Government Spending

Obama's Spending Cuts. No, Really!

|

Though Barack Obama's promised "net spending cut" remains arguably the biggest of the president's campaign whoppers, the Washington Times is reporting that the White House has actually succeeded in trimming some federal programs:

President Obama notched substantial successes in spending cuts last year, winning 60 percent of his proposed cuts and managing to get Congress to ax several programs that had bedeviled President George W. Bush for years.

The administration says Congress accepted at least $6.9 billion of the $11.3 billion in discretionary spending cuts Mr. Obama proposed for the current fiscal year. An analysis by The Washington Times found that Mr. Obama was victorious in getting Congress to slash 24 programs and achieved some level of success in reducing nine other programs.

Among the president's victories are canceling the multibillion-dollar F-22 Raptor program, ending the LORAN-C radio-based ship navigation system and culling a series of low-dollar education grants. In each of those cases, Mr. Obama succeeded in eliminating programs that Mr. Bush repeatedly failed to end.

Not much evidence of a deep "analysis" at the link, though the newspaper did point out that the cuts "still account for well less than one-half of 1 percent of the total federal budget."

Link via Andrew Sullivan.

NEXT: Beware the ObamaCare Revolution

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 1) It’s Sullivan. Don’t click the link it’s a tarp.

    2) WTF no morning links. How am I going to know what is going on in the world of the feminist blogosphere.

    1. I refuse to click on the link. But I assume the little bastard is trumping this as proof that the Obamasiah is delivering.

      1. Yes, he unironically predicts that no “right-wing” news site will publish this evidence showing how much more fiscally prudent Obama is than Bush was.

        1. I figured as much. Thanks for looking.

          1. Takin one for the team, very noble. Got enough eye-bleach?

    2. Don’t click the link it’s a tarp.

      RC’z law, Fruedian slip, or deliberate subtle joke?

        1. In the PC game Star Wars: Empire at War, if you click on Admiral Ackbar’s ship, he says “Beware of Traps!”

          1. I love that game. The voice actor imitators aren’t that great, though.

      1. The force is strong in Hmm. How dare you question his funny.

    3. “How am I going to know what is going on in the world of the feminist blogosphere.”: Ask your wife when she gets home from work. Don’t forget to wear something nice cause she may have had a hard day and wants to see something pretty.

      1. She hates feminists. So I don’t think she will help much.

        Is that you crazy lady that is obsessed with me? I miss you.

        1. I get it: you are married to a guy. We don’t discriminate at the HHA.

          1. Actually she’s a transgender pre-op Irish-Scot midget wrestler with a harelip, cleft palate and wooden leg.

            I did miss you my lil’ country club muffin. I had to do with some statist cop apologist for a while. It wasn’t the same.

            1. I to have been entertaining myself annoying a libertarian and I admit it is a ton of fun. I was going to ask you about taking a spot out of a shirt but I had someone else take care of it.

  2. “With this much shit, there’s just got to be a pony in here somewhere!”

    1. I thought it was a unicorn. GOD DAMNIT I VOTED FOR A FUCKING UNICORN. WHERE THE FUCK IS MY UNICORN!

      1. Unicorns barf rainbows and poop Formula 409.

        THAT’S SCIENCE I’M DROPPIN’ ON YA!

        1. So where the hell are my rainbows and 409?

          1. You didn’t belieeeeeeeve enough.

            Your unicorn died. Painfully. Died of cancer of the hope. Died over a course of two months. And then Steve Smith ate and raped your unicorn for week.Steve Smoth raped your unicorn with his penis and Steve Smith ate your unicorn with his mouth. In the rain. And now Steve Smith humps your unicorn’s horn, bones, and hooves three times a day. Except Wednesdays. Four times on Wednesdays. Four times.

            Because of you.

            1. Every time someone doesn’t hope, Steve Smith rapes a unicorn.

              1. Rapes it with his penis.

            2. STEVE SMITH NOT RAPE UNICORN! NO SUCH THING! STEVE RAPE NARWHAL! NUTRADOPE TOO STUPID TO TELL DIFFERENCE! NUTRAMORON NOT UNDERSTAND SUBTLETIES OF RAPING EQUINES VERSUS CETACEANS!

                1. STEVE NOT CALM DOWN! WANT TO DISCUSS RAPE TECHNIQUES! PACHYDERMS ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT, BUT STEVE HAS SEEN NUTRAJERK’S WIFE AND REALIZES HE UNDERSTANDS!

              1. from Narwhal.org For centuries, the tusk of the narwhal has fascinated and baffled.
                Narwhal tusks, up to nine feet long, were sold as unicorn horns in ages past, often for many times their weight in gold since they were said to possess magic powers. In the 16th century, Queen Elizabeth received a tusk valued at ?10,000 – the cost of a castle.

                Even a Queen was fooled. Don’t be so petulent with teh episiarch.

                1. We all know why QEI wanted the horn. Crazy bitch used to fuck horses for their huge crank. I wonder if that’s the kind of “virgin” the Muslim Extremists are gonna get in Paradise. Horse-fucking fire-down-below dominatrix types. Dig it.

            3. And no… I don’t know who “Steve Smoth” is. Can’t believe I didn’t wear my typin’ fingers to work to day.

            4. Now I’m sad. I wanted a rainbow. And I hoped so hard.

        2. And the fart renewable natural gas when ridden by a naked Obamasiah.

        3. Formula 409? Windex REPRESENT

        4. I’d rather have Windex. It’s good for everything. And it has a greek origin.

        5. Is it peer reviewed?

  3. Greaaaaattttt. That $6.9 billion will go a long way to making up the $700+ billion we pissed away on “stimulus” spending. I will, however, start supporting Obama whole heartedly if he can guarantee that I can start using his math on my personal finances. I’d love to buy a new car, forgo a soda in turn, and be able to come out ahead.

  4. Of course the cuts tend to hit defense contractors, hardly reliable Democratic cronies. Meanwhile he spent $700 billion dollars mostly to subsidized state public employees, very reliable Dem cronies.

  5. Among the president’s victories are canceling the multibillion-dollar F-22 Raptor program […]

    One small victory for Obama, one giant loss for plastic model kit makers!

    1. Nah – we’ll give them a bailout. Instead of F-22 kits we’ll have them make naked Obama on unicorn model kits.

      1. Re: TXLimey,

        Instead of F-22 kits we’ll have them make naked Obama on unicorn model kits.

        Hmm, that I may be able to stomach, only because it would not be more ridiculous than the Obama Chia pet . . . as long as they don’t come up with a naked Michelle riding a unicorn. Now THAT would make me hurl.

  6. It’s like looking at a newspaper cartoon from the early 60’s where the husband is upset because of the amount his wife has spent shopping, and she replies, “But look how much I saved by buying this stuff on sale!”

    1. From the 60s? Heck I hear that from my wife every time she goes shopping.

  7. A paper cut is deeper than BHO’s spending cut!

  8. The administration says Congress accepted at least $6.9 billion of the $11.3 billion in discretionary spending cuts Mr. Obama proposed for the current fiscal year.

    Those are huge savings – I mean, they represent a whopping 0.88% of just the Stimulus Spending Bill. Man, I would like to have Obama as MY financial advisor any day! He can tell my wife to stop buying the Loreal red nail polish for a whopping 0.88% savings from our home budget! I mean, the man is a genius!

  9. he didn’t save the money, he just spent it on other (wasteful) things.

  10. It’s easy to be an ideologically pure bitch when you’re in the minority and have no power or influence. While this describes Republicans now (would they have let the banks and auto industry fail if they had power?) it describes libertarians perpetually.

    1. It is easy to excuse your parties failures and hypocrisy when you are an unthinking partisan hack. Isn’t it Tony?

      1. I though libertarians controlled EVERYTHING. You mean Naomi Klein is a lying bitch? What the fuck?

        1. All 25 of you are responsible for all the world’s evil. If we could rid to the world of the Libertarian cabal (along with its real source of power, Nick Gillespie’s leather jacket) we could finally usher in peace and prosperity.

          1. All 25 of you are responsible for all the world’s evil.

            We’re all Jews? I didn’t know that. No wonder I love lox so much.

        2. Libertarianism must be some kind of perverse ultra-superpower. You don’t know that you have the power, but it destroys everything good in the world.

          Libertarianism wiped out the unicorns, donchaknow. They once darkened the plains of Democratopia, their thunderous hooves pounding out a massive wave of rightiousness and good, but no more.

          1. And never once did I get a good unicorn steak outta the deal. I see what you mean, JW.

        3. You misunderstand. Libertarians just supply the ideological excuse for plutocrats to suck wealth out of populations and keep it for themselves. They are the ones who control everything, you’re just their bitches.

          1. Stop spoofing Tony, will ya?

            You tip your hand; NOBODY is that stupid.

          2. Re: Tony,

            Libertarians just supply the ideological excuse for plutocrats to suck wealth out of populations and keep it for themselves.

            You really believe that nonsense? What, didn’t Obama’s gift to the Auto Worker Unions and the banks tell you anything about WHO plunders the tax producer and gives to plutocrats and cronies?

            Please, tell me – HOW does Libertarianism excuse wholesale plunder? So far, I have read YOUR justification for it: Tax producers must feed the tax consumers for the “common good”, or something like that. What does Libertarian philosophy ever come close to say that?

            1. It’s Klein’s argument, not mine. Libertarians, with their small government, low taxes, social welfare purging mantra provide just the fairy tale plutocrats need to give their plunder the patina of moral legitimacy.

              1. Re: Tony,

                Libertarians, with their small government, low taxes, social welfare purging mantra provide just the fairy tale plutocrats need to give their plunder the patina of moral legitimacy.

                You did not answer my question – WHAT does the libertarian philosophy SAY that would allow plutocrats to plunder? Why would small government or low taxes be the so-called “Patina” to allow plutocrats to plunder? Last I saw, they cannot do that WITHOUT Big Government.

                1. Klein gives several examples of the U.S. toppling democratically elected governments and Milton Friedman acolytes descending and installing “free market” based systems, and describes the ensuing misery these countries’ populations experience. An unintended consequence is these countries tend to elect very far left governments once we leave, having had a taste of being ruled by foreign corporations instead of a democratically responsive government.

                  1. Re: Tony,

                    Klein gives several examples of the U.S. toppling democratically elected governments and Milton Friedman acolytes descending and installing “free market” based systems,

                    Milton Freeman “acolytes”? Are you taking this seriously?

                    […] and describes the ensuing misery these countries’ populations experience.

                    You mean from the so-called “free market” reforms or from the subsequent regimes that supposedly were the result of the toppling?

                    An unintended consequence is these countries tend to elect very far left governments once we leave, having had a taste of being ruled by foreign corporations instead of a democratically responsive government.

                    The only example I cna think of is Chile, and their so-called “leftist” government of Michelle Bachelet is not changing any of the market reforms generated during the Pinochet regime. Pinochet, by the way, was no free market believer – in the end, he allowed the reforms because his policies were just as bad as Allende’s.

                    I take it Tony that you are a very gullible person. You really took all of Klein’s assertions hook, line and sinker, without any critical thought.

                  2. Yes of course. Chile would be so much better off today if Pinochet hadn’t overthrown the Communists. It might have ended up the like the paradise of Venuzuela.

              2. uhh, u high?

          3. So Libertarians have no power or influence, yet somehow provide the justification for plutocrats to plunder America. You manage to completely contradict yourself within the span of 20 minutes.

            1. Logical consistency is another libertarian conspiracy

              1. Hobgoblins everywhere around this joint.

      2. Ask Karl Rove. I don’t see any failure or hypocrisy. I see the administration being a very good steward of the economy in very trying times. The bailouts are likely going to be paid for at much cheaper the cost that a great depression would have been. The Fed recorded record profits, which go to the treasury. Obama has successfully gotten defense cuts–which is exactly where most cuts should be coming from. And this is all during a period when the deficit shouldn’t be the main concern. If they can be faulted for anything it’s not growing the deficit larger in order to really tackle jobs. But they can’t do that as well as they should with a bunch of disingenuous fiscal hawks running around.

        1. I don’t see any failure or hypocrisy. I see the administration being a very good steward of the economy in very trying times.

          Oh man, that is hilarious.

        2. Oh yeah that is right. Unemployment was going to stay at 8% if only we passed the stimulus. How is that working out? And the stimulus was supposed to be a collection of shovel ready Keynesian projects. Oh but most of it ended up going to cover state budget so that Democratic Union thugs wouldn’t have to take pay or employment cuts.

          Meanwhile, Obama is not even aware that there is a problem with the economy. He is entirely focuesed on passing a health care plan no one wants and getting TSA to electronically strip search anyone getting on an airplane. Unsurprisingly a majority of the wouldn’t vote to re-elect him and it looks like you are about to loose the governorship of New Jersey and Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat in the span of two months. Yeah, things are just going great for The Obama. You just keep digging through that shit. There is a unicorn in there somewhere.

        3. Cutting defense Tony? Obama is spending over $700 billion dollars on his wars next year. Are you going to join up to fight his wars? I fought in Bush’s wars. When are you going to fight in Obama’s wars? Or do you just like to send other people off to fight your wars? Fucking chickenhawk.

          1. I’m against both wars and always have been. I agree that it’s an enormous waste of resources and lives.

            1. but you will do everything to support Obama anyway.

              1. What choice do I have?

          2. CHICKEN HAWK!!!

        4. The Fed recorded record profits…

          Since when did you support private banks making record profits?

          1. It’s not like the Fed needed to steal underpants to turn a profit. They can add 0’s to bank legers, in exchange for shares.

        5. Re: Tony,

          I see the administration being a very good steward of the economy in very trying times.

          Yeah, that is what my wife says when she runs up the limits on our credit cards: “But, honey, I have been a good steward of YOUR money!”

          Public administrations cannot be good stewards of any economy, Tony, because of the lnowledge problem – it seems like bureaucrats are incapable of READING MINDS and know what each and EVERY person’s wants and needs are. Only individuals can be stewards of the economy. This is the very reason why your assertion is riddle with gullibility and a naivette that makes one think you also see beautiful ponies and unicorns dancing around.

          1. OM I’m not the purist here. Your thinking is severely flawed by your inability to see that there is such a thing as a group of people, and that macroeconomic dynamics are affected in all sorts of ways that can’t be predicted or handled by microeconomic platitudes.

            1. Re: Tony,

              Your thinking is severely flawed by your inability to see that there is such a thing as a group of people, and that macroeconomic dynamics are affected in all sorts of ways that can’t be predicted or handled by microeconomic platitudes.

              Tony, it is really difficult to explain things it took me years to learn and years to UNlearn. I will try, though:

              a) Macroeconomics is just a name for the aggregate information collected by economists on certain industries and activities that are obvious. It is just an APPROXIMATION of what’s going on. The collected information is not instantaneous, which means it is already obsolete by the time it reaches the people it was meant to inform.
              b) People don’t make decisions collectively – that’s imposible, we’re all single minds. Only individuals choose.
              c) A group of people making decisions on interventions in the market can only see part of the economic activity going on, and cannot grasp how each part relates to the other without resorting to very complex modeling, which will never ever replicate the millions of decisions made by individuals each very second.

              All of this means that the macroeconomic dynamics cannot be known by a single person or a few people – you can only obtain an approximation, a mirage. Decisions made with this limited information will never generate the effect it was supposed to have, because a) people act purporsefully, meaning that any intervention will be countered by resourcefull people, and b) because of the limited information, the intervention will never solve the problem it was purported to solve.

              1. OM has the stamina of a fucking marathon runner when it comes to combating stupid in H&R comments. Seriously you deserve a medal.

                1. I can’t go more than three of four posts before the snark gets me. Well I can with MNG, but he likes the nuanced nit picking rather than the outright left field retard approach. So I can argue with and even kinda like him. /swoon

              2. What you’re not getting is this: To you and me the individual is real and society is the abstraction. For some other folks it’s the other way around.

                1. Re: DWCarkuff,

                  Let me tell you that while I agree with you, you will see that people who believe in the collective over the individual are quick to appeal for their inidvidual rights when the so-called “representatives” of the collective come after them.

                2. Why are they mutually exclusive?

                  1. Why are WHAT THINGS mutually exclusive?

                    1. Individuals and collectives. I believe in both. It’s nonsense to believe that millions of individuals interacting won’t produce emergent and unpredictable effects, so focusing only on the individual is being myopic.

                    2. Besides, when you focus on individuals, you really only mean yourself. It’s why libertarianism is properly the domain of teenaged boys. All the freedom you think you deserve to act as you please you wouldn’t extend to your neighbor once you realize the consequences of that much “freedom.”

                    3. Re: Tony,

                      Besides, when you focus on individuals, you really only mean yourself.

                      Wow – really, Tony, you’re the master of the non sequitur.

                      All the freedom you think you deserve to act as you please you wouldn’t extend to your neighbor once you realize the consequences of that much “freedom.”

                      . . . and you can read minds! Wow, give us another one!

                    4. Re: Tony,

                      Individuals and collectives. I believe in both.

                      They’re not contradictory per se. I don’t understand your question.

                      It’s nonsense to believe that millions of individuals interacting won’t produce emergent and unpredictable effects, so focusing only on the individual is being myopic.

                      I don’t understand how one is the conclusion of the other. When you say that the millions of interactions between individuals produce unpredictable effects is being correct, and in fact, it totally CONTRADICTS your belief that a junta of notables can actually PREDICT what these teeming millions will do and thus intervene with any semblance of effectiveness.

        6. The Fed recorded record profits, which go to the treasury.

          Now that’s funny.

    2. Re: Tony,

      It’s easy to be an ideologically pure bitch when you’re in the minority and have no power or influence.

      I love your non sequiturs, Tony. They are so . . . so . . . irrelevant. You do have the gift.

  11. We still subsidizing mohair?

  12. “It’s easy to be an ideologically pure bitch”

    Self-reflect much?

  13. Tony’s feeling his sockpuppet oats today, I see. Soon Choad will show up (imagine that!) and make lots of work for whoever is behind them.

    1. Here’s the thing:
      I’ve never seen a comment here from this “Choad.” (I don’t even know if it’s an individual or refers to some other Web site like LGF.)
      Apparently it casts a large shadow, however. How could I have missed it EVERY SINGLE TIME?
      Now I’m really beginning to worry there’s some sort of Fight Club thing going on.

      1. The first rule of Chony is that you DO NOT TALK ABOUT CHOAD.

        1. Interviewer: I’ve been told Choad nailed your head to the floor.

          H&R Commenter: No. Never. He was a smashing bloke. He used to buy his mother flowers and that. He was like a brother to me.

          Interviewer: But the police have film of Choad actually nailing your head to the floor.

          H&R Commenter: (pause) Oh yeah, he did that.

          Interviewer: Why?

          H&R Commenter: Well he had to, didn’t he? I mean there was nothing else he could do, be fair. I had transgressed the unwritten law.

          Interviewer: What had you done?

          H&R Commenter: Er. . .well he didn’t tell me that, but he gave me his word that it was the case, and that’s good enough for me with old Choady. I mean, he didn’t *want* to nail my head to the floor. I had to insist. He wanted to let me off. He’d do anything for you, Choad would.

          1. Choad!

            1. Normally Spiny Norman was wont to be about twelve feet from snout to tail, but when Choad was depressed Norman could be anything up to eight hundred yards long. When Norman was about Choad would go very quiet and start wobbling and his nose would swell up and his teeth would move about and he’d get very violent and claim that he’d laid Stanley Baldwin.

              1. I got a contact high from this post.

      2. Choad = Chad, who is the same pathetic whine-troll who posts as Tony and is therefore properly noted as Chony, occasionally Choney or Choady.

        1. So I’m only dense — not insane.
          That’s a relief, in a way.

          1. Oh, you’re insane, too. We all are. IT’S FOREVER IN HERE

            1. I’m mad, you’re mad, we’re all mad here.

              Tea?

              1. Yes, please. Two lumps.

  14. Of course the cuts tend to hit defense contractors, hardly reliable Democratic cronies.

    There are an awful lot of Machinists’ Union members in those Lockheed plants.

  15. I see the administration being a very good steward of the economy in very trying times.

    Wow. Nobody can spoof Tony better than Tony hisself.

    1. Tony is truly unspoofable. He is kind of an ill force of nature like that.

    2. Tony is a spoof. I thought everyone knew that. He’s like Juanita, only less coherent.

      1. Juanita is definitely a spoof. But I think Tony might be real.

      2. I had Tony pegged as real guy. He actually wasn’t consistent enough to appear as performance art to me.

        But I got no problem ignoring Tony from now on.

  16. managing to get Congress to ax several programs that had bedeviled President George W. Bush for years.

    It only hurts when I laugh.

  17. Tony is a spoof.

    Is this a confession?

    1. Hell, no. I waste enough time here posting as Pro Libertate.

  18. Well we know he saved all that money they were spending on the DC school voucher program.

  19. Not just anybody can take “Tony’s” baton and run with it.

    And, I have noticed he seems to be getting more bitterer as time passes. It’s a stressful job; maybe his handlers at the White House should put him in with a less rapacious crowd than this.

  20. “Is this a confession?”
    Holy shit! You might be on to something, P.B.
    Where must you usually go to find a liberal as stereotypical as Tony? That’s right — inside John’s head.

    1. Oh, wait. It was Pro L who said Tony might be a spoof. But John did protest. Too much?

      1. Tony’s spelling is too good to be John.

        1. I also like how his writing style change minute to minute.

          One minute is child-like babbling and the next minute is a semi-coherent sentence with actual arguments in them.

          Tony is a multiple-personality sockpuppet.

        2. And I am paying more attention to my spelling/typing lately.

    2. I would take responsibility for Tony. But it is not me.

    3. Tony spells too well to be John*.

      *Not a dig at John, who I deeply respect.

  21. Tony is real. He’s the semi-sentient result of Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias crapping in Naomi Klein’s diseased cunt for a Canadian fortnight while Paul Krugman chanted his Nobel speech over and over again.

    He’s a commie shitbaby and he knows it. He only comes here for the abuse.

  22. He’s the semi-sentient result of Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias crapping in Naomi Klein’s diseased cunt for a Canadian fortnight

    Spacedocking? It figures.

  23. Nevertheless, a board such as this needs its villains just as much as does professional wrestling.
    So thanks be to whoever created Tony, but it God, John or the Jacket.

    1. Or Yglesis’ rectum, as Epi suggests.

    2. Don’t you think we have enough villains with that whole government thingy?

  24. I don’t mind blatant sock puppets–like Juanita, for instance, who is clearly a joke–or short-term sock puppets. Long-term ones just become annoying. We have enough crazy talk from our real resident partisans. Other than we ideologically and morally pure libertarians, naturally.

  25. ending the LORAN-C radio-based ship navigation system

    Killing a system that actually works; a system that is the only functional backup for a GPS outage; and a system that multiple security groups have called for keeping alive to serve as that backup.

    What a great fucking success that is. Let’s spend some more money propping up union pensions.

    1. Good catch. Apparently the dismantling of the system is going to cost as much as upgrading it:

      Since 1997, the U.S. Government has spent $167 million dollars upgrading LORAN. According to a report on the costs of decommissioning the system, it would cost just as much to shut down as to upgrade to eLORAN. A distinguished panel, commissioned by the Government, determined that keeping LORAN and upgrading it to eLORAN is in the national interest of the U.S. Without a robust and technically different system to provide Precision Navigation and Timing (PNT) information in support of national infrastructure, the U.S. would be vulnerable to potential economic damages in the billions of dollars in the event of a widespread disruption of GPS. This type of disruption is easily within the technical capability of anyone, as GPS jammers are available from several sources. LORAN forms the basis of eLORAN, and should be preserved to protect U.S. national security. Other countries have already embraced and are deploying eLORAN. Further, in Feb 2008, the U.S. officially stated, through the Department of Homeland Security, that LORAN / eLORAN would be the official backup for GPS in the U.S. The reversal of this policy has led to grave economic damage to many who provided LORAN based products and services, and fails to account for the overwhelming public support for the system voiced in a 2007 Request For Comments.

      1. Precision Time is a critical parameter for modern banking systems. They currently use GPS time, and LORAN is the only fielded system that can serve as a replacement during an outage.

        1. I had kinda wondered about that. We used LORAN in the very early stages of Desert Shield before we got our GPS receivers. Short of an ephemerides table and a sextant, there’s not many other ways to navigate in the deep desert.

        2. Yeah?

          For atomicity? Or what?

          /knows nothing about how modern banking is actually conducted. Was still envisioning guys with visors writing very carefully in big vellum folios. With quill pens.

    2. Like I’ve been saying for a while now, if you want to know where Obama will come down on issue, ask yourself whether it is good or bad for America and you’ll find your answer.

  26. Come on – a grain of sand here, a grain of sand there….

  27. Short of an ephemerides table and a sextant, there’s not many other ways to navigate in the deep desert.

  28. I wanted to see the walrus’s penis.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.