of money to fill their campaign coffers, if you are sick of a radical moneyed "astro-turf" minority of people controlling the political system, and also restore civility in politics, then join us. We are holding an "Enough Is Enough" rally on October 29, 2011. Anyone interested in attending, volunteering, lending your voice, or even want to learn more about us should check out our website: http://www.coffeepartyusa.com. Charlie, you would be an excellent speaker, either in person or via video. We need as many voices as we can get.
@Lily: point taken, Charlie did open the door for us to wonder. I know if it looks like a duck and quacks.. but still an assumption. Appreciate the kinds words. I try to be funny sometimes, not sure how good is my sense of humor. Southern gal here so i kid around about it. @Karen: good reminder that there was a huge division of this country in the past. Some things never change i guess. Hope we have learned enough from history as not to go to war over it again. @Diane: If it is the David some of us know? He is kinda outspoken. May want to get ready to wear some football pads (metaphorically speaking). Don't take it to personally ya know. @Liane: thanks for joining and you are excused if you don't have American trivia down pat when you join in. ;)!
@lily, you misunderstood my comment about Charlie speaking proper English. That is exactly what he does.I often have problems understanding US vernacular.@ Karen Idon´t know why I thought the US has 52 States which of course isn´t right . I was of the opinion there were 50 before Hawaii and Alaska were added.Of course you can refer to history in your blogs , but to be honest sometimes they are so long that I don´t finish reading them and I think I´m not the only one.No offense meant.I enjoy your comments but try to make them a little shorter.
O'Bama has done nothing and should not be relected so what will we all say when the next guy get's in and we go though they same thing will we ever stop looking for that man with all the answers thier is no such thing as that perfected President and o'Bama has never had support from his piers from day one all he can do is say this it what might work how do we know it want if we don't try ever election we say the same thing do we really want another 4yr's of this i just don't think that he has had much of a chance to fix anything with the support he has had so i say the way to fix the problem is to let the american pepole tell them how to fix it we who have all the answers can just right it to thier congressman and he can pass it along what would be the problem i mean if we don't like what they are doing than let's fix it our shelf's some of us seem to think we know more and we will never know weather are not the way's the goverment comes up with will work so let's fex it our shelf why not take a chance CLUMBUS! took a chance and we got AMERICA!.
Lily, I don't know how I could say anything any clearer than what you have said in the last 2 blogs. As usual Karen you taught me more history than I remember learning in school but that was a long time ago. Skat 35 Lily mentioned that Charles will not interject his religious association if any and one blog his answer was almost bizarre. Go back and look what his reply was prob about 5-6 blogs ago. Her assumption was very close because I got the same impression. Also I don't remember anyone saying in religion it is all or nothing. There has just been so much confusion with Charles and his beliefs that we have no idea. If he is afraid to say what he is or is not that is too bad but it is his choice. Lily I wouldn't worry about what you said in the past about spell check because you would have not presented yourself as David did. All David did was try to belittle myself for a different opinion than himself and Charles and belittle people who may not know how to use the spell or grammar check. His remark was he would not take anyone seriously unless they checked their spelling or grammar first. You are just not that mean spirited. I see numerous people on this blog who have run on sentences and wrong spelling but who cares. Just because you can't spell etc doesn't mean you don't have a right to your opinion and theirs doesn't count. Bill O'Reilly kicks butt and says it like it is. The liberal dislike him immensely. I just sit back and laugh. This is a man who honestly has an opinion that I would listen to. I like him too. People just don't like him because they think he is rude but so is Simon Cowell. Sometimes people need to hear it like it is. OMG the liberals just shudder when he speaks because they can't censor him. The answer to his question is correct Obama doesn't deserve to be re-elected but then again he should have never been elected in the first place. How's that change working for you??????? lol. Oh no, not proper spelling- laugh out loud. God Bless all including you Dave. Joann missing you.
@Liane: In 1860, there were 33 states in the United States of America (in contrast to the 50 we have now–not 52). After Lincoln's election, 11 of them seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America. If 1/3 of the states left the Union, I think it is much more divisive then what we have now. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, because there is no way that I'm going to agree with your assertion that the nation is more divisive now than it ever has been, which is what you stated in your first comment on this blog. If you are referring to political parties as vicious opponents–that has been going on in U.S. history dating back to colonial times. It's part of our political tradition, and it was so bad during George Washington's presidency that he warned the nation about the dangers of political parties in his Farewell Address (he also warned the people not to form permanent foreign alliances–obviously the U.S. government hasn't follow that suggestion, either).And about using history to support my arguments–I'm going to keep doing it until Charlie tells me to stop. Today's current events are tomorrow's history, so everything has an historical context that we have to take into account when we think or write about it.
First of all, Karen, I love your history lessons. I think I am learning more here than when I actually took history in school. On the topic of this blog, just how can anyone be positively certain that corporations will hire if they get tax breaks? And that this whole wonderful scenario of events will happen: more jobs, more hirings, less unemployment, more spending by consumers, eventually the debt will decrease, etc. It sounds wonderful and I hope it happens. However, not too long ago I was on a blog where a corporate big wig showed his employees what he does with his corporation's tax breaks by taking some money and putting it in his pants pocket. President Obama has had three years to think about jobs, however, he has been doing a whole lot of nothing. The deficit is higher, health care was shoved down our throats (and the real effects of health care do not kick in until 2014). How convenient for President Obama. If he is re-elected in 2012 and health care is a disaster, he won't have to worry about being re-elected again. President Obama was hired to fix the economy. That should have been his first priority. Now how convenient it is that he is facing re-election and its all jobs, jobs, jobs he is talking about. He cannot handle running the country and I believe he has bad advisors.I was watching Bill O'Reilly the other night (O.K. so I like Bill O'Reilly – so shoot me). He asked a very simple question. Ask yourselves this question and see what kind of an answer you come up with. Has President Obama really done anything to DESERVE to be re-elected in 2012? My answer (as well as Mr. O'Reilly's): No. We have had three years of disappointment and frustration with one more year to go to campaign for re-election. Do you really want another four more years of this?
@Karen I understand that you wish to explain things in a historical way, but we are living now and at that time if I remember there wasn´t a"United States of America"at least not 52 States and times are just different So from this point the US is more divided especially economical and even morally.I just don´t like the way how politicians fare with each other .I watched excerpts from those debates on TV and the only one of those men I could get a small liking for is Rommney.But again it is obvious money rules and those that have the most get a better campaign.
Hi, Liane. It is very sweet of you to defend Charles. I am in no way implying he is not intelligent or would not make a good debater. However, Bill O'Reilly is in his own league; in my opinion anyway. And I cannot see Charles debating Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly is a strong force to be dealt with and its my opinion Charles would get clobbered. Heck, Mr. O'Reilly intimidates me just watching him! And I am not sure what you meant by speaking proper English. Charles' English seems fine to me. Diane, when I typed my very first post on this blog, I remember saying something about why don't people use dictionaries as I saw some misspellings from some of the bloggers. I later regretted that and have thought about it from time to time. After reading David's remarks, it must have really sounded rude and pretentious of me when I did that. I apologize for it now. I would have sooner but no one brought the subject up until now. No one is perfect and if Charles doesn't mind our weaknesses in grammar, etc., why sould anyone else? Live and learn.Skat35 (Roxy). I have addressed Charles on a number of occasions about his faith and he has constantly ignored me so I just stopped asking. Therefore, my assumption is not my fault. Maybe he is not sure what he is and if that is the case, he should come right out and say that he is not sure. Sounds like Charles is not comfortable with his own personal beliefs or he has a guilt complex. He sounds bitter, that is for sure. As I said earlier, I believe he is in way over his head about God and religion. Now before you say it is none of my business about his religious beliefs, he opened the door on the subject and goes on criticizing religion, especially Christians. When you do that, you better be prepared for the tough questions and statements that follow. Oh, and by the way Skat123, I look forward to your posts, they crack me up! (I mean that in a nice way)
@Liane: Actually, the nation has been even more divided than it is now. There was a Civil War between 1861-1865 (also known as the War Between the States, War of the Rebellion, War of Southern Secession, War of Northern Aggression–the name changes depending on where you live) in which eleven states seceded from the United States, formed their own nation (Confederate States of America, also known as the CSA), and fought a bloody war in which more Americans died than in any other conflict. The challenges Obama is facing are nothing compared to what Abraham Lincoln faced as president during those years. Even in the United States, there were a considerable number of people (many of them Democrats) who opposed participation in the war and would have preferred to let the South become an independent nation. Obama's challenges are a drop in the bucket compared to what Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's successor) faced as president, as Johnson had a different view on what to do with the readmission of the seceded states than did Congress (by the way, Johnson was a Democrat, even though he was elected as a Republican, and Congress was controlled by the Republicans). The House ultimately would impeach Johnson (I alluded to this on a previous blog) because of this disagreement. Andrew Jackson had to suppress discussion about secession while he was president–and it was his vice president, John C. Calhoun, who was leading that movement. James Madison had to deal with secessionist discussions during the War of 1812 as New Englanders questioned the necessity of fighting a war with England as they experienced economic dislocation because of the conflict. What Barack Obama is facing now is nothing like what Jackson and Madison faced, much less Lincoln and Johnson. Right now, it is just partisan strife, and it hasn't reached the level that it was in the early 1800s, when Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton (there were some personal issues involved, too, but one of the key differences was their different political ideologies on the direction of the new nation). Now if Joe Biden starts opposing Obama's policies, or John Boehner challenges him to a duel, or states start seceding from the Union over them, or the House votes to impeach him, then I'll agree that he has problems. Until that happens–he just has to figure out how to deal with a Congress (particularly a House) that has a different political agenda than he does, just like Bill Clinton had to when the Republicans took control of Congress following the 1994 midterm elections. It's a sign of true leadership when a president can do that, and we'll have to see if he's made of the "right stuff"…or if he'll be a one-term wonder because he can't figure it out.Sorry for the extensive history lesson, but it's quite frustrating when people write "this has never happened before," when I know it has–and, in fact, has been even worse.
@David I so agree! Bravo to him for putting himself out there and allowing us the opportunity to interact with them. @Lily: How do you know he is an atheist? Did he say so or agree with to that? You just assume. It bothers me that if folks have any alternate views: humanist, Wiccan, Scientologist, deist, pagan, agnostic, or etc. Then they are automatically assumed atheists? What if i called all Mormons, Jehovah witness, baptist, Methodist, & Catholics etc a bunch of bible thumpers? If i said, "Who cares they are all bible thumpers to me". It categories people. Don't label folks unless they agree to it all i'm saying. Atheist means 100% don't believe in God. You assume he doesn't even entertain the thought of! It seems to go with Christianity's all or none exclusions. Either is all or none with you guys, there is no middle ground. One of the reasons i am so not gung ho on the religion. You are either with us or you must be against us.
Spoke too soon…Obama is now proposing tax hikes to pay for the jobs plan. Among the proposals are limiting itemized deductions for those earning more than $200,000 and closing loopholes for oil and gas companies. These suggestions I actually support…but I also know that the Republicans in Congress will dig in their heels and not support them. Looks like a line is being drawn in the sand–and now I have to wrap my mind around the idea of funding a plan that includes tax cuts by raising taxes (okay, to be more precise, by closing loopholes and limiting deductions).
@David: Sorry. I'll try to avoid using that phrase again in the future, since it seems that I sound a bit repetitive when I do that. By the way, I love your comment about using spelling and grammar check. I compose my comments as a word document prior to submitting them, but sometimes glitches aren’t caught (even when they are proofread by another person). Hopefully Charlie knows how much I enjoy engaging in debates on the blog, even if we annoy each other most of the time. I love it when someone challenges me to think (which he does); it doesn’t happen very often in my job.Back to the topic for this blog. Now that I have had time to do a bit more research on the topic…first, I do not oppose the substance of Obama's jobs bill. I do think that we need to hire more teachers, especially since classrooms are overcrowded and a lot of school districts had to eliminate teaching positions because of budget cuts. My sister-in-law is one of those teachers who lost her job because of budget cuts. At my college, six faculty members were retrenched (a fancy higher education phrase for “downsized” or “laid off”) because of budget cuts resulting from the end of stimulus funds. I think we do need to have more firemen, more police officers, etc. I do not object to that. My concern is how are we going to pay for this? Last month, we had some rather heated discussions on the blog about the debt ceiling crisis (particularly about how the Republicans refuse to raise taxes and the Democrats don't want to cut spending for social programs), and now we have a situation where the president has proposed a jobs bill that cuts taxes and increases spending (by providing money to hire teachers, firemen, police officers, etc. One thing we found with the debt ceiling crisis was that money doesn’t grow on trees (although there briefly was some discussion about minting more coins to solve the problem).The jobs bill that Obama wants Congress to pass (apparently without discussion or debate) will cost at least $447 billion. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't have that kind of money lying around in my couch cushions. That's a hefty chunk of change. Out of this, approximately $240 billion of the "cost" will come from reduced payroll taxes. $140 billion will be "for modernizing schools and repairing roads and bridges.” I don’t object to modernizing schools or repairing roads and bridges. I fully support that. As a student teacher supervisor, I see a wide disparity in “technology” in the classrooms, ranging from interactive “Smartboards” and computers for student use to overhead projectors and VCR players on a cart with a television. Schools do need to prepare students for the challenges they will face in the 21st century, and, if they are using outdated technology, they will not be able to do that. As someone who drives to visit these student teachers, I realize that the roads are in poor condition at best (mainly because of the destruction by heavy truck traffic), and it’s not fun waiting in a construction zone and seeing chunks of the bridges missing (and it’s going to be even worse since some of these roads were severely damaged with the recent floods). I’m not arguing we don’t desperately need these things; I just have a problem with spending money we don’t have. If we can come up with new revenue streams to pay for this jobs bill, I’m all for it. I’m concerned, though, that it’s politics at its finest, that Obama gave a campaign speech last Thursday night, and his supporters will whine when the bill finally makes its way through Congress that it’s not exactly what he asked for (especially since we really don’t know what he actually requested, since the speech was a bit lacking in details).By the way, in case anyone thinks I’m pulling these numbers out of thin air, they came from a New York Times article dated 9 September 2011.
David V? is that you? OMG has been awhile. Great to hear from you. Me and Jo missed you. In Karen's and Lily defense we do get to blogging often and i know sometimes feel like i am voicing my same ideas (that get stuck on my mind) over again. Hopefully we are not boring each other. Sometimes just about know when the other will respond or guess how they might. LOL! Why is so great to have new people join or chime in. We addicts love it. Maybe can be like gambling. Now where could i seek therapy? Bloggers anonymous?
i think i'm blind with all this stuff cut the dam taxs
i think i;n blind by all this stuff
Oh David, Are you attacking me because I have a different view than you or Charles? 1. I have never said that all Dems are wrong. I just happen to disagree with Charles because I do think he has a close mind when it comes to Republican. So far on all the blogs I have been involved in I have not heard one positive remarks about Republicans. Even Karen, I , Lilly and Joann try to believe that not all Dems are bad. There are some Dems that I am in agreement with. See Karen's remarks in this blog. In fact that makes me a little more open-minded than what you are saying.2. I never said Charles was immoral. If Charles has a different views when it comes to morality that is his choice. In fact I think I remember saying every man has a choice to believe in God or not. If he chooses not to, I do not have to answer for them. I have my opinion when it comes to religion like it or not David. I try not to judge people but I feel as though you were judging me. Remember I said love the sinner hate the sin. So I guess that is how I try to live my life. If Charles' views are different than mine he wants us to reply to him with our opinion. That doesn't make me judgmental that is replying to the blog that Charles has asked us to.3. Now about grammar and spelling. This is not college or high school, this is a blog so I don't believe any one actually cares if one spells correctly or does grammar check. What are you implying? You do realize some people don't even know about spell check or grammar check. Are you implying that those of us who don't do that are not smart? Are you implying that their opinion doesn't matter. You said you would not take someone serious if they don't use spell or grammar check. Oh how judgmental is that. 4. Your last paragraph states we should examine our own opinions etc before we throw them out there. That is what this blog is about. So I am not sure what the deal is there. Wow David I have not had any one be so harsh but if that is what you need, so be it. I grew up with 3 brothers I'm pretty tough, so keep it coming because I can dish it out as well.I will say a prayer for you as I am still a Christian and believe there is good in every one even those who choose to attack others.Lilly, thank you again for being such a good friend and trying to defend me. Truly you are a kind person. In fact I almost cried when I saw your reply after David's blog. Thank you for your kindness, that is rare in this life time. Again I hope we will meet some day because you are one of a kind.
As an outsider and reading the written media I´m of the opinion no matter what Obama does or says at present is considered right. What angers me ,is the way how the US politicians draw each other through the dirt and some and calling themselves God -fearing people.America has never been so divided as at present,and outsiders wonder what this will lead to.As for creating those jobs sometimes one has to howl with the wolves (Co Operates)and Obama isn´t the only POTUS who gives roarts to the big companies, Cheney fed the War industries and nobody said a thing and Bush gave tax reductions, so I think all should hold their breaths before saying anything.The economy is bad, World wide ,so I think it is unfair to blame just President for things that went wrong. In fact the time has come where we must all refrain from living on credit cards etc and,just buy when we have the cash!and @Lily Charlie having grown up in a society where lots of debating takes place, he would probably be on an even level with a Bill O´Reilly and speak a clear correct English as well!!! LOL
David you hit the nail on the head with your comment i agree with Charlie i guess it will never matter what O'Bama say's it will alway's be wrong it seem's to me that it's not what he comes up with it's just the fact that he came up with it's just like i have said in the past Damm if he does damm if he don't they say that the republican's are being blamed for everything and that the Dem,think O'Bama did nothing wrong will how about if we just stop passing the buck and the blame and just come up with some way to fix the problem and how do we know that what he is saying will not work and if you do think you have all the answer's than get up off you but and run for office it just seem's to me that the problem is not weather it will work is that their afaired it will and O'Bama made it happen.
David, have you been blogging very long at all? I am pretty new at it but this is how it works. Charles picks the subject matter and puts it on his blog. He then encourages us to comment on what he has posted. If the blog is the same subject or even along the same lines as a previous subject, how many different answers do you expect us to come up with? That is why there is repetition – it is not our fault. We are not entertainers who are going to come up with new answers or "material" for someone's enjoyment or we would end up making stuff up. And instead of criticizing those who disagree with Charles, you should applaud them. Do you realize that is what makes a debate and these blogs would be so boring if we were all in agreement?It is my understanding Charles is inviting different opinions and wants us to challenge him. And when he brings up subjects like religion and politics, he knows there will be a heated argument. If Charles is an atheist and throws his views up on the blog, then he is going to get us to express our beliefs. No one said he was immoral (that I know of), however, there are certain things about his character that are questionable. We ALL have faults. I think Charles is a pretty descent guy. However, I am not so sure I would go so far as to call him a hero. He does his debating behind a laptop. That is a pretty safe place to be and he can pick and choose whether he wants to respond to difficult questions or not. If he debated someone like Bill O'Reilly, for example, that would be more than brave in my book. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for Charles and his willingness to let us have our say – no matter how different our opinions/beliefs are from his. He has the ability to cut us off if he wants to but he does not and that is commendable.
@Diane – Really? What about you? Everything you say is the same thing, over and over. All of you that disagree with Charlie. Even Karen is recycling her comments of "Step back Charlie, take a deep breath and don't injure yourself jumping to conclusions." You constantly say that Democrats are wrong,and people that don't believe that Jesus is the God that matters are wrong, that your bible is the only thing that matters. You think that Charlie is immoral because of his opinions? I think Charlie is a hero because he throws out his controversial opinions (to some) and says, "Let me have it!" "Tell me what you think!" Bravo to him. There is something bigger than all of us in this Universe. Label it whatever works for you, but don't be so judgmental and say someone has "no faith" because they don't have the same faith as you. Some of us, Diane, feel that your mind is the most closed of all.And for those of you that want the rest of us to read what you are writing here & take it seriously, use spell check and grammar check. Perhaps you should examine your own judgements, opinions, repetitions, accusations, and declaratory statements before you throw that out there. Admit that we all do it. But Bless You Charlie for allowing us to do it in this forum and interact with us.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles, I 100% agree with you! this is BLATANT "INTIMADATIONAL FRAMING"of Obama and the Democratic party..after reading the article you so aptly pointed to in twitter http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/291-144/7393-focus-911-intimidation-via-framing it really puts in perspective the subliminal manipulative ploys of REPUBLICANIZM..albeit..The Dems have to fight fire with fire..get on the Band Wagon..
I will defer to Karen for the numbers and research, but I agree with her. There are politicians on BOTH sides who are saying "I like the sound of some of this, we can work with it, let's take those parts and pass them immediately". I don't blame them for being cautious, after the way the health care nonsense was handled and the reaction of the people. This is just deja vu all over again….gotta pass it now! Time is of the essence! Who cares what it says, we'll read it later, we've got to pass it to find out what's in it!". The people are once bitten, twice shy, and I'd assume that's what the politicians are hearing from their constituents. Personally, my first reaction is that this is a big ole gift to the unions, and I'm not the only one who had that thought. It's only natural for us to look deeper at ANY politician's ideas and think "whose vote are they buying THIS time?" And as for Obama, I'm sticking by my opinion. He WANTS to placate his corporate sponsors…so he does what the masters demand, then blames it on the Republicans. And immediately the Dems come out and, rather than admit Obama is a corporate shill, talk about how he is bending over backwards and reaching across the aisle. The health care bill was drafted when the Dems had control of the White House and both houses of Congress…and it's a big relief package for Insurance Companies and PhARMA. He did it then, and he's doing it now. I think many of us 'should have guessed' that Obama would announce yet another campaign-speech-disguised-as-policy, and would parrot Republican plans, take credit for them(if they work) and blame the Republicans(if they don't). We've seen this movie before. And after the speech, we watched multiple Democrat pundits say 'Where was the plan in that? It sounded like he was campaigning". Exactly.
Karen pretty much says it all. Again badddd Republicans and gooooodd Democrats. Somehow these blogs seem to be quite repetitive. No open mind at all.
Following politics is not my strength, but it seems to me that the people making these selfish decisions are the ones who can survive comfortably whether the economy is good or bad. Hurting their country is worth the price of not giving into the 'other side' because it is a price THEY can afford.
Charlie: Step back, take a deep breath, and think about the following statement: “President Obama has put a number of ideas on the table tonight. I agree with some, I disagree with others and I have ideas of my own that I will continue to push.” Now, before you injure yourself jumping to conclusions, this statement was made by Senator Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania) following Obama’s speech to the Joint Session of Congress on Thursday night. If Democrats aren’t 100% behind the president’s jobs bill, why should members of the opposition party support it? What exactly is in this jobs bill? From what I’ve read, the centerpiece is reducing the Social Security payroll tax. What does that do for the solvency of a program that already is experiencing financial woes? Now, if it also included a provision to raise or eliminate the earnings cap, then I could support it (because it really would not affect small businesses, but larger corporations). Also, why are Senate Democrats dragging their heels on passing any of the jobs bills passed by the House? There are other jobs bills besides the president’s; why does his have to be passed and not any of the others?Final thought for now—am I the only person who watched Obama’s speech on Thursday night who, when hearing him repeat “Pass this jobs bill” over and over (and over) throughout the speech, had a flashback to the Peyton Manning Mastercard commercial “Cut that meat! Cut that meat!”?
I totally agree charlie, I was thinking and tied this to your most recent iblog about morals vs ethics. what would you call the republican agenda of putting themselves before the people morally or ethically wrong?