Fucking Political fucking thread

[Edward Teach]

Ed said, USA Today thought the numbers meant something but then what do they know, huh, Pure.

Exactly. They're on a par with CNN as part of the propaganda machine, except dumbed down even more.

As several posters and outside columnists have pointed out, the liberal/conservative split is about even, and there are a lot of middle of the road people. One example issue is abortion. Various factors can skew the picture (as US Today apparently wishes to), such states' representation in the electoral college and Senate, and the exceptional turnout of evangelical voters (shown on TV registering in special tour buses parked outside the churches).

You can keep trying to bring race into the issue but it just shows how little you really know.

Race IS an issue, as the voting breakdown, in the South and elsewhere attests. Do you think it's a simple mistake about interests that gives about 90% of the Black vote to Dems? Do you think it's a coincidence that Republican victories in the South, e.g., Bush, are premised on getting a very substantial majority of white voters? (My guess is 70 or more percent for rural white southerners, but supply an authoritative figure if you have one.)

The same skewing factors are present in states (skew toward square miles being represented, more than people), and again race is a clear issue in all states with substantial minorities of Black people. Dems won PA on the strength of city votes for Democrats by the stated, vast majority of Black people. The Republican strategy--unsuccessful in the PA case-- was to go for the rural white vote.

US society is divided--as if, by a chasm-- in several ways, race being one of them, and Republicans have (better) managed to capitalize on it, in the South and some other states.

But I'm sure you can find someone at US Today to disagree about this.


=====
Ed's citation.
According to USA Today, the area of the counties won by Bush is 2,540,000 square miles while Kerry only won 592,000. The population of the counties Bush won was 159,200,000 while Kerry won 130,900,000.

I think you just proved my point.

Ed

 

[Edward Teach]

Besides, winning a county is not the same as being the whole population of it. You can win a county by a couple votes, and it's still split, and still 50-50.

Siberia has a lotta square miles, but fuck all for people. It looks the same way out the train window in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Any given place in the Great Basin is the same way. Square miles is bullshit however you slice it. You don't get to assign demographic meaning to a square mile, even if you're USA Today whom God preserve.

But just the same he did win.

More people voted against him than any other president in history, but he did win. I deny that there is nothing to be done about it.

Winning a state is not the same thing as winning the whole population of it and winning a region is not the same thing as winning the whole population of it.

I don't know what can be done to prevent Bush from being President the next four years short of impeachment, resignation or assination. Can you tell me?

Ed

 

[cantdog]

It has never been the Great Man here. The impacts on our lives come issue by issue, not politician by politician. Clinton did bad things, Eisenhower did, Truman did, Reagan did. But it's the things that they propose and the things they do that we must concentrate on.

Elections are never worth the passion spilled on them. They represent a moment when you have a better chance to engage someone in a political discussion, since most of the time, without an election in the offing, people want to wash the taste from their mouths and talk about something wholesome, like pop culture and tits. So they're an opportunity to engage someone's mind about the things that matter.

We, the folks who live here, attempt to fulfill our citizenly obligation to stay informed and make wise decisions about the issues which will affect our lives. The current yahoo in office is merely the modality. I write the senator, the congresscritter, the Attorney General, the President, and call the 'phone numbers and meet people. I will do that whichever drone fills the presidential chair with presidential ass, and whoever the congresscritter may be.

There's been plenty already to impeach Bush about, and there are already moves to impeach him working through the system. But Bush is only a symptom. I say he can be beat still, issue by issue, as much as the last few, who were little better in some ways.

We lose. We lose a lot, sometimes. But there is still a constant drumbeat of fists on the hull of the ship of state, and, especially locally, small groups of determined people, often women, achieve amazing successes.

 

[Edward Teach]

It has never been the Great Man here. The impacts on our lives come issue by issue, not politician by politician. Clinton did bad things, Eisenhower did, Truman did, Reagan did. But it's the things that they propose and the things they do that we must concentrate on.

Elections are never worth the passion spilled on them. They represent a moment when you have a better chance to engage someone in a political discussion, since most of the time, without an election in the offing, people want to wash the taste from their mouths and talk about something wholesome, like pop culture and tits. So they're an opportunity to engage someone's mind about the things that matter.

We, the folks who live here, attempt to fulfill our citizenly obligation to stay informed and make wise decisions about the issues which will affect our lives. The current yahoo in office is merely the modality. I write the senator, the congresscritter, the Attorney General, the President, and call the 'phone numbers and meet people. I will do that whichever drone fills the presidential chair with presidential ass, and whoever the congresscritter may be.

There's been plenty already to impeach Bush about, and there are already moves to impeach him working through the system. But Bush is only a symptom. I say he can be beat still, issue by issue, as much as the last few, who were little better in some ways.

We lose. We lose a lot, sometimes. But there is still a constant drumbeat of fists on the hull of the ship of state, and, especially locally, small groups of determined people, often women, achieve amazing successes.

Do you really think he will be impeached?

Ed

 

[cantdog]

He's guilty of the proper offenses for it, but impeachment is done by the legislative branch. Already there is an appreciation on the Hill that the steamroller is about to hit the Republic. Google for the Centrist coalition, a bipartisan group of Senators and congressfolk, concerned that a lot of babies are being thrown out with some rather nice bathwater.

Take the big kahuna right now, the Court nominations. This is the Judiciary Committee's baby, in the Senate.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) is in line to chair the committee. Specter isn't great, but he says he's pro-choice, and he recently said President Bush would do better not to nominate anti-choice judges for the Supreme Court. With the right to reproductive choice, defined by Roe vs. Wade, hanging in the balance by just one vote They need Justices who will vote to overturn it.

Specter's chairmanship of
the Judiciary Committee represents one of our best hopes of stopping Them. So They are trying to keep Specter from getting the post.

The silver lining in this situation is that the right wing's threats against Specter also threaten, implicitly, Snowe and Collins' hard-earned leadership posts. Our senators have every reason to object to Republican leaders marginalizing moderates like them. Those are my Maine Senators I'm talking about. They're reps, but they're real reps, conservatives as opposed to radical anti-statists like the Bushies.

So being from Maine, I get to affect things a little more, maybe, in the fight to prevent the overturn of Roe v. Wade. But there will be a good many lines drawn between real republicans and fundie nutjob republicans, and all of us can help. Even looking at the name on the masthead at your Senator's office and seeing a Republican doesn't mean you have to hide.

 

[cantdog]

I know I ducked the question about impeachment, a little. There was little progress on it while a close election was to be held, but it ought to come back soon, and I look to the Centrists to do it if anyone can.

 

[Edward Teach]

I know I ducked the question about impeachment, a little. There was little progress on it while a close election was to be held, but it ought to come back soon, and I look to the Centrists to do it if anyone can.

I like your positive attitude, cant. As I recall you were positive about the election also.

I am normally an optimist but frankly, I don't see much hope with this crowd.

My senators are Elizabeth Dole and newly elected Richard Burr. My congressman is Howard Coble. No help from any of them.

Coble and his people talk a good game and if you need a small favor they will help but anyting of substance, forget it. Hell, I couldn't even get an INS, IRS or Labor Dept investigation of a company hiring illegal aliens and bilking the government out of an estimated $7.5 million a year in taxes. And I had some proof and witnesses for them. After promising an investigation for two years and my having conversations with the IRS and Labor Dept, Coble finally admitted that no one cared about illegal aliens and there was nothing he could do about it.

Although I am friends with Mel Watt and usually go to him, he is almost powerless these days and is the first to admit it.

I can't see forsee anything being done to curb Bush.

Ed

edited to change the number 75million to 7.5 million. I just noticed my typing error and wanted to correct it for the record

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I know I ducked the question about impeachment, a little. There was little progress on it while a close election was to be held, but it ought to come back soon, and I look to the Centrists to do it if anyone can.

If Clinton wasn't impeached, it seems unlikely Bush will be. Even if he should somehow leave office, does a Dick Cheeny presidency sound significantly better than what we have now?

 

[Edward Teach]

If Clinton wasn't impeached, it seems unlikely Bush will be. Even if he should somehow leave office, does a Dick Cheeny presidency sound significantly better than what we have now?

There is no way to even get hearings on Bush. Hell, he and Cheney didn't even testify before the 9-11 commission under oath, and in fact didn't even testify separately.

Ed

 

[cantdog]

The challenge is important just the same, in a small way. I think a good many reps are leery of Bush-- there have been pundits predicting a cleavage in the dominant party along conservative/ radical lines once the election went to Bush.

They were speaking about the time of the first debate, when about all Kerry had done was defeat the anti-war candidate with the help of his party leadership, and then play reactionary to the egregious lies of the Swift Boaters and the rest of that stuff. All he'd done, then, since defeating Dean, was defend himself against smears, and the campaign was floundering for having no direction and no issues. It looked like Bush would have to win, since no opposition had materialized.

The idea was, there were a lot of members of the established bureaucracy and military brass, many of whom were conservative, who were making it known that the civilian Pentagon, Rummy and Wolfowitz and Doulas Feith and so on were not acting in the best interests of the country of the men in the field.

The same with the CIA and diplomatic staffers who felt the civilian leadership was missing the boat on intelligence matters. Conservative, largely republican senators and congresspeople were hearing this from them, and they didn't trust the Likudniks and Fundies much, either.

Since Kerry's campaign was on the defensive, the wisdom was, Bush would win and the poor direction from those quarters would carry even more weight. The result was supposed to be an effective split within republican ranks, and that was likely to be the story of the next term of Dubya Bush.

Well, after that, Kerry picked up the ball and the Move On people and Jerry;s True Majority people mobilized a lot of new voters. Suddenly it appeared maybe Bush could go down, so we haven't heard much from the pundits about the disunity in the GOP.

And then he did win, on the penis vote from what they tell us, people who are more concerned with gays than anything else. Whatever. He won, and the split they spoke of is beginning to show a little.

It gives me hope that the absolute party majorities may not mean carte blanche, anyway.

After all, even if the majority in this country is not pro-gay-marriage, yet, it can't be doubted that the substantial majority of the public is pro-choice, even if they find, as I do, something to object to in casual abortion.

So moving to secure an anti-choice court is in fact moving to thwart the desires of the majority of Americans. This can't help but be a factor, as long as we all keep hounding them.

This is one issue where the people, not the Bushies, hold the whip hand. They'll have to cheat hard to accomplish the overturn of Roe v. Wade even under current conditions.

I think.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I think over on the west coast, there is a sort of morbid fascination at just how deeply the North and the South despise each other. The wounds of the Civil War never really healed and many on both sides have been raised from birth to hate those on the other side. It makes me wonder sometimes whether it might not have secretly been better if the schism had succeeded and the regionalistic hatred could be replaced with nationalistic hatred.

You'll notice I don't post anything about unity in this mostly because for a great majority the stereotypes have become the whole of the thing. The Southerners are ignorants in the mind of the North. They are the racist pigs who like to lynch blacks because they can't get their way. They're the ones who talk about 'dem fags. They're the ones who would have nothing without the North. This is how the North looks on them and the North in the minds of the South are a bunch of assholes. Sin and money-obsessed superficial people with false intellectualism, anti-white anti-religion bigots, and Carpetbaggers who have nothing better to do than interfere with their ways of life. It's the same old Civil War with the same old prejudices and to those in the midwest and west who've always been on the sidelines watching on, it's just been intriguing.

As far as the comment on regionalistic stereotypes as well as the ones on living with stereotypical people, I definitely know a thing or two about it. I live and grew up in San Diego, a place well known as Surfer City and Good Attitude Land. I, on the otherhand, am dark-haired, hate surfing, and have what one friend referred to as a "Seattle personality". I went to school in Hitler's wet dream where the mothers had boob jobs, the children were all extroverted Aryans, and all that jazz.

No region or country I think willl ever be perfectly clean of any form of prejudice and the fact that there are many who so painfully exemplify those prejudices makes it harder in a way. Still, I think it is always a mark of personal strength to go against the expected.

 

[sweetnpetite]

The original post is hate speech. It's hate, spewed out viciously, capitalizing on every hurtful, negative stereotype it can conjure. Purely and simply, a hatemonger, spewing filth.

Had the target been blacks or Muslims, gays, or hispanics, I would expect all of the liberals here to have gone off on Cantdog like he was Amicus and realguyusa rolled up into one. Passionate condemnations citing how hate isn't right and stereotyping is wrong.

The target however is southerners, so it's funny and ironic, not hateful. And you call yourselves enlightened? I call it hypocracy. We will laugh now and save out outrage for hatespeech that attcks something we like. Very eglatarian.

The only difference I see in southern bigots and liberal bigots is who you hate. This election you are all showing your true colors. The GOP has capitalized on you are with us or against us? They aren't even in your league. With liberals, it's you are with us or you are stupid.

Over the last two years posting here, I learned to have a good deal of respect for a lot of the posters here. Over the eleven days since the election, I have lost a huge amount of it.

You aren't smater. You aren't more compasionate. You aren't any less prejudiced. It's just a matter of who you dislike and stereotype isn't it?

I promised to stay out of the poli threads, but this isn't political, it's just hateful. A wounded animal, blindly and viciously striking out at people you don't even know well enough to call your enemies. But you think you know them well enough to laugh at someone giving a speech that would be perfectly at home at a Klan rally, were the target blacks. Or at Nuremberg, were the target Jews.

-Colly

Well, I guess I'm a bigot then.

I also think Dave Chapelle is funny.

I'm a feminist too, but I like this joke-

How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Answer: That's not funny!

Sometimes I laugh at blond jokes.

Sometimes I laugh at George Carlin.

Sometimes I laugh at Andrew Dice Clay.

I think Archy Bunker (the bigot of all time) is funny, too.

I do realize that sometimes bigotry is disguised as humour, but on the other hand-

Sometimes humour isn't PC.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well, I guess I'm a bigot then.

I also think Dave Chapelle is funny.

I'm a feminist too, but I like this joke-

How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Answer: That's not funny!

Sometimes I laugh at blond jokes.

Sometimes I laugh at George Carlin.

Sometimes I laugh at Andrew Dice Clay.

I think Archy Bunker (the bigot of all time) is funny, too.

I do realize that sometimes bigotry is disguised as humour, but on the other hand-

Sometimes humour isn't PC.

In oh... 1939 I think or perhaps 1940, this piece of film was shot. It was four old women on thier hands and knees cleaning the sidewalk with buckets of cold water while some SS officers looked on and made jokes. I want to say it was from Prague, but I think maybe it was Warsaw. Any way, the ironic thing was, they were cleaning up the blood from a reprisal killing and, bucket of laughs, their husbands had been the victims. Ironic see? Ha ha.

Back during Jim Crow, in my home state, Govenor Bilbo was the main character in a running joke. See, if someone were about to be lynched, he had the authority to send in national guardsmen to stop it. Of course, only the govenor could call them up. He never did of course, the running joke was that whenever their was a lynching going on, he was out of the office, even if that meant stepping out onto the veranda for a cigar. That way his aides could say he wasn't in and no one else had the authority to call them up. Great Joke huh?

Stereotypes aren't funny. They lead to a callousness towards the stereotyped group. The kind of callousness that could let people laugh at old jewish women or chuckle with a govenor who wouldn't lift a finger to stop a lynching.

You have the right to hate whomever you want SnP. The constitution protects that right. Just like it protects the right of Klansmen to hate blacks, or homophobes to hate Gays. And you have a right to laugh at hateful speech. Just like they do. So by all means, giggle away at this kind of dehumanizing "humor". Just remember what kind of company you are in when you do.

-Colly

 

[sweetnpetite]

there's hate

and then there's anger



what I saw in the article was anger. is it bigeted to be angry now too?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

there's hate

and then there's anger



what I saw in the article was anger. is it bigeted to be angry now too?

Well, lets see.

If something of this nature ahd been directed at Gays, would you be laughing?

Would it be as funny if the group targeted were blacks?

Would you defend it if the group being demonized were Muslims?

Would you feel, maybe a little uncomfortable if the person were attacking hispanics in such a manner?

Or would it be Ok? Would it be ok if they told you they were just mad and not bigoted?

You could be pissed, at say, the voters who turned out and voted Bush in. You would have zero right to be so, since they are allowed to vote and voted their convictions, but you could at least claim anger in that case. If you kept your anger, focused on the people who actually did vote him in, you could at least try to defend it.

This author, however, went after all southerners. Not a specific group of voters, but a wide class of folks that includes not only Bush supporters, but Kerry supporters as well. One nice convienint package of people to hate, attack and demonize.

On a slightly more personal level, just who was he attacking when he attacked southerners?

Cloudy, Lisa, Rumple Foreskin, Me, Eddie Teach. You can't say he didn't mean them, they are all southerners, either because they live there or because that's who they identify themselves as.

So who is he angry at? All Southerners? If so he is a bigot in every sense of the word. If he is just angry at those who voted differently than he did, well, he's allowed to be angry. But if he is going to foster his anger upon a stereotype and apply that across the board to include all southerners. What would you call it?

 

[Guest]

I decided to look into this thread cos of a couple posters I like and admire. I won't go into the arguement about double-edged bigotry, but I do want to state this:

The beginning 'article' was definitely not ironic, witty or humourous. It did not make me grin, let alone laugh. Its core is anger and spite and reads like a puerile and silly (but for the offense directed at a whole population) personally violent screed. This is not directed at anyone here, but if I had read this outside this forum I would have thought the people who found it funny could be characterized like those the piece was railing against.

Really getting more impatient by the day with this forum, not to mention all the ill will generated post by post.

Perdita

 

[cloudy]

I decided to look into this thread cos of a couple posters I like and admire. I won't go into the arguement about double-edged bigotry, but I do want to state this:

The beginning 'article' was definitely not[/i] ironic, witty or humourous. It did not make me grin, let alone laugh. Its core is anger and spite and reads like a puerile and silly (but for the offense directed at a whole population) personally violent screed. This is not directed at anyone here, but if I had read this outside this forum I would have thought the people who found it funny could be characterized like those the piece was railing against.

Really getting more impatient by the day with this forum, not to mention all the ill will generated post by post.

Perdita

Thank you, Perdita, for letting me know that I wasn't just "taking it wrong," and that I do "get it."

 

[Huckleman2000]

Well, lets see.

If something of this nature ahd been directed at Gays, would you be laughing?

Would it be as funny if the group targeted were blacks?

Would you defend it if the group being demonized were Muslims?

Would you feel, maybe a little uncomfortable if the person were attacking hispanics in such a manner?

Or would it be Ok? Would it be ok if they told you they were just mad and not bigoted?

You could be pissed, at say, the voters who turned out and voted Bush in. You would have zero right to be so, since they are allowed to vote and voted their convictions, but you could at least claim anger in that case. If you kept your anger, focused on the people who actually did vote him in, you could at least try to defend it.

This author, however, went after all southerners. Not a specific group of voters, but a wide class of folks that includes not only Bush supporters, but Kerry supporters as well. One nice convienint package of people to hate, attack and demonize.

On a slightly more personal level, just who was he attacking when he attacked southerners?

Cloudy, Lisa, Rumple Foreskin, Me, Eddie Teach. You can't say he didn't mean them, they are all southerners, either because they live there or because that's who they identify themselves as.

So who is he angry at? All Southerners? If so he is a bigot in every sense of the word. If he is just angry at those who voted differently than he did, well, he's allowed to be angry. But if he is going to foster his anger upon a stereotype and apply that across the board to include all southerners. What would you call it?

The difference is that "Southerners", in the context of the piece in question, are the people in power in that region. Plus, he cited valid statistics that directly contradict the value messages that powered those people into positions of authority.

Humor is a uniquely human way of dealing with built-up tension. Since anger and guilt can build tension, humor can stem from angry and even cruel roots. Sometimes, it touches places that seem nonsensical, yet have a visceral resonance - the non sequitur. Historically, those in positions of power or privlege are prime targets for ridicule in subversive comedy.

The cruel humor of the SS is not funny to us because we are not the ones with tension and anger that needs release in that situation. We see it for the cruelty it is. Your example of the Governor having a cigar to ignore the lynchings also shows a cruelty, but I'm not sure it does anything to dispel the stereotypes you're so against. Quite the contrary.

When I read that piece, of course I knew that the author's anger towards "the South" wasn't really all people who live in Southern states. Just as I know that people in Europe protesting against the US aren't angry at ALL of us. I think he made it pretty clear that he was angry at people who shared a pretty well-defined set of attitudes that, held up to some facts, seemed ridiculous. And those ridiculous viewpoints inspired enough voters in certain states (not just the South, but showing a remarkable overlap with pre-Civil War tolerance to slavery) to vote in an apparently nonsensical manner, ie, their reasons for voting in the way they did reflect a cognitive dissonance. Look here
and here

I don't think everyone in the South is a Bush voter. In fact, even at the county level (see this map ), Bush voters were spread all over the country, but he really carried the rural areas and some conservative urban areas. Ed made this same point earlier, via USA Today.

And yes, people are angry at Bush voters. And no, you can't tell them that they have no right to be angry simply because Bush voters "are allowed to vote and voted their convictions." The whole point of the article was that a vote for Bush is, in effect, against most of those convictions.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I decided to look into this thread cos of a couple posters I like and admire. I won't go into the arguement about double-edged bigotry, but I do want to state this:

The beginning 'article' was definitely not ironic, witty or humourous. It did not make me grin, let alone laugh. Its core is anger and spite and reads like a puerile and silly (but for the offense directed at a whole population) personally violent screed. This is not directed at anyone here, but if I had read this outside this forum I would have thought the people who found it funny could be characterized like those the piece was railing against.

Really getting more impatient by the day with this forum, not to mention all the ill will generated post by post.

Perdita

Thanks for your opinion, Mom.

Rants are the foundation of a lot of humor. Dennis Miller, Dennis Leary, Lenny Bruce, John Cleese (in Fawlty Towers, his rant about the Germans is an over-the-top classic!) Sorry if they're not your cup of tea, but they are a pretty standard comedic idiom.

Comparing this article to SS films and jokes about the tacit government sanction of lynchings is preposterous. "Buy your own fucking stop signs" is not "Kill all Jews". "[N]o, you can't have your convention in New York next time. Fuck off." is not the same as "Ya'll go lynch a niggah while Ah steps onta the verandah here to enjoy some fine tabaccy." In fact, the only violence the writer wishes on "the South" is to take "their" metaphorical bullshit and shove it up their collective asses.

Oh, and this is not directed at anyone here, but if I had read the article outside the forum, I would have thought that people who would take personal offense to it should get an enema.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Thanks for your opinion, Mom.

Rants are the foundation of a lot of humor. Dennis Miller, Dennis Leary, Lenny Bruce, John Cleese (in Fawlty Towers, his rant about the Germans is an over-the-top classic!) Sorry if they're not your cup of tea, but they are a pretty standard comedic idiom.

Comparing this article to SS films and jokes about the tacit government sanction of lynchings is preposterous. "Buy your own fucking stop signs" is not "Kill all Jews". "[N]o, you can't have your convention in New York next time. Fuck off." is not the same as "Ya'll go lynch a niggah while Ah steps onta the verandah here to enjoy some fine tabaccy." In fact, the only violence the writer wishes on "the South" is to take "their" metaphorical bullshit and shove it up their collective asses.

Oh, and this is not directed at anyone here, but if I had read the article outside the forum, I would have thought that people who would take personal offense to it should get an enema.

Oooooooooh!!!! A master-(baiter).

Did you read the post you replied to? Take the last paragraph of that post and the last paragraph of yours and look at the two.

Living in Texas the initial post was aimed at me, it was meant to be offensive hate-filled ranting but posted on a site called fuckthesouth I can take it anyway I want. I assume it was meant to be off-color humour but your defense of it seems to be the end result of an enema. I didn't take offense at the initial post, but yes, your baiting almost got me. Then I just blew it off as being "the most ignorant AND most vocal."

In your reply to a post above that as you attempted to explain to Colly what a southerner is, your baiting was again good, but I just can't take you seriously enough to get upset.

I live in Texas, there is no south, there is no southern mindset, there is no civil war. My neighbors are Americans, many are different colors than me and born in different countries, but they are my neighbors, good neighbors, and Americans.

I can laugh at hate-filled rantings directed at the non-existant south sir, but for you to defend that ranting is what is preposterous.

P.S. I don't think I like you calling my mum perdita Mom, but like I said, you didn't get me mad, so "have a nice day."

 

[rgraham666]

Excuse me people but,

ENOUGH!!!!!

 

[Lisa Denton]

Excuse me people but,

ENOUGH!!!!!

I'ma sorry RG, I was bad. But I wasn't mad, he, he.

 

[cantdog]

Mea culpa.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Mea culpa.

I'm on these pain pills cantdog, please forgive me?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

deleted in order to let this thread die.