Sunday, January 22, 2012

Republican VS Democrat



Picked up over at Ronald Reagan Was a Horrible President.

65 comments:

  1. I would like to be on record saying "I hate Republicans" yup I do..:)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice to see there's some work Romney couldn't send off shore.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Romney is offering someone work, Obama is giving them a handout.

    That is the difference between the two parties, one wants people to work the other wants them dependent on the government.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You are right, skumrunner. Romney is offering someone a job -- a low pay job servicing the "king". But then when you make over 20 million a year, you can afford a little luxury.

    Obama, on the other hand, is offering a hand up, not a hand out.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The GOP slate is the sorriest bunch of candidates in memory:

    Gingrich - the quintessential demagogue and verbal abuser with a giant character disorder;

    Santorum - the quintessential Inquisitor who would criminalize the normal, healthy intimate lives of citizens everywhere;

    Romney - the quintessential corporatist parasite who has staked his reputation on insider trading, tax dodges, asset stripping, and bankrupting companies with investments that meet the definition of “legal” but are by no mean “ethical”;

    Ron Paul - the quintessential eccentric and hypocrite whose pious words about “freedom” and “equality of opportunity” are contradicted by his actions and newsletters.

    … each one of the above representing an aspect of America that is fundamentally WRONG.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow, that's even worse than Kerry wind-surfing and Bush 1 perplexed by the scanner.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is ironic how some people really think they are above others.. and then they sit in church which preach we are all equals.

    Hypocrites.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Will: Wow, that's even worse than Kerry wind-surfing and Bush 1 perplexed by the scanner.

    What's wrong with windsurfing? I've never done it, but it looks like it could be fun. btw, I've read that Romney isn't having his shoes shinned, but is undergoing a security check by TSA. In the picture he's having his shoes wanded.

    I bring this up because over on Will's blog I defended Howard Dean against charges that he uttered a "bestial bellow" during his run for the Democratic nomination. I said the incident was blown way out of porportion... and commenters on Will's blog attacked me, saying I wouldn't be defending Dean if he were a Republican.

    Wrong. btw Will, snopes says false regarding the story about GHWB being perplexed by the grocery store scanner.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You know, w-d, I think you are right. But then I have never had the privilege of flying on a private plane and being able to have TSA come out to me and scan me while sitting down. But then, wealth does have it's privileges.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Actually, wd/Jerry, I don't have a problem with any of it. They're all damned elitists and it is what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jerry Critter: But then, wealth does have it's privileges.

    Sure does.

    Will: I don't have a problem with any of it.

    The wealthy are angels sent from heaven to save us. With their philanthropy and job creating. That's the Conservative view at least, and therefore what I'd have guessed Will's view was the same.

    Will: They're all damned elitists and it is what it is.

    Nothing to say about Jerry's apparent jealously? I was sure you'd chastise him for it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The documentary I AM really hit on this. A director, Tom Shadyac decided he should not be living such a high lifestyle and simplified his life and did give away a lot of his money. He felt it was like the Indians called Wicheti (spelled wrong)..insane to want to be greedy when others are starving. And it is.. all that pollution for a private jet and other items way above just being 'comfortable'. In the book Your Money Or Your Life by Joe Domenquez and Vicki Robinsons talk about ENOUGH.. what is enough?? without hurting others.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The delusion of the left is that if you take money from the wealthy it will help everyone.

    Obama has done an exceptional job of convincing the downtrodden masses that it is the "rich" fault that things are bad. Instead of leading the country into prosperity he is demonizing the "rich" to achieve equality through taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The delusion of the right is if you let the rich keep all their money, It will help everyone.

    Taxes are at a historic low. How is your delusion working out?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Oh fuck this jealousy crap..no one's jealous..its all about paying equal taxes..that is ALL fer christs sake, its a damn talking point for the right. WTF is wrong w/that? 15% vs 30% or whatever the outrageous difference is..it's disgusting.

    And the big difference is the workers work...Mittens plays the stock market and gets a shitload of tax breaks to boot. He makes nothing, he doesn't have to show up to work sick, he just sits his ass in a chair and talks to his broker...real tough job there.

    ReplyDelete
  16. And his stock trading does not create any jobs. It just moves money back and forth between rich people with brokers skimming a percentage off the top each time.

    They, at least, should have to pay a transaction tax on each trade.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mitt Romney: "I'm not concerned about the very poor".

    This is something Mitt REALLY said. He added that the reason he wasn't concerned was because we have a saftey net, but (as pointed out by Rachel Maddow), he doesn't want to "repair" it as he claims, he wants to CUT it.

    I'm with you on the stock transaction tax Jerry.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rudy Giuliani - a noun, a verb, and 9/11. wd - a noun, a verb, and gimme.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Helping the very poor is a gimme?!?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jerry Critter,

    Whatever you do, don't let the truth get in the way of a good joke. The truth is, the companies that Romney took over were in deep trouble and many were going to fail .

    Romney saved many of them, made them stronger, and allowed them to latter on grow and hire people .

    Chances are, two years later, the guy shining Romney's shoes has 5 guys working for him . Chances are, the guy with Obama is no better off.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Witless: Romney saved many of them, made them stronger, and allowed them to latter on grow and hire people.

    Romney and Bain did what they thought would make them the most money. He also destroyed many of these companies, by forcing them to take on tens of millions of dollars in debt, which was then paid to Bain. The companies ultimately declared bankruptcy. This is, as noted by Rick Perry, Vulture Capitalism. It's thievery IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Since the top 5% pay 53% of all taxes, I guess they need to pay more.

    While it is true some of the companies Romney was involved in failed, 90% would have failed if not for Bain.

    What is not pointed out is the "rich" pay 35% on earned income. The 15% is on capital gains. With any investment there is risk and who would invest in a company if 35% of your gain is going to taxes, talk about a investment killer.

    This administration appointed Simpson-Bowles to come up with a plan. It did not have enough vote buying provisions so he ignored the bill. What the Simpson-Bowles plan is fair, revenue gaining but not politically friendly.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Who would invest?

    The same people. What do you think they would do with their money? They will just invest it more carefully, make less risky investments, and make bubbles less likely.

    Everyone benefits!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Even Faux has said Romney's numbers are bullshit:
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/20/fact-check-history-flubs-in-republican-debate/

    Plus, this AP writeup shows his fuzzy math is bs as it doesn't include jobs that the company shipped overseas,hello..those are job losses in Amerika:
    http://www.the-leader.com/topstories/x638334479/AP-Fact-Check-GOP-debate-Big-promises-bad-numbers?zc_p=1

    Vulture capitalists aren't in that business to save jobs, they are in it to make money, hence the term. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. They were investors, not job creators. Investors look only at the financial bottom line for them, not the companies they buy then slowly take apart and sell the pieces...which is another reason that all the GOP bullshit about the investor class being the job creator class is total crap and just a talking point created to cover their asses with regard to protecting the tax breaks for the rich.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Kind of like shovel ready jobs that only cost the taxpayer one trillion dollars and create no long term jobs, what a deal that is.

    You are correct that Venture Capitalists are interested in the ROI and not on the company. If a company is worth more piecing it out than leaving it whole, piece it out. One of the advantages of VC is they have the money to keep companies in business. Yes it is for their own interest it does companies open and keeps workers working.

    More jobs have been exported because of ridiculous US laws and unions than any venture capitalists. Even BHO said the way the US treats companies drive work off shore. If the US is going to compete we have to be competitive in wages and tax rules.
    I am not against unions because my spouse belongs to a union but in many cases they ruin a companies ability to compete with ridiculous demands.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oh bullshit. You are preaching GOP talking points there Sku. A venture Capitalist group can not serve both interests equally..the investors and the companies best interest..the investors best interests ALWAYS win out as it's their sole goal to make money for those guys at any cost.

    To blame the US regs and unions for outsourcing is complete crap as well. If our regs were stronger as far as not encouraging outsourcing of our jobs, which they do via tax breaks and NAFTA style rules, we would see far less of our jobs moving overseas. It's something most folks call nationalism, and I am all for it if it keeps jobs within our borders.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Unions do NOT ask for outrageous things..perhaps they did 20 years ago when the economy was good, but those days are long gone. Another GOP talking point that is full of fallacies.

    Firefighters and Cops for instance, use their bargaining power to get equipment that saves their lives like vests for the cops and breathing equipment for the firefighters. I know this first hand as family members belong to both unions.

    Most union negotiations, that I personally know about in the last ten years, have given up more than they get. Take for instance, the grocery workers..they threw the new hires under the damn bus just so they could save benefits for those who retired long ago. I am not saying what they did was right or wrong..its just a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Oh, and this gem:Since the top 5% pay 53% of all taxes, I guess they need to pay more. Well, since they own about 60% of the net worth of the country, yes they should pay more.

    Romney, just as an example of earned vs invest, didn't "earn" a friggin dime as he hasn't worked in years..his recently released tax returns show his avg tax rate was under 15%, which goes for most if not all the people in his 'group' of taxpayers. The other 51% of your favorite tax-paying people didn't bust their humps real hard for their money either, at least not in the fashion that the term 'earned' income represents. Wages for the avg worker have declined for at least the last decade.

    CEO pay is now 350X the average worker's, up from 50X from 1960-1985.

    The last two years have been banner years for investors. That is not the case for the rest of us who are not part of the 'investor class'.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Well, since they own about 60% of the net worth of the country, yes they should pay more" They do pay a lot more taxes and get less benefits for the money paid.

    I haven't seen the statistics on how many firefighters and police jobs have been outsourced offshore but I don't think may.

    The UWA, IAM, TWU, USW have all strangled companies with their non-competitive work rules. There is no major steel production in this country. The government sold off Chrysler and now their hottest cars are made in Canada and engines made in Mexico. GM, Ford are making major expansions only it is in Brazil. Boeing has built a facility in the South Carolina. It is not because of wages but non-competitive demands.

    Unions provide a necessary function but in many industries they force jobs to move offshore.
    If everyone supported US made products Walmart would not be the largest retailer. People won't pay the price for many items made in America.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Skumrunner,
    How much lower wages are you willing to take to keep your job instead of having it moved overseas? And you know what? Your company gets a tax break for moving your job off shore. And look. No union involved.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jerry,

    Blame the rich, blame the companies, why not blame the politicians for creating a tax code that favors off shore production.
    Both sides are incompetent but the current administration had a total majority for two years and didn't do anything to change the tax codes and now they complain it is the GOP that is the roadblock.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Skud,
    Are you seriously saying that the GOP is more likely than the Dems to do something about changing a tax code that favors offshore production?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Not saying that at all. It is not in the best interest of any politician to simplify the tax code. Politicians, either side, give tax breaks for contributions to keep them in office. The Fair Tax makes more sense than any tax system because it will get revenue from the underground economy, has provisions for the poor and takes away all of the tax deductions.

    What I am saying is Obama complains about the obstructive GOP holding up reform yet he had two years of total control and did nothing. He did spend one trillion dollars to create no long term jobs, sold off the American auto manufactures for Union votes.

    He appointed Simpson-Bowles to revise our tax system and has done nothing with the recommendation.

    The difference between politicians is not very much. The Democrats say they are for the middle class, the Republicans say they are for the 51% who pay taxes. This is just blabber because both parties pray to Wall Street and the money men because that is who keeps them in office.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Eliminating tax breaks and deductions are separate issues from tax rates, either flat or progressive. You can get rid of all deductions and breaks and still have a progressive tax system. Don't confuse the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Obama wants everyone to pay "their fair share" which I think most people support. By eliminating deductions you level the field because the "rich" can't use their deductions to reduce their tax burden. If 1/3 of what some one earns is not enough, how much is. Of course that would make the 48% who don't pay income taxes pay some but that is everyone paying their "fair" share.

    ReplyDelete
  36. First of all, it is very "unfair" to imply that 48% don't pay taxes. I know you said income, but virtually all of those people pay taxes in the form of payroll taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes, automobiles taxes, etc.

    Studies have shown that the optimum top marginal tax rate for economic growth is about 60%. If all deductions were eliminated, it would probably by somewhat lower.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Jerry Critter ,

    " Studies have shown that the optimum top marginal tax rate for economic growth is about 60% "

    Did that study come from the Democratic Party or the Kremlin ?

    ReplyDelete
  38. The 60% figure is based on analyses of over 80 years of economic data. Would you like references, or are you just going to dismiss it because it does not agree with your preconceived notions?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Jerry Critter ,

    By all means, give your references . I want to see who would come up with such an economic model .

    ReplyDelete
  40. Witless,
    If you are going to read only one article, then read this one by Mike Kimel.

    If after reading the article you want a more in-depth look at the relationship between tax rate and GDP, read this series of articles by Kimel. This link is the last of the series, but it has links to the other articles as well. I suggest starting with the first one and working your way through, but you are free to go backwards if that is your preference.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Jerry Critter ,

    Truthfully I thought I knew every left wing economist, but I've never heard of this guy . I find him nearly impossible to understand one way or the other . I made an honest effort to go through the links .

    You must just be that much smarter than me, that you can follow his evidence to support his conclusions .

    ReplyDelete
  42. I guess it is true that there is a correlation between intelligence and liberalism.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Jerry Critter ,

    Yes you are right. Our beloved President is a genius. I doubt the country could survive 4 more years of that much enlightenment.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Well, given the quality of the republican candidates, we are going to get a chance to find out.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Seriously, Witless thinks the GOP crop of clowns running for Pres would be better than Obama in the oval office? Laughing My Fucking Brown Ass Off! Tells you a lot about him doesn't it? I can't think of one person I know that is right of center that thinks any of those dipshits would be a good pick for President. It's the worst crop of idiots the GOP has put up in friggin forever as they pander to the extreme rightwingers in the party and have no shame about doing it.

    Obama is right of center, no denying that, based on what he has and hasn't done in the last three years, but for chrissakes, he beats the idiots in the GOP hands down.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Gentlemen ,

    You would say this about anyone the Republicans dared to put up against President Obama. No ? Liar, liar pants on fire.

    Obama right of center? What are you smoking? At least don't lie to yourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Witless, you actually believe that Obama is left of center? Seriously?

    Do you even pay attention to what has transpired in the last three years? Obviously not or else you wouldn't even go there. He has continued or expounded on so many of BushCo's most horrible and insane issues it's disgusting to the average leftwinger.

    He has continued Bush's assault on our civil liberties from day one.

    He has deported more people in three years than BushCo did in eight.

    His regulatory fuckery is worse than BushCo's, meaning he has weakened more regulations in three years than BushCo did in eight.

    And that is just three off the top of my head.

    And for the record, I am neither a male nor a gentleman. I am a bitch and damn proud of it you nitwit. So either address me by my name or my gender, as I have you..or perhaps that is too much to ask from a misogynist like you as there are women on this thread and you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Dusty,

    My most humble apologies. I know a few Dustys who are men, and didn't read your whole name.

    You must be to the left of Lenin to make your statements. From my view, Obama is a neo- liberal, with a little crony capitalist dumped in for spice.

    You really do not give Obama his due credit . He has packed the EPa and the rest of the federal agencies with just the kind of control freaks, I imagine you might approve of .

    I don't know why you bother to pretend you are mad at our President . We all know you will vote for him,, , (deleted phrase) ,,

    ReplyDelete
  49. Thank you Witless for acknowledging that we are not all males on this thread, and I am a socialist.

    Obama has, like i said, screwed us regulatory-wise, more than BushCo did in eight years. Putting people in positions of authority, that can over-rule other departments, is the most important part of the process imho.

    Control freaks is an interesting way to put it. Of course it has negative connotations. Is that your intent?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Oh and never assume Witless, has I have no intention of voting for him a second time. The D's have taken advantage of the far left for much too long and I for one, refuse to 'play along' anymore..which is why I am registered as 'Decline to State' here in California as I hold no allegiance to any party..its the individual running for office. If I do not find one in the two parties that control our legislature, I will vote Green or perhaps for one of my pet felines..which is usually George, my abused lil guy that is one of our rescues and the sweetest little black cat around. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dusty,

    Obama will win another term and you just may get your wish, a socialist America. He has not been able to accomplish his total transformation of the US because he started his reelection campaign after one year in office and had to stay somewhat left of center instead of left of left, his real desire. He doesn't have to appear left, he appoints people who will run government agencies left of left.
    I hope I am wrong but the Republicans can't find a decent candidate and instead will nominate Romney, who is far from a conservative. I do believe anyone, including George the cat, can do a better job than Obama. America should be a united country but in three long years he has been able to take the crown of The Great Divider. His mantra of hate success, a war chest of hundreds of millions and owning the media will make sure he gets another chance.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This phrase who is far from a conservative is used by every Rightie who voted lockstep with every RNC email, supported George W. Bush no matter what but loves to discover nuance post-Republican rule.

    Conservatives always like to claim who knows how great America could be if we only had a true conservative in office???

    Nixon, Reagan, Bush the 3 worst Presidents ever, until the next Republican gets into office, were the epitome of conservativism, of their times.

    The massive Income Inequality, shrinking middle class, assault on women's healthcare, and the fervent attempts to roll back Civil Rights and Sciene Education are Conseravtism.

    The threatening of violence if their political goals are met We Came Unarmed This Time are Conservatism.

    Conservatism is Terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Wow Gene, you can't do better than the very used are tired Income Inequity and racism.

    Reagan took over from the second worst president in history and a terrible economy. He revived the economy, put pride back into the US and drastically lowered the unemployment.

    Bush took over a sick economy, pulled through 911 and had record unemployment until the housing boom busted. That was caused by both parties not standing up to the Dodd and Frank.

    Obama took over a horrible economy, spent trillions, sold the auto industry off to Unions and foreign companies, divided the country, reduced the middle class , set records for people on food stamps and blamed everything on the GOP and rich.

    Instead of inspiring people to strive for a better life, he demonizes those who did.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Obama is as far from being socialist as I am being a fan of the GOP. He loves capitalism too much for the love of pete. He showed that when he let the HCR bill be written mostly by the insurance companies and how quickly the universal coverage option was taken off the table. There was a good writeup somewhere about it, by an insider who has done a new book about the WH and the core group. Damned if I can remember the name or author's name right now.

    People forget that a lot of our problems can not be solved by him alone..he needs the cooperation of the legislative branch and really hasn't had it since day one, thanks to those fucking Blue Dogs that are really DINO's.

    But things he can change or fix on his own he hasn't for the most part. He tosses us bones. What bothers me is that he is a politician first. which means he makes promises he has no intention of keeping..like all politicians.

    And Sku, don't hand me that shit that he has divided this country. The GOP gets the award for that, hands down. Even now they are saying shit which isn't true about the economy which is getting better, but as such a slow rate it makes little difference to the majority of us that are barely making it day to day.

    Bush43 took a surplus budget and turned it into a deficit. Blaming anyone other than him for that is pathetic.

    We were losing jobs under Bush43 as well but no one mentions that fact either..its all Obama's fault.

    The unions are not the problem and if you even try to blame them for anything, you are using GOP talking points.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Obama didn't do anything to harm the middle class, as it's been going downhill, pay-wise for at least a decade if not two.

    The only people who's income has risen is the top one percent. I believe I gave the numbers to that somewhere in this long-assed thread.

    ReplyDelete
  56. A good read on the downward mobility of the middle class can be read here by Robert Reich..an economist:

    http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/9842-the-downward-mobility-of-the-middle-class

    Since none of us, that I know of, are economists I would hope people would read it w/an open mind. A short blurb:
    Most of the new jobs being created are in the lower-wage sectors of the economy - hospital orderlies and nursing aides, secretaries and temporary workers, retail and restaurant. Meanwhile, millions of Americans remain working only because they've agreed to cuts in wages and benefits. Others are settling for jobs that pay less than the jobs they've lost. Entry-level manufacturing jobs are paying half what entry-level manufacturing jobs paid six years ago.

    Other people are falling out of the middle class because they've lost their jobs, and many have also lost their homes. Almost one in three families with a mortgage is now underwater, holding their breath against imminent foreclosure.

    The percent of Americans in poverty is its highest in two decades, and more of us are impoverished than at any time in the last fifty years. A recent analysis of federal data by the New York Times showed the number of children receiving subsidized lunches rose to 21 million in the last school year, up from 18 million in 2006-2007. Nearly a dozen states experienced increases of 25 percent or more. Under federal rules, children from famlies with incomes up to 130 percent of the poverty line, $29,055 for a family of four, are eligible.


    This crap has been happening for over a decade, it has only speeded up due to our recession..something else which can not be blamed on Obama.

    As an anti-Obama apologist, I hate when I have to defend him..but there are things and issues he should be defended on, and I do give him his due on those.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Wow, Skud. That's a great Reality Distortion Field you have there. yes, Reagan did such a great job as President. Well, he is the best republicans have, but, as far as the economy goes, he is only fifth behind four Democrats. How does your RDF explain that?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Skudrunner declares, 'I will not work with that Kenyan Marxist Anti-American Terrorist Appeaser! Because he's so divisive.'

    It's spectacular the amount of Right-Wing revisionism we are getting to read from Skudrunner!

    ReplyDelete
  59. Dusty,

    Romney is the Republican I like least.But I'd even vote Donald Duck at this point to keep Obama from doing anymore damage. Of course I'm sure Donald Duck will vote for Obama, probably in Minnesota, or Wisconsin, and multiple times in Chicago .

    " Control freaks is an interesting way to put it. Of course it has negative connotations. Is that your intent? "

    I of course do not like the EPA or the Obama-care regulations, but at least if they were directly written by Congress I could scream at my politician for voting for them.Too much of the regulations were intentionally vague,'to be determined by the secretary.' Which gives bureaucrats way too much power.

    That is why I hate socialism. It is tyranny by technocrat.

    ReplyDelete
  60. That is why I hate socialism. It is tyranny by technocrat.

    Oh, I see, so you must also hate law enforcement both state and local, your fire department, the Medicare that your parents use and a whole shitload of other agencies that are socialist here in the good ole Us of A, right?

    Because you can't have it both ways when you make pronouncements like that.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Dusty ,

    Of course I can have it both ways. You just tried an old liberal word trick. I am not for no government. I am for limited government.

    A police officer does not make rules. He or she enforces laws that voted in officials write. There are all kinds of Constitutional constraints to keep the cop from tyrannizing you and me.

    Thanks to Obama, the technocrats at Health and Human Services, and at the EPA, are making laws to control our every action. You like being a puppet because you agree with your masters. The rest of us resent the strings around our throats.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Because the EPA is responsible for the BP plant at whiting Indiana deliberately dumping mercury into Lake Michigan and,
    In 2009, BP acknowledged that for the last six years its Whiting refinery violated federal pollution limits on benzene, a highly toxic chemical linked to leukemia and other health problems.

    BP reported that it had processed too much benzene at the refinery's sewage treatment plant, about 15 miles southeast of Chicago.

    Last year alone (2008), the company processed more than 95 tons of benzene waste -- about 16 times the amount allowed. BP also violated the 6-ton limit from 2003 to 2007.
    Whiting Refinery was cited who violations of U.S. and Indiana EPA regulations in October 2008,

    Federal regulators say BP PLC violated the Clean Air Act by beginning to make modifications at its Indiana oil refinery along Lake Michigan to process Canadian crude without the proper permit.

    But, don't worry Witless about not having actual facts to complain about the evil socialist government...

    ReplyDelete
  63. It is very difficult to notice the difference. I cannot even see Obama's shoes in that picture. Do you have a better comparison?

    ReplyDelete