Reason Morning Links: Primary Night, Fed Gives Bad Sign on the Economy, Al-Qaeda Recruiting in Iraq

|

NEXT: Is It Crazy to Call Californians Irrational?

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. The Wikileaks thread is dead below, so I am threadjacking this one to let the people I argued with last night know that I thought about it some more, and your concerns are more valid than I allowed at the time.

    I was caught up in a little “our side is right and theirs is wrong, so it doesn’t matter if the people on our side fuck up” and that is really not the best attitude to take. Especially since it explains, for example, most of modern leftism.

    My bad.

    1. Fluffy,

      If you keep being reasonable and thinking through things and changing your opinion for reasonable reasons, they will take your Hit and Run commenter card. Just know you were warned.

    2. I was thinking about that a lot too and reading your comments. I initially had aligned my thinking with yours, but delving deeper into the issue allowed me to re-think things. I think a valid comparison would be to the witness protection program. An expose about that could potentially include names and addresses, thus defeating the whole program.

      The balance required is one which documents what is going on without revealing compromising details that undermine the whole effort. Intelligence gathering involves secrecy, and there’s no way around it. The process should be subject to review, but that review process shouldn’t compromise the specific efforts being undertaken.

      1. If you outed every LE informant to every drug gang in America, you could do a tremendous damage to the country’s ability to fight the war on drugs. If you are like me and don’t agree with drug enforcement, such a result could be viewed as very positive, but not at the price of getting a bunch of innocent people killed.

        1. You’re always more than alright with me, Fluffy. LibertyMike on the other hand…

          1. This calls for a group hug.

            1. Hug away!

          2. Absolutely. Always alright with me too.

          3. I would guess that in any given thread I am more of a dick than I am sensible. It is completely reasonable for you to take a position opposite of mine.

            But even a stopped clock…

    3. What a bunch a homos.

      Is Gay group marriage legal yet?

      1. LOL

        Can I cry on your shoulder, Red Blooded American?

    4. Good morning Fluffy. Apology accapted.

      1. Hell, I was kinda dickish in there, too. But my ire was directed mostly at LibertyMike.

        1. Ya, but its fun to be a dick sometimes.

    5. Well, all that’s left is to sing Kum Bah Ya around a camp fire. Naked.

    6. Oh ya Fluffy, and, +1 for not trying to be like modern leftists.

  2. http://www.youtube.com watch?v=lwoSFQb5HVk

    Best mashup I have seen in a long time. I didn’t know the Kims were so funky.

  3. Bush’s deputy homeland security adviser:
    The US should ban Blackberries, just like the UAE

    1. WTF?

      1. Apparently Blackberry won’t build in special back doors for the authorities to monitor e-mail. So this guy thinks they should be banned until they do. In a twisted way I can see his point. But, he over plays it. The entire counter terror program doesn’t depend on reading black berry e-mails. And the e-mails are stored on the Blackberry itself. If they think the guy is a terrorist and want to read his e-mails get a warrant and seize the damn thing.

        But but but they will argue that would blow their operation. Well yeah, but if they had the right guy would you know take a terrorist off the street. But those motherfuckers would literally watch shit blow up in order to keep from compromising their sources. They just want to listen. They don’t actually want to do anything.

        1. Government proof encryption is a feature not a bug. Especially since the government doesn’t have a particularly strong strategic advantage in available computer time, cracking methods, or secret keeping.

        2. I seem to recall big fights over things like the Clipper chip, where it generally seemed like building in back doors was not to be the status quo. Not in the freedom-loving United States, anyway.

        3. “”If they think the guy is a terrorist and want to read his e-mails get a warrant and seize the damn thing.””

          But how do they know he’s a terrorist if they don’t read his emails?

          As silly as that sounds, that’s the way we play the game. Our government wants intel agencies to search electronic communications for clues. Now that the NSA has their own rooms in the main com hubs around the country, they want to snoop as much traffic as they can. It might be the ultimate in fishing expeditions. Modern countries want to keep an eye on their population this way. In the end Blackberry will lose because of an outdated privacy philosophy.

          One day we may realize there wasn’t a war on privacy, because it takes two sides to fight. This citizeny has deferred to the autorities on this one.

          1. “But how do they know he’s a terrorist if they don’t read his emails?”

            That is a valid point. But there are trillions of e-mails out there. You can’t read them all. So you have to have some basis to figure out which e-mails to read. Now, the NSA has these huge algorithms that look for specific key words and such and winnow it down. But even then it takes other collaborating information to determine who this guy is. It is not like we just read e-mails.

            The problem is these people are lazy. And the bureaucracy is incompetent. The FISA system works fine. The only reason the FBI claims that it takes so long is because their own internal policy requires every FISA request to go to the Director. If they would let their field agents make the request, like they do for every other warrant, they could get a FISA warrant in hours rather than days. If they would fix their own procedures and get off their dead asses, they could get access to everything they needed through the legal system. They only want carte blanche because they are lazy.

            1. “”The problem is these people are lazy””

              It’s not about lazy, it’s about new tools in the 21st century.

      2. WTF indeed.

        Evidently, RIM caved in a way and worked out a deal with Saudi. Not sure about the UAE yet.

        1. …RIM caved in a way and worked out a deal with Saudi. Not sure about the UAE yet.

          So they caved in to the completely thocratic, authoritarian regime, but not the semi-autocratic one? Great.

          1. Last I heard, anyway.

    2. That is fucking appalling.

    3. That is shiver-inducing.

    4. Human Traffickers *BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA*

      *BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA*

      *BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA*

      Is that the code word for “we need martial law” or something?

    5. His kiss-off at the end is great:

      But in the end, it is governments, not private industry, that rule the airwaves and the Internet.

      1. I like the fact that the word “warrant” never appeared in the article.

        1. I just had a Carmen Sandiego flashblack when I read the sacred quoted word.

      2. Asshole!

        How many times must we repeat the line about giving up liberty for security?

        1. Think you may just have the wrong end of the stick buddy.

      3. But hey, you can trust the Republicans to keep government small.

      4. The context is even worse.

        But in the end, it is governments, not private industry, that rule the airwaves and the Internet. The Emirates acted understandably and appropriately: governments should not be timid about using their full powers to ensure that their law enforcement and intelligence agencies are able to keep their citizens safe.

        1. Yeah…it really is too bad the phrase “Orwellian” is now so cliche.

          1. It’s not that it’s Cliche, the citizenry is coming to the understanding that Winston was wrong with his behavior and the ending was just.

        2. “governments should not be timid about using their full powers to ensure that their law enforcement and intelligence agencies are able to keep their citizens safe.”

          fixed

        3. I actually agree that govt should use the fullest extent of its power to protect its citizens’ rights. I don’t favor weak govt.

          But spying on emails without strong reason for suspicion isn’t one of those powers.

    6. If everyone would use public-private key encryption on ALL their emails, these kind of stupid problems go away.

      1. “”If everyone would use public-private key encryption on ALL their emails, these kind of stupid problems go away.””

        Until terrorists execute a big attack where encrypted communication was key to their success. Let’s not forget how much we shit our pants and deferred to authority after 9/11.

        1. It shows the level of stupidity in those organizations that they werent using strong crypto pre-911.

          1. Sure, you could make that argument. But they didn’t need it to scare Americans into understanding the value of redefining privacy.

        2. you know they already tried to make PGP illegal. They classified it as a weapon. Luckily, the guy who they arrested for disseminating it was his case.

          1. Ashcroft was a big part of strong crypto being legalized.

    7. Lawyers, douchebags, hardest hit.

    8. One day the word “warrant” will be one of those words that makes TV news commentators laugh and use air quotes, the way they do for “Constitution” and “freedom” now.

    9. GPG Muthafucka!

  4. Don’t know if anyone linked to this, but it seems appropriate with the plane crash:

    Scientists solve mystery of the Bermuda Triangle

    Turns out, the Earth is just farting massive methane bubbles.

    1. I have heard that one before. Is this a new one or is someone just reusing the old methane bubble theory?

      1. Old. I think they did some additional research — either finding more methane release or additional calculations.

    2. The only “Bermuda Triangle Mystery” is ‘how many people will pay for the next bunkum book or movie.”

      The BTM is a fabrication, concocted by
      1) Ignoring statistics.
      2) Disregarding serious investigations (the report of the military inquiry on the infamous training flight where 6 aircraft were lost is quite explicit on the cause).
      3) Attributing accidents that occurred far away from the Bermuda Triangle (one plane crash that happened near Labrador is often included. So are the sinkings of the Thresher and the Scorpion, both of which happened outside the “Bermuda Triangle.”
      4) Lying about weather conditions (often incidents are claimed to have happened in “good weather” when there were actually major storms in the area.

  5. Why Alaska sees so many airplane crashes.

    Not enough bridges.

    1. Too many nowheres?

    2. Because it’s a really big state, with lots of mountains, bad weather and strong winds?

  6. Greg Gutfeld is opening a Muslim gay bar next to the Ground Zero area mosque:

    http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/08/post-34.html

    1. I hope he calls it Mosque 69.

      1. Mosque 54 would be better.

        1. Iron Sheiks

          Although that’s more of a lemon party than a gay bar.

        2. How about Cairo 52?

      2. “The Camel’s Nose”

        1. This is a good one.

          1. Now that I get it, I agree, that is excellent.

        1. You can put the sign up.

          I’ll just stand behind a blast shield and watch.

          1. The Talibuns.

      3. No, they should call it The Allah Cock Bar

        1. The Brown Star and Crescent

      1. I really like “Grind Zero”.

      2. That is a good one.

    2. I wonder if he is planning to open gay bars next to churches and synagogues, too.

      1. I’d demand that they have hilarious pun-based names inspired by Christianity or Judaism.

        1. “The Eye Of The Needle”
          “The Lazarus Pit”
          “Jawbone”
          “Goliath”
          “Samson’s Beauty Parlor”

          1. The Caped Crusaders

        2. The Holey Ghost

        3. The House of Peter?

        4. MANna

        5. Sodomy and Moria.

          All naked dwarfs all the time.

          1. The sign on the exit could read “Come Bareback Gomorrah”.

      2. If you want to open one next to Fred Phelps’ church, I’ll send you money for that.

        1. I agree, the reason this one next to this particular church is a big deal is because of intolerance. The head of this particular project wants to impose shariah law on the rest of us.

          I have never heard of a Jewish Synagogue that would try to prevent me from eating lobster. If there were I would open a Red Lobster next to one. But there isn’t.

          1. The head of this particular project wants to impose shariah law on the rest of us.

            [citation needed]

            1. Described in one Asian report as an Egyptian citizen living in the U.S., he has repeatedly stated, and writes in his 2004 book, that the U.S. Constitution is sharia-compliant. The “American Constitution and system of governance uphold the core principles of Islamic law,” Rauf wrote in his book. The “American political structure is Shariah-compliant,” he contends, since Muslim jurists over the centuries have “defined five areas of life” to be protected by Islamic law ? life, mind, religion, property, and family. Only two further actions could render the U.S. more Islamic than it is already, Rauf contends:

              [Inviting] voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation’s practical life, [and allowing] religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws (22).

              http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/t…..epage=true

              1. [and allowing] religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws

                And there’s the sticking point…

                1. Like a rock sticking to a woman’s head who’s buried up to her waste in the ground. Or a little nose job seems awful lawful.

              2. John, please explain how this is a call TO IMPOSITION of Shariah. The contention was that he is calling for the imposition of it, not that “gee, it seems like it’s kinda compatible-like!”

                I think his contention falls apart spectacularly where SF indicates below.

                1. Err…”where SF indicates above”. Maximum nesting depth strikes again.

              3. [Inviting] voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation’s practical life, [and allowing] religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws (22).

                How does judge among themselves = impose it on everyone? He doesn’t want to impose it on all of us, but those that wish to live by the rule. Just like you can choose to deal with conflicts through private arbitration, people are allowed, if both parties agree, to have religious courts arbitrate disputes according to their own laws. There are already Christian and Jewish law based arbitration here.

                http://volokh.com/posts/1252693856.shtml

                1. Last I looked we don’t let people opt out of the Constitution. Would you be okay if the people of some small town decided that the 1st Amendment didn’t apply there?

                  No we shouldn’t allow communities more “leeway”. The constitution means something and it applies to everyone.

                  1. Hey John: how does your link demonstrate a call to imposition of Shariah? Answer or shut the fuck up.

                    1. “Hey John: how does your link demonstrate a call to imposition of Shariah? Answer or shut the fuck up.”

                      Asshole much?

                    2. I’m sick of John spouting off unsubstantiated bullshit. Do you have an answer?

                    3. “Do you have an answer?”

                      I don’t give a fuck.

                    4. Good for you.

                  2. “Last I looked we don’t let people opt out of the Constitution.”

                    What? We do i9t all the time.

              4. [The] American Constitution and system of governance uphold the core principles of Islamic law.

                [The] American political structure is Shariah-compliant.

                This guy sounds like a real radical. We’d better watch him carefully.

                1. “religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws”

                  That means a return to religious courts. You want to let the Catholics set up their own courts and deny Catholics the right to divorce?

                  1. They already do exist. They are governed by arbitration law and the limits enshrined therein. Did you even go to the link I provided? Oh and guess what, for private arbitration, there are all sorts of Constitutional guarantees that people give up. For example, with private arbitration, there is no 5th Amendment or jury of your peers.

                  2. You seem to understand this as religious courts taking the place of state courts in all disputes. The way I understand this is that religious courts are supposed to be another option for consenting adults to resolve disputes, but if either party wants to go to a state court, then the case goes to a state court. I don’t see a problem with the latter, but of course, the former is unacceptable. Do you have any reason to believe that this imam is advocating the first position and not the second?

                    1. “”You seem to understand this as religious courts taking the place of state courts in all disputes.””

                      That line of thinking is necessary to scare us in to thinking Muslims could force Sharia’s law on the American public. Which is bullshit.

                  3. “”You want to let the Catholics set up their own courts and deny Catholics the right to divorce?””

                    I doubt religious courts would be involved, they are not necessary. Religion can only deny it’s followers rights as long as that individual is will to play along. No penality could be outside of the church. So at best, they could kick you out. Sort of like how a job can fire you even if you have a constitutional right to do something.

                  4. That means a return to religious courts. You want to let the Catholics set up their own courts and deny Catholics the right to divorce?

                    Uh, they already do, in a way. If you are divorced, you can’t get remarried in a Catholic Church.

              5. Even the one quote that some people might find bothersome:

                [Inviting] voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation’s practical life, [and allowing] religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws.

                doesn’t even appear in the reference given in the article. I hope you’ve got something more convincing than that because that is pretty weak sauce.

              6. So your proof he wants to impose Sharia law is him saying we don’t need to change anything because our existing system is fine already….

                [Inviting] voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation’s practical life, [and allowing] religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws (22).

                Isn’t that pretty much the same thing Evangelical Christians are always saying about not banning religion from the public square?

      3. Why not? Hell some churches and synagogues perform gay marriages. Do you know of any Mosques that do?

        Yes, some people are worse than others.

        1. “”synagogues perform gay marriages. “”

          I’ve never heard that one before. Must be progressive jews if true at all. You have a link to something?

          1. Yes, I’d like to see that link.

          2. Run a google search for “gay synagogues” and you will find a ton of them. I assume they do marriages.

            1. I bet they crush some fancy glasses.

              1. Of course the lesbians probably just crush a mason jar.

            2. They are not true Jews John. It’s an old testament thing.

              1. They say they are. Who am I to judge? I am not a Jew.

                1. “”They say they are. Who am I to judge? I am not a Jew.””

                  In the last few days you’ve seem to judge a fair amount about religion, albeit one in particular, why stop now?

                2. I will be the judge. They is Jews. Case closed.

            3. Jews can’t preach for gays anymore than Muslim can preach for peace. 😉

            4. So I did, and found a few. I also found out “a ton” is a gross exaggeration.

        1. No. Seven miles is not next door. Unless you live in Western Kansas.

          1. Grr, the wilderness of Ohio!

            Better.

    3. If American Muslims don’t protest it, try to use the power of the local government to stop construction and don’t take out tasteless ads, does that make them more tolerant of things that offend them than conservatives.

      1. If they don’t good for them. In the meantime, I want the rainbow flag with the star and crescent flying 24 seven across the street from this place.

    4. Arabian Knights

  7. Mel Gibson Dad: The Pope is a Homosexual!

    (Apologies if someone already posted this.)

    Mel Gibson’s controversial father Hutton Gibson told RadarOnline.com on Monday that the Vatican is full of child molesters.

    Gibson, 91, made his outrageous remarks to RadarOnline.com after giving a interview to a Liberty News Radio show in which he claimed half the Vatican was gay and that Pope Benedict was homosexual too.

    Mel Gibson’s father, who previously stated that he did not believe the Holocaust could have happened, told RadarOnline.com: “That is correct ? I stand by my statements.

    “The Vatican is full of all these child molesters and that is all there is to it.”

    Hutton Gibson shocked listeners on the Political Cesspool Radio Program when he claimed the Catholic Church had failed to tackle homosexuality.

    He claimed that Pope Benedict was both “a homosexual” and “a slippery character” while also being involved in a Masonic conspiracy that was aiming to destroy the Catholic Church from within.

    1. Well, at least there are no paternity questions in that family.

    2. Given Mel Gibson’s father’s paranoia (and that paranoid personalities often have a genetic component), I think we can cut Mel some slack.

    3. There is some guy who stands out in front of the Vatican embassy in Washington holding a sign that says “The Pope Hides Pedophiles”. He has been there every day I have ever driven by, weekdays, weekends, holidays you name it. Same guy holding the same sign. He never takes a day off.

      I often want to stop and ask him why he can’t just start a website or publish a newsletter like every other kook.

      1. “”I often want to stop and ask him why he can’t just start a website or publish a newsletter like every other kook.””

        He can’t force you to view the website, but maybe he could swing for a google ad.

    4. If it is possible to be fair to the elder Gibson, his theory was the current pope covered up and ignored the pedophile priest issue, which was almost exclusively same sex pedophilia, therefore he thinks the pope is gay.

      Listening to the replay of the call on the radio with commentary from a “drivetime zoo” crew, is beaucoup funny.

    5. 91, damn.

      I think we’ll all be lucky to be putting sentences together at that age.

    6. There is some truth to this. The bishop in Boston that looked away and reshuffled pedopriests was transferred to the Vatican.

  8. Federal Reserve to buy long-term government debt, raising doubts about economic recovery.

    There is no “economic recovery” going on, at least not outside of Wall Street and the D.C. Capital Beltway region. The rest of America is sucking wind in a Little Depression.

  9. Drunk Indianapolis cop crashes into motorcyclists sitting at stoplight, kills one

    Highlights:
    -Cop in crash not booked into jail
    -Cop doesn’t get blood drawn until 2 hours after accident
    – The department had been slow to release details of the crash and initially suggested the motorcyclists failed to yield to the officer

    1. Obama’s motorcade had a motorcycle crash recently too, but Biden is still in the lead on deaths and injuries.

    2. Bisard’s blood-alcohol level tested at 0.19

      The accident happened about 11:20 a.m. Friday

      Impressive.

      1. Being an officer is stressful, and he wasn’t trained to drive drunk. What do you people want? Super cops?

        1. Yes. I want Super cops. Until you prove you can catch a bullet in the teeth, you aren’t fit to be a police officer.

          1. What a great idea. That is the perfect test for suitability.

              1. Awesome. But how the hell do you find/remember this stuff, SugarFree? And please don’t tell me Verhoeven listed it as one of his influences for Robocop.

                1. Just the way the old noodle works. For contrast, I can’t remember phone numbers or addresses at all.

          2. All the nation protected by Penn & Teller is my dream too.

    3. Hey no. This is nothing that a little paid administrative leave won’t solve. Nothing to see here.

    4. -Cop doesn’t get blood drawn until 2 hours after accident

      To be fair, it was an open secret in Philadelphia that only a few of any of the police stations had working breathalyzers. Your chance of getting a DUI charge was 100% correlated with the precinct in which you were stopped because it would take too long to take you to the next precinct with a working breathalyzer.

      BAL tests also took more than two hours unless the cop was meeting the DUI guy in the ER due to injuries from the accident.

    5. Its probably laughable, but any chance that the spokesperson committed a crime by lying in his initial announcement?

      Cause it would be sweet to nail him to the wall too.

  10. # Federal Reserve to buy long-term government debt, raising doubts about economic recovery.

    So we are going to raise taxes and monetize the debt after buying mortgages. What could go wrong, this has worked for every country that has tried it. Lets see how big we can grow the monetary base.

    Arrogant fucking twats, the lot of them. Ben is wearing red and blue tights under his suit, at least that’s what he things.

    1. Ben is wearing red and blue tights under his suit

      Is he hoping for that new gay bar to open up?

    2. They have already more than doubled the base.

      http://theinternationalperspec…..ph1-m0.jpg

  11. I particularly like it when the “business reporters” try to tell me keeping interest rates low will stimulate lending.

    1. Come on! Look how well it worked for Japan!

    2. It will. By loansharks.

  12. Federal Reserve to buy long-term government debt

    Aside from the “quantitative easing” this creates, and

    Aside from the fact that they are doing so to cover the bad mortgages they are also taking on (what could possibly go wrong with the central bank holding tens or hundreds of billions of junk assets?),

    Am I the only one who thinks this is bare-faced manipulation of the Treasury auctions, intended to keep rates artificially low?

    1. Am I the only one who thinks this is bare-faced manipulation of the Treasury auctions, intended to keep rates artificially low?

      Nope. Almost every action they’re taking now is strictly intended to set back the timer on the debt interest time bomb for as long as they possibly can.

      Meanwhile, the Wall Street/Beltway corporatist oligarchy will continue sacking and plundering the nation for everything it can get until it all blows up and it’s time for them to get the hell out of Dodge.

  13. “Al-Qaida is also thought to be moving to take advantage of a power vacuum created by continuing political instability in Iraq, which remains without a functional government more than five months after a general election.””

    It was said long ago, the solution is political, not military. In the long run, our success in Iraq depends on Iraqis and their government.

    Remember that the next time you think Muslims, in general, are at war with us.

    1. This is why the narrative of our surge “success” is false. The fact that we have to keep 50,000 troops there indefinitely, with a probably equal amount if contractors, shows just how fragile our “progress” is.

      If the occupation forces were to disappear tomorrow, it’s pretty obvious what would happen.

      1. Saddam’s right hand man agrees.

        http://www.boston.com/news/wor…..he_wolves/

        The surge was a success, insofar of it’s actual mission. It did help cut the violence to give Iraqis a chance. That was it’s purpose.

        But in the long run it’s not about surges or US troops, it’s about what Iraqi want to do with their country. That could damn not only the surge but our entire effort.

  14. Am I the only one who thinks this is bare-faced manipulation of the Treasury auctions, intended to keep rates artificially low?

    I prefer to think of it, as I said yesterday, as price supports for Treasuries. The effect is, of course, exactly the same.

    Interest expense for the fiscal year, according to the Treasury: $375,247,863,222.70. What incentive could there be to keep interest rates low?

    1. So you can loan yourself cheap money?

  15. GPG. Problem solved.

  16. You want to let the Catholics set up their own courts and deny Catholics the right to divorce?

    As long as church members are free to opt out of their systems, I have absolutely no problem at all with churches setting the rules for full fellowship.

    If you don’t like the Catholic (/Muslim/Mormon/Baptist/Quaker) position on birth control/divorce/alcohol consumption/abortion stop being a Catholic (/Muslim/Mormon/Baptist/Quaker). Problem solved.

    Of course that only works mostly in western liberal democracies.

  17. former pro wrestling CEO Linda McMahon wins GOP senate nod in Connecticut

    To be fair, she has years of experience in an industry where everyone adopts fake public personas, panders to the lowest common denominator of society, and pretends to be spontaneous in what is actually a thoroughly scripted performance with no actual significance or meaning beyond empty posturing.

    She’s pretty much already a Senator.

    1. Just trading one theater of the absurd for another.

  18. U.S. allies say Al-Qaeda attempting to regroup in Iraq

    IOW the U.S. is NEVER leaving Iraq. I suspected as much. May as well sew that 51st star on the flag.

    1. Actually, that’s an outcome I could support and I would retroactively approve of the war again if we did that.

    2. It’s like Big Ten expansion.

      1. But less exploitive..

  19. I just want to make an advertisement in here,you can find whatever watch you want on my name

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.