T1B

Posted: **Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:42 pm**

Felix wrote:
poptart wrote:
Why no, Dan, it is simply awful.
it is awful, regardless of who the President is....contrary to mvscals usual rantings, I believe a certain amount of respect should be accorded for the office, regardless of whether you like the guy or not...take for example Reagan...Nixon was a fucking crook, but I actually shed a tear when he was forced to resign, because I still respected what he accomplished and still had a lot of respect for him....I disliked the both guys immensely, but never lost respect for who they were and what they represented....but that's okay, the damage to the reputation of the office was done years ago, so I guess we should just treat him like any other civil service employee

YOU LIE!

sin

Posted: **Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:27 pm**

War Wagon wrote: That must have been some good shit you were free-basing, to not remember any of the hate towards Ronnie. The libs hated on him even more than they did W. Thought he was going to start WWIII and end the world. Nevermind he was right and ended the cold war, libs need something to whine about constantly.

Wagoneer, you seem to conveniently forget that Reagan's administration was rife with corruption. In fact he blew right by Nixon's total for most forced resignations, indictments, and convictions. The Gipper himself ended his career in the witness box pretending to be more senile than he actually was. His policies of deregulated Free Markets have led straight to the international economic catastrophe that is not yet complete. His blundering hand at Commander In Chief proved a pathetic joke, with the shameless attack Grenada standing as perhaps the most clumsy and bungled act of illegal warfare in America's latter history. And as for Reagan ending the Cold War, this is total bullshit, pure and simple. The Russians ended the cold war by ending the Soviet Union. On the contrary, the insanity of Cold War lunatics like Curtis LeMay only extended the obscene waste of money and resources by providing the supposed threat to the Soviets, etc.

Reagan was a disgrace--really much worse than Nixon, and actually a lot closer to the sheer criminality of the (unelected) Chimp 'n Cheney gang.

Check it out
http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/reagan.htm

Posted: **Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:28 pm**

Toddowen wrote:So calling Reagan an old senile dinosaur was all about his policies?

Referring to Reagan as a dinosaur was directly related to his policies.

mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:The "left's" alleged "hatred" of Reagan had more to do with policy differences than with anything else. Beginning with Clinton, it seems to me that vitriol directed at the President has been of a more personal nature than in the past (that's recent past, mvscal).

Shut up, you stupid fuckstain. The "right's" alleged "hatred" of Ochimpy has more to do with policy differences than with anything else.

Sure it does. And spare me the ad hominem on Carter. Your own reference to the President as "Ochimpy," hardly an isolated instance, gives you away on that point.

Posted: **Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:13 pm**

Tell it to the farmers getting sued by Monsanto for having the gall to attempt to save their seeds. When Reagan called for "getting government off our backs," he was referring to the corporations. Or what?

Posted: **Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:54 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Sure it does. And spare me the ad hominem on Carter. Your own reference to the President as "Ochimpy," hardly an isolated instance, gives you away on that point.

Bullshit. Carter is full of shit. That isn't "ad hominem" it's the truth. We're not even a year into this cat's administration and they're already fishing for excuses because the "mess" he was left excuse has run out. Why ?

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:03 am**

One great thing that Reagan did was fire all the experienced air traffic controllers so that the FAA could get them on the cheap. This greatly improved aerospace safety.

Sincerely,
Not really

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:16 am**

LTS TRN 2 wrote: And as for Reagan ending the Cold War, this is total bullshit, pure and simple. The Russians ended the cold war by ending the Soviet Union.

Check it out
http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/reagan.htm

Remind me to never, ever click on a link you provide again, as if I didn't already know that. :doh:

Reagan ended the Soviet Union, thus the Cold War, and 40 years of the military strategy of mutually assured destruction.

He was one badass American president, and he pwned Gorbachev.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:28 am**

We all got TROLLED ... BIG TIME.

Get a few peeps to start the race card tag, get even Jimmy Carter to come out and say it.

Then step in all cool and ....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_ ... h/us_obama

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said Friday that angry criticisms about his health care agenda are driven by an intense debate over the proper role of government — and not by racism.

"Are there people out there who don't like me because of race? I'm sure there are," Obama told CNN. "That's not the overriding issue here."

Obama, the first black president in the nation's history, spoke about the issue of race during a battery of interviews on Friday. In a media blitz aimed at pounding home his health care message, he taped interviews with ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Univision to be shown during the networks' Sunday morning talk shows.

Some excerpts aired during Friday night broadcasts.

Time and again, Obama was asked about whether the tenor of the health care turned nasty because of undercurrents in racism. Former President Jimmy Carter raised the point prominently this week when he said the vitriol was racially motivated.

Not so, Obama said.

"There's been a long-standing debate in this country that is usually that much more fierce during times of transition, or when presidents are trying to bring about big changes," Obama told CNN.

To NBC News, Obama put it this way: "It's an argument that's gone on for the history of this republic, and that is, What's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look out for one another? ... This is not a new argument, and it always evokes passions."

Obama said most people across the country are just trying to follow the debate and figure out how proposed changes would help them.

"Now there are some who are, setting aside the issue of race, actually I think are more passionate about the idea of whether government can do anything right," Obama said told ABC News. "And I think that that's probably the biggest driver of some of the vitriol."

..........

Good strategery if you axe me .... cool as a cucumber this Obama guy.

I'll go ahead and RACK him.

THIS TIME :twisted:

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:56 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote: Sure it does. And spare me the ad hominem on Carter. Your own reference to the President as "Ochimpy," hardly an isolated instance, gives you away on that point.
Bullshit. Carter is full of shit. That isn't "ad hominem" it's the truth. We're not even a year into this cat's administration and they're already fishing for excuses because the "mess" he was left excuse has run out. Why ?

"The mess he was left" isn't an excuse, it's fact. And the only people refusing to accept it at this point are brain-dead fucktards. We'll still be dealing with the fallout from the mess Obama was left long after his Presidency is over.

Also, there's this. To summarize:

- 12% of McCain voters think Obama is the anti-Christ. 21% are not sure.
- 14% of Republicans think Obama is the anti-Christ. 15% are not sure.
- 18% of "conservative" voters think Obama is the anti-Christ. 17% are not sure.

Now, maybe I'm out on a limb here, but it seems to me that thinking a certain political figure is the anti-Christ, or even being unable to rule it out, goes way beyond policy disagreements with said political figure. For mvscal's benefit, I'm aware that much of the history we get is sanitized, but I've yet to come across anyone who ever referred to John Adams as the anti-Christ.

And keep in mind, these results came from New Jersey. Hardly the most right-wing state in the nation, and a state which Obama won handily less than a year ago. One can only imagine the results a similar poll might yield in, say, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina or Texas.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:36 pm**

Terry, nobody said there weren't a host of issues Obama had to deal with - every President gets them. Reagan got handed a pile of shit and W got handed a pile of shit too. To my knowledge none, 0, ever cried about it their first days before taking office and shortly thereafter for the purpose of managing expectations.

I don't know about John Adams but Obama is not the only President referred to in some manner as the "Anti-Christ".

Our Prez has spoken. The vitriol is over policy disagreement. It is over.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:51 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:We'll still be dealing with the fallout from the mess Obama was left long after his Presidency is over.

Oh no you di'unt.

He's making a MUCH bigger mess than he was left.

Every President not named Washington was left a "mess" to deal with.

The way to fix a "mess" is to STOP SPENDING THE NATION'S MONEY.

But not the silver-tongued gorilla -- him and his douchebag supporters somehow think that spending more money is the way to "fix" a lack of money?

Stupid is as stupid does, I suppose.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:53 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:I don't know about John Adams but Obama is not the only President referred to in some manner as the "Anti-Christ".

You're right about that. A lot of people referred to Clinton as the anti-Christ as well. Interesting that it's only Democratic Presidents who are referred to as the anti-Christ, at least in the numbers we're talking about.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:13 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:I don't know about John Adams but Obama is not the only President referred to in some manner as the "Anti-Christ".
You're right about that. A lot of people referred to Clinton as the anti-Christ as well. Interesting that it's only Democratic Presidents who are referred to as the anti-Christ, at least in the numbers we're talking about.

Okay. Whatever. Fire up your search engine of choice. Try.

bush is the antichrist
ronald reagan is the antichrist

See what you see. I see a host of references to Republican presidents as the "anti-christ". You're using your "I'm a Democrat" hat. I'm asking you to wear your "I'm Terry, regular guy, reasonable guy" hat.

There are factions among us, most LTS' "Christers" who are on watch for the Anti-Christ. They aren't Republican or Democrat. They're on watch. One article actually intimate that your Pope (you are Catholic right ?) intimated to one journo, that Bush was in fact the Anti-Christ, W.

Personally, I think his father might have been. Since FDR, there was a break in the chain until Bush I assumed office. The Ivy League Globalists didn't really have a "made man" until Bush I.

Since then, it is pretty much we've had and all we'll get. Ivy League Globalists.

You may remove your "Reasonable Guy Hat", I'll remove my Tin Foil Hat now as well

The point is the "tin foil hat crowd" aren't bound by party affiliation Terry. Nor are the white supremecists (tin foil hat and robe crowd). They don't like anyone in politics.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:24 am**

A wise president would foster an enviornment in which the country begins to PRODUCE a lot more than it currently does.

That's the ticket for American to ... come back.

Terry (or any of the liberals here) would NEVER operate their own household -- speaking of the budget specifically -- the way Washington is handling OUR budget.

It's childish at best.

It's seriously hard to believe that any moderately educated adult would be buying into the economic "paln" that this group has.

Total insanity.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:57 am**

Tom In VA wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:I don't know about John Adams but Obama is not the only President referred to in some manner as the "Anti-Christ".
You're right about that. A lot of people referred to Clinton as the anti-Christ as well. Interesting that it's only Democratic Presidents who are referred to as the anti-Christ, at least in the numbers we're talking about.

Okay. Whatever. Fire up your search engine of choice. Try.

bush is the antichrist
ronald reagan is the antichrist

See what you see. I see a host of references to Republican presidents as the "anti-christ". You're using your "I'm a Democrat" hat. I'm asking you to wear your "I'm Terry, regular guy, reasonable guy" hat.

There are factions among us, most LTS' "Christers" who are on watch for the Anti-Christ. They aren't Republican or Democrat. They're on watch. One article actually intimate that your Pope (you are Catholic right ?) intimated to one journo, that Bush was in fact the Anti-Christ, W.

Personally, I think his father might have been. Since FDR, there was a break in the chain until Bush I assumed office. The Ivy League Globalists didn't really have a "made man" until Bush I.

Since then, it is pretty much we've had and all we'll get. Ivy League Globalists.

You may remove your "Reasonable Guy Hat", I'll remove my Tin Foil Hat now as well

The point is the "tin foil hat crowd" aren't bound by party affiliation Terry. Nor are the white supremecists (tin foil hat and robe crowd). They don't like anyone in politics.

Tom, it looks like you missed the last phrase I typed, so I'll type it again: at least in the numbers we're talking about.

The number of people who describe themselves as members of the two major political parties is so large, of course, that you're bound to get some kooks in each. But in Obama's case, for example, the percentage of Republican voters who either believe he's the anti-Christ, or can't rule it out, while not a majority, certainly is a fairly substantial minority. I haven't seen similar polls for Democrats on Reagan or Bush, but I doubt the numbers are that high.

In any event, if you want a fair, objective analysis, I can provide two reasons why the numbers might be higher as to Obama (and as an added bonus, neither is race-related):

1. Fundamentalist Christians are more likely than others to believe in the concept of the anti-Christ in the first place. Those folk belong to the Republican in greater numbers than to the Democratic Party.

2. If one believes in the concept of the anti-Christ, it's safe to rule out every former U.S. President, given the fact that every U.S. President who did not die in office made a peaceful, non-violent transition out of office.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:44 pm**

poptart wrote:A wise president would foster an enviornment in which the country begins to PRODUCE a lot more than it currently does.

That's the ticket for American to ... come back.

Terry (or any of the liberals here) would NEVER operate their own household -- speaking of the budget specifically -- the way Washington is handling OUR budget.

It's childish at best.

It's seriously hard to believe that any moderately educated adult would be buying into the economic "paln" that this group has.

Total insanity.

I agree with your description of a wise president. However, I disagree with the exclusive blame you're assigning to the current administration. Only an overly credulous child or a simpleton awash in the FOX News tsunami would begin to believe that prior administrations did not, ever increasingly in turn, act to shift manufacturing out of our nation's borders.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:35 pm**

I didn't assign exclusive blame.

I'm simply talking about those who are currently able to make decisions.

Do you want me to start a "Hey, Bush really sucks" thread?

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:51 pm**

poptart wrote:Do you want me to start a "Hey, Bush really sucks" thread?

Oh, please do. There aren't enough political threads in this forum.

Posted: **Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:06 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:The "left's" alleged "hatred" of Reagan had more to do with policy differences than with anything else. Beginning with Clinton, it seems to me that vitriol directed at the President has been of a more personal nature than in the past (that's recent past, mvscal).

Really?

Sincerely,
Robert Bork.

Are you really this fucking stupid, T? You think the politics of personal destruction just kinda evolved recently? Come on. You have an obligation to know what the fuck you're talking about before actin the fool up in here.

Posted: **Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:34 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:Terry, nobody said there weren't a host of issues Obama had to deal with - every President gets them.

really? okay go ahead cite me all of the instances when a newly elected President has inherited two on-going wars, an economy in a shambles, two of the largest manufacturers in the US on the verge of bankruptcy, banks teetering on the brink of failure, etc.

take your time

mvscal wrote:
And the fact is that he is making it worse, you stupid, pinheaded fuck. Everything he has proposed and/or implemented will make things worse.

What part of we need to stop spending money we don't have are you idiots struggling to comprehend? Quadrupling the largest deficit in history is NOT going to reduce the national debt or make the economy more productive. Pull your head out of your ass, moron.

deficits don't matter-you said so yourself when Bush was spending money like a drunken sailor

Posted: **Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:54 pm**

Felix, if you think Avi would ever actually attempt to post a coherent take on national politics, you'll be waiting until the Indians win a pennant. This pissy little prick couldn't offer a plausible alternative if you threatened to take his gin away. For example, if he's so harsh on Barry Kahn's actions--and who isn't?--well what would he have a "fiscal conservative" do instead? And who on earth is a "fiscal conservative" in the first place. You see, arguing with a drunk Libertarian Survivalist seething racist is like talking to a parking meter. Or Glenn Beck. Oh well, good luck. :wink:

Posted: **Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:26 pm**

Which President has whined about the previous administration ? That was the point. Using the scientific method, however, instead of a knee jerk emotionalist response I am sure you can counter that and provide me with scientific proof of a president that has done that before Obama.

Hurry the fuck up.

Oh and your retort to mvscal is nice. Inventing "evidence" I see. Nice. Real "rational" mind there.

Posted: **Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:47 am**

Felix wrote:okay go ahead cite me all of the instances when a newly elected President has inherited two on-going wars

As a senator, B.O. repeatedly voted to FUND those wars.

He thought they were fine and dandy, then.

an economy in a shambles

Reagan inherited an economy in shambles.

two of the largest manufacturers in the US on the verge of bankruptcy, banks teetering on the brink of failure, etc.

Stop crying.

B.O. needs to stop crying about "what he inherited," too.

Every president step in to office and is handed a plate of problems.

Sack up and shut the fuck up.

Posted: **Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:34 am**

poptart wrote: Terry (or any of the liberals here) would NEVER operate their own household -- speaking of the budget specifically -- the way Washington is handling OUR budget.

Not a good analogy.

A country is not a household and therefore is not under the same budgeting constraints... it need not be regulated in the same manner.

As the head of a household, you realize that you only have so many years of earning capacity and every decision you make is based on that. You're going to die and it's preferable to do that not owing anyone a dime.

A country, hopefully this one, shall endure and can roll over a few debts and if not, who cares? You'll be dead anyway and not have to worry about it.

Spare me the "but oh, the grandchildren" hypocritical rant. They can fend for themselves, just like we did, just like our parents did. The spoiled, snot nosed brats will be fine.

Posted: **Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:47 am**

When you're spending HUGE cayesh just to pay down a debt, you're not spending it on things you NEED to be spending it on to keep the country operating at a reasonable standard.

And when you print money out of thin air, you debase the currency and effectively TAX the hell out of everyone.

If you're good with going on a path that UNDOUBTEDLY leads to a lower standard of living (if not full out bankruptcy) for the country, then have at it.

We've got a SERIOUS economic meltdown on the horizon.

I'm not IN.

We must change course and, as a nation, we must produce a lot more than we currently do.

Posted: **Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:15 am**

poptart wrote: And when you print money out of thin air, you debase the currency...

If the dollar were debased, it would be hard to explain why it's still the dominant currency on the planet and that when times get tough, every other currency loses value against it while foreign investors flock to the safety of the U.S. Treasury.

That's actually part of the problem right now. Our exports cost more.

I guess being in S. Korea, you've forgotten what "backed by the full faith of The United States goverment" and "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" means.

Stop with the chicken little routine. You don't know what you're talking about.

Posted: **Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:32 am**

War Wagon wrote:If the dollar were debased, it would be hard to explain why it's still the dominant currency on the planet and that when times get tough, every other currency loses value against it while foreign investors flock to the safety of the U.S. Treasury...

...You don't know what you're talking about.

Uhm...

Nevermind.

You GO, WW!!!!!!!!

Posted: **Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:50 am**

Dinsdale wrote:Nevermind.

Quite.

Or would you dispute that the U.S. dollar is still the dominant currency on the planet?

Or that it will remain so for the forseeable future?

Go right ahead Dins. I know you like talking out your ass.

Posted: **Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:58 am**

Wagoneer, the dollar is about as sound as Reagan's memory while on the witness stand--where he ended his career, lying like the cheap puppet/crook that he was. Oh, he was also a moronic Christer, but that's just being redundant. Saddam, btw, was ready to shift his oil sales from the dollar to the euro--one of the main reasons they so desperately wanted to attack Iraq.

Posted: **Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:03 am**

Wagon wrote:you've forgotten what "backed by the full faith of The United States goverment" and "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" means.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

Tell us what it means, War Wagon.

Posted: **Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:18 am**

How about I hit "Quote" really slowly?

Ignoramus wrote:when times get tough, every other currency loses value against it

Dinsdale wrote:

Addicted to KHOA wrote:I know you like talking out your ass.

Posted: **Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:28 am**

I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

Tell us what it means, War Wagon.

My children might pay you in twenty years for the hamburger I ate today?

Posted: **Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:36 am**

How about I hit "Quote" really slowly?

Good luck with that...Wags is a CONservative.

Posted: **Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:46 am**

old dollar

current dollar

The old dollar guaranteed that one dollar in silver is payable to the bearer on demand.

It was a legit currency.

Guess what?
If you happen to have one of those old bills, and you take it to redeem it for your silver, the gov. won't give you your silver.
They won't honor it.

But the current dollar is ... ah ahem .. yeah, "backed" by the full ... faith ... of the gov.

Pretty paper.

Light coming on yet, Wagon?

Posted: **Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:51 am**

Btw, Wagon, friendly advice.

If you're out of the market, stay out.
If you're in, have your exit strategy planned and ready to execute.

The markets will tank within the next 4-5 months ... maybe sooner.
Dow to 7,000 or lower.

By early next year, inflation comes a knockin'.

Good times.

But not to fear, Stimulus II is the Ace-in-the-Hole.

Our hole.

jmo

Posted: **Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:55 pm**

nicely put mv and poptart..

BTW...I collect those old paper money. Were it not for their numismatic value, yeah...worthless as leaves

Posted: **Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:35 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:How about I hit "Quote" really slowly?

Ignoramus wrote:when times get tough, every other currency loses value against it

Dinsdale wrote:

Addicted to KHOA wrote:I know you like talking out your ass.

dude, you need a new sig......run a search for some recent bco replies and I'm sure you'll find a gem

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:10 am**

TIGRDOG wrote:nicely put mv and poptart..

BTW...I collect those old paper money. Were it not for their numismatic value, yeah...worthless as leaves

So is silver if you think about it - unless you're attempting to conduct electricity or eating at a posh restaurant. Paper money, you can write on or light up to keep warm. Both fetishes are acts of faith.

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:17 am**

TIGRDOG wrote:BTW...I collect those old paper money. Were it not for their numismatic value, yeah...worthless as leaves

How does a person who types things like "those old paper money," and routinely uses "wif" use the word "numismatic" properly in a sentence?

Freaking ponderous.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:16 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:"The mess he was left" isn't an excuse, it's fact.

You mean the mess he helped to create? When McClown and others tried to reform Freddie/Fannie was one of the few times he voted something other than present. Of course, not so surprising considering the $$$ they were giving him. And when ACORN was blackmailing, terrorizing and suing banks to force them to make risky home loans, it was one B.H. Obama who was their attorney of record.

Every time this assclown tries to 'fix' things he just fucks them up more. Who wants to invest in an economy where the Fed is taking over banks, auto companies, and the medical industry? For starters.

T1B

Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?

Re: Do THESE people represent the American they "want back"?