Terrorism

Friday Funnies: GOP Terror Response

|

|||

Advertisement

NEXT: I'm Dizzy, Drunk and Fighting

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. And then FDR took us to war.

    1. And rounded up Japanese Americans and put them in camps. American Hero.

      1. And kicked Aleutians out of their homes and quartered soldiers there.

      2. And kicked mountain people aka hillbillies off their land to build Shenandoah National Park.

        1. well, they were the wrong kind of people.

        2. After he kicked the mountain folk out of Cades Cove, he kicked them (many the same people) out of the Cumberland River Valley, and then out of the Bear Creek Valley.

          Oh and let’s not forget that in addition to the Japanese, FDR interned Italians and Germans too. Plus that curfew for Italians on the west coast…

      3. If we translate that with the the Ronald Bailey Cosmotarian Style Guide (RBCSG) we get:

        Japanese Americans voluntarily moved from the coast to resorts farther inland.

    2. After he sat on his ass and let the Japanese destroy the Pacific fleet

      1. He had no choice but to shit on his ass, you anti-wheelcharian.

      2. Actually, he *ordered* the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor. And he ordered them to stay. The Navy wanted to return the bulk of the ships back to the west coast, but FDR wouldn’t permit it.

        Not because he wanted them destroyed, but because – I suspect – he was trying to engineer a provocation involving the East Asia fleet that would serve as a casus belli. I base this assertion on a couple of chapters in The Fleet The Gods Forgot by Admiral Winslow which describes a few operations that were pointless other than giving the Japs a nice expendable target to shoot at.

        Strategic surprise is such a bitch!

        1. Oh, and having the fleet at Pearl for a huge exercise rather than dispersed in their homeports meant they could be assembled and organized for a quick counter-attack more readily.

        2. “Actually,”

          No one claimed otherwise so who are you correcting with this aspie bullshit?

          1. Sitting on one’s ass implies he was a passive participant. I’m stressing that he played a much more active role than merely “sitting on his ass”.

            Now. Let’s talk about your feelings towards aspies. Did one touch you… in a bad place?

          2. Aspies are known to be overly pedantic, even about the tiniest things (such as the use of the word “actually”).

    3. After butchering Haitians under Woodrow Wilson.

    4. Test reply

  2. Awesome strawman.

    1. Where da fuck is Hillary in that mess?

      1. Probably inside the podium pulling a “Police Academy”.

      2. It is pretty interesting that the people actually engaged in killing folks and directly involved with the destabilization of the Syrian government which lead to the establishment of IS in Syria get a pass on this one, while rhetoric is apparently dangerous fear-mongering.

        (I’ll grant that it is incoherent and addle-brained rhetoric in most cases. And generally counter-productive and often potentially harmful rhetoric.)

        1. This rhetoric is usually a prelude to passing a bunch of legislation that increases governmental power at the expense of privacy and liberty.

          1. This rhetoric is usually a prelude to passing a bunch of legislation that increases governmental power at the expense of privacy and liberty.

            +1 Patriot Act

          2. …and a predictable uptick for Depends stock

  3. Yeah, we didn’t have to fear nationalization of industries, rationing, conscription, a federal land grab, entire cities and towns deliberately flooded and the people displaced, internment of entire races, erosion of the 1A, 4A and 5A and government-enforced segregation.

    Fuck, this is retarded.

    1. Yeah but it was Progress, sloopy! Why do you hate Progress?

      1. Because it’s usually at the expense of Liberty.

        1. Last night I was screaming at Fox News like it was an Obama SOTU.

          The pants-shitting was epic.

          Have to say, Tucker Carlson was even more emotional about the incursion into individual freedom presented by Patriot Act bullshit and surveillence of the US Citizen than the Judge. Some of TCs reasoning sucked (“we should really be worried about refugees”), but at least he was on the right side of it.

  4. …and spiders, always fear spiders.

    1. You’d do better to be afraid of cockroaches and flies; most spiders are harmless, timid little creatures.

      1. who eat the more harmful cockroaches and flies.

        Yay spiders!!!

      2. Anasasi?

      3. Not here.

        We have mostly black and brown widows here?

    2. Ungoliant nods in agreement.

  5. NEEDZ MOAR LABELZ!

    *SLAP!*

  6. FDR referenced positively in “Reason”? Sorry, dude. Does not compute.

    1. The new Cosmotarians need to walk that fine line between VOX and The Daily Worker to remain relevant in their cocktail circle.

  7. Can they draw a picture of Libertarian Fonzie jumping a shark while a group of people watching shit their pants (with “cosmos” labeling them) while another group (labeled “yokels”) turns their backs and walks away?

    1. With the Fonz yelling “Open Boarderz!”

  8. I move that Reason change their motto from Free Minds and Free Markets
    To “Free” Minds and Free Markets.

    1. Needs moar scarequotes.

      “Free” “Minds” and “Free” “Markets”.

      1. “Reason”

      2. Are you mad?

        “Free” “Minds” “and” “Free” “Markets”

      3. Needs more sarcasm: ‘Reason’

  9. WHYCOME YOU PANTS SHIT? LIGHTNINGZ IS MORE SCARIES!

  10. Your Future Reptilian Overlords will give you something to fear.

  11. I wonder what FDR would think about his party’s embrace of trigger warnings and safe spaces. I think he would call them all pussies, or whatever was the equivalent of that in the idiom of mid-century, upper class WASPs.

    1. Sobbing Intolerants are remarkably aggressive for demands extraordinarily shallow.

    2. I wonder what Teddy Roosevelt would have thought of safe spaces and trigger warnings……..

      1. He would have been all in favour of a safe space in which to squeeze a trigger.

    3. whatever was the equivalent of that in the idiom of mid-century, upper class WASPs

      Queer?

  12. Aside from Rand Paul not a single goddamn glance from politician imbeciliacs will fall on the genuine apex of violent Islam: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE who have given decades of billions toward the architecture, both physical and ideological, of breeding grounds around the planet nurturing psychopathic divine killers in numbers that should fucking make ALL Muslims question their goddamn fucking faith and its pathetic foundations of brutality.

    1. I agree. US supports the Saudis, they support extremism around the world, the extremists attack the US. Until that changes I don’t see what else will.

      *returns to disengaged attitude*

  13. Earlier on the radio I heard Jeb Bush ranting about how if he was elected president he’d reinstate all of the spying programs on American citizens because terrorism. Thing is, these assholes in power have stacks upon stacks of Big Brother style legislation that is already written, and just waiting for an excuse to pass. All it will take is one more terrorist attack and we’ll take one more step towards tyranny. For our own good of course.

    1. This is why infowars and “false flag!” is so popular, because it feels like an intentional set-up

    2. There’s a great hunger for security theater, no matter how absurd it is.

      Most people feel driving is safe even though tens of thousands die in car accidents each year. This is because most people think the govt has taken every possible step to make driving safe through signs, lights, speed limits, etc.

      There are a lot of people who doubt that the govt has taken every reasonable step to prevent terrorism.

    3. I’m so fucking weary of the media bend-over as a constant cum-and-puke pipe for the intelligence and military community. Very few outlets investigate the shit factory drummed out everyday by the rights-dissolving P.R. wizards slinking behind the iron gates of our most arrogant and violent authorities.

      Islam is a fucked-up religion with serious totalitarian implications for Muslim society in the long-run and there will certainly be run-off of the global nature simply due to the ubiquity of Islam but to witness American security cabals bandy grand schemes that counter the nature of constitutional liberty every time a bunch of people get strafed to death or blown to bits is a bubbling tank of mind-grating exploitation.

  14. From what I’ve read, there are ISIS enforcers in the refugee camps, enough to scare off the Yazidis, Christians and other minorities. If the U.S. admits refugees from these camps, it stands to reason that some of these ISIS enforcers will be admitted too. Unless there’s some basic screening done, and even that may not be enough.

    But yes, the problem is that politicians are expressing concerns about admitting large numbers of refugees. That’s the issue we should focus on with laser-like precision.

    1. Those must be the moderates Mrs. Rodham-Clinton was telling us about when she was warming a chair for John F. Kerry.

  15. Fuck Roosevelt.

  16. Just when I was getting comfortable with hating all the GOP candidates, I see cartoons like this and the hate ebbs a little.

  17. I think I’m going to go long on Depends. The pants-shitting will only get worse, right? Not to mention the pants-pissing I’ve been hearing about too.

    Refresh my memory, is it the right-wing teahadists that are shitting their pants over the terrorist attacks that are actually happening before our eyes? Or is it the left-wing progtards shitting their pants over the teahadists wanting to either limit, stop or vet all people from a violent part of the world before entering our country? Because I can’t remember.

    1. Both?

      I mean, the cartoon is terrible as usual. But pants shitting, even largely legitimate pants shitting over actual threats in the world, is a danger. That’s how we got Patriot act, massive domestic snooping, pointless security theater, etc.

      1. So legitimate concern is now a danger? And since when is “how about we not take in a bunch of Syrians whom we have no idea what they are” become pants shitting?

        1. Yes, it is. Probably more dangerous that illegitimate concerns. Legitimate concerns over terrorism after 911 gave us the Patriot Act and a bunch of other terrible shit. There are other options besides “do anything” and “do nothing”.

          There may well be legitimate concern over the refugee thing. Probably is to some extent. That doesn’t mean that everything done in reaction to such concerns is a good idea. So it is dangerous. “Never let a good crisis go to waste”, you know.

        2. And I just said “pants shitting” to mirror Sloopy’s references.

  18. Who picked out this completely self-unaware POS cartoon?

    1. I have to assume that they just get whatever comes down the pipe from the “libertarian-ish cartoon syndicate”. Surely no one deliberately chose this. Or any of the Friday funnies.

      1. I suspect the spam bots actually choose the cartoons in exchange for not going “full Skynet” on our asses.

  19. at least it’s better drawn than Bok or Payne…

  20. Didn’t that crippled fuck turn away Jewish fucking REFUGEES for fear that their numbers contained nazi spies?

    1. That’s counter-narrative. Report for reeducation.

    2. And detained Japanese-Americans. The lack of self-awareness in that cartoon is stunning.

      1. I learned something interesting the other day. While there are (to my knowledge) no reported incidents of Japanese-Americans living on the mainland doing anything treasonous, the Niihau Incident played no small part in driving the internment of Japanese-Americans.

        Which is not to justify the internment or absolve the scumbag FDR of blame for it, but I did not realize such a thing had occurred.

  21. Terrible cartoon in many ways. But it seems worth mentioning that it isn’t primarily about the Syrian refugee thingy. Aren’t we bored with that already?

  22. what happened to the AM Links?

    1. The widows and orphans took them out..

    2. there… and gone… much like my love *croons*

    3. Bummer. I posted the solution to the War on Terror, but now I can’t remember it.

      1. something buttsex something mexicans with weed?

        1. Yes! Lord be praised!

      2. My solution to the “war on terror” is an expansion of the executive branch, which I would use to create agencies that exist solely to collect data (in an expansive way), and kill or imprison terrorists. It is so simple.

        Now, forward me all of your emails and text messages.

        1. Not sure how our naked pics will help the war on terror but you’re the expert

            1. The terrorists will fap themselves to death

          1. Your emails and texts are full of nudes? Interesting. Also, sup?

            1. I heard it’s the safest place for them

              1. Can’t be much worse than iCloud.

    4. We’re having a sit-in to protest the whiteness of Reason. We’re demanding resignations.

      1. What is Shikha, chopped liver?

        1. Holds wrong opinions, and thus is actually white.

        2. She’s High-caste…almost white.

      2. Too many marginilizing pictures of Woodrow Wilson

      3. The Jacket’s blackness makes up for it all

  23. ANNND ? the squirrels are back!

  24. The AM links were up for a while and then got wiped like Hillary’s server.

    1. Like with a cloth?

      1. Or something.

        1. *slap!*

            1. *slap!*

              1. /Looks around. Shrugs shoulders.

                *slap!*

    2. Well that’s what will make my life worthwhile is if I can kibbutz with the other misfits on this site! So hurry up already!

  25. This has gotten to the point of being ridiculous. The only options I’m seeing from the Reason staffers are you’re a pants-shitting loon running around in a panic or you sweep the entire issue of terrorism under the rug (or worse, rationalize it as our fault). Terrorism really is an issue. There really are people out there who wish to kill us. And it isn’t always (or even usually) our fault. Just our existence as an incredibly affluent society that flouts every one of their backward authoritarian edicts makes us a threat to them.

    Pretending the world is something other than what it is doesn’t do much to advance libertarianism. Mostly it just makes libertarians seem out of touch with reality. And the thing is, if you take the long view, it’s libertarianism that’s going to win this for us.

    Those bastards hate us because a free and prosperous society (yeah, yeah, I know, it’s ever-so-unsophisticated to entertain the possibility that maybe they really do hate us for our freedom) really is a threat to them. In that, they’re basically right. In their societies, they’re in charge. In a free society, they’re asking you if you want to take the side streets because the FDR is probably backed up. But, liberty offers for the bulk of people they’d rule over a wildly better life. And, over time, the defection of the populaces they’d rule over is what will inevitably do them in.

    But, how we navigate to that end with the least damage is a worthwhile topic of discussion.

    1. liberty offers for the bulk of people they’d rule over a wildly better life.

      *** rising intonation ***

      A better ETERNAL life?

    2. Here’s how I look at it.
      Nothing new was learned from the Paris attacks. Anyone who is paying any attention already knew that there are certainly some bad actors among the refugees/migrants and that weapons can be obtained by such people and that they would like to do things like this. So unless you don’t pay attention and just react emotionally to whatever comes along, no one’s views should change a lot because of this. It’s just an opportunity for everyone who actually pays attention to double down on what they already believe (not unlike what happens when there is some mass shooting and everyone pulls out their favorite gun control; proposals).
      I think Reason could probably cover the issue with a bit more nuance. But it would be ridiculous to expect them to shift their positions on issues of immigration and refugees because of this.

      1. But it would be ridiculous to expect them to shift their positions on issues of immigration and refugees because of this.

        I don’t expect them to. Or even want them to. But, I also don’t want them responding with “anyone who has any concerns about any of these things is just a pants-shitting yokel” Providing some inkling of what might be the libertarian way of dealing with the fact that some refugees might really be bad actors (even if that means just living with the cost because its outweighed by the benefits) or discussing how France’s officialization of culture probably plays a role in marginalizing their Muslim population might actually convince people to not shit their pants. But that wouldn’t give some people here the sweet, sweet, feeling of superiority that they so desperately crave.

      2. So is there anything that would cause them to shift that position? And if not, how is their position in any way reasonable or thoughtful or anything other than just a fanatical reflex?

        1. I don’t know about what would change other people’s minds.

        2. Presumably new information.

          Taking the gun example, most people here aren’t particularly inclined to change their opinion of gun control because of a mass shooting. But, that’s because they’ve already considered the fact that mass shootings happen in their equation on the issue. If you sell stocks after the market tanks, you’re probably going to have a terrible return. It’s similar.

          1. That’s what I’m saying. If this were the first time people realized that ISIS terrorists want to attack Europe, then I would perhaps expect more people to change their minds. But we’ve pretty much known that for some time. And anyone who pretended that absolutely all of the refugees/migrants were just peaceful people simply looking to get away from violence were dopes.

            1. And anyone who pretended that absolutely all of the refugees/migrants were just peaceful people simply looking to get away from violence were dopes.

              Except, some of the coverage here really does border on just that. And that’s after what we saw in Paris. And then suggesting anyone who questions that narrative is a nativist or yokel or whatever.

              It’s sort of the “team” mentality. Some facts don’t necessarily fit the narrative of your favored policies (for the record, I favor admitting refugees with a rigorous vetting process). That’s okay. Reality often works that way. We make judgements about where we stand even when some things aren’t perfect with the result. But it’s dishonest and stupid to pretend the fact that don’t fit your narrative don’t exist.

        3. Abandoning first principles when they become inconvenient is cowardice. So if this happens to be a first principle for someone, I wouldn’t expect them to change their mind about it, or I’d respect them less if they did. Until I landed at Reason I never understood that transporting people halfway across the world at my expense was a libertarian first principle, but I see now that it unquestionably is.

          1. It absolutely is not libertarian principle. Open immigration is. But actively transporting people into the country on the taxpayer dime is clearly not.

            1. I’ve long broken with libertarian principles on the matter by insisting on some semblance of security and infectious disease screening anyway, so I’m irredeemable.

              1. With my realist hat on, I’m willing to compromise on things like that.

                Perhaps part of the problem with the refugee thing (as far as discussions here go) is that neither side’s argument has anything really to do with any libertarian principle and it mostly comes down to arguments over facts that are difficult to nail down and differing cost/benefit analyses. Which is a big part of why I’m sick of it. I come here for an interesting argument.

        4. They believe that ISIS aren’t true Muslims, and Caitlin Jenner is a true woman, so it’s safe to say they are dangerously brainwashed. Maybe a Euro nation falling to Islam will convince them that it will eventually become our problem, but I’m not sure anything other than that or a wmd attack in the us would do it.

      3. But it would be ridiculous to expect them to shift their positions on issues of immigration and refugees because of this.

        Why? People adjust positions based on things around them all the time. Look at changing views over time toward women working, gays, interracial marriage, weed, even the Patriot Act since its inception. Public view toward govt and most other institutions has shifted over time; where there used to be trust, there is now great skepticism. I don’t see why this is different.

        1. I think I just explained why.

          Any thoughtful person should have already known that this is something that can and probably will happen and incorporated it into their views on the surrounding issues.

          I’m not saying that people don’t often change their views in reaction to major events. I’m saying it is often not rational when they do despite the lack of any real new information.

          1. I doubt that very many people included the possibility that people from an area hostile to us and wishing our deaths would people whom we would willingly take in. Immigration has heretofore been limited to economic questions and the occasional criminal issue involving sanctuary cities. This is wholly new territory. Frankly, Reason’s approach of accusing anyone who has a question of pants-shitting is the antithesis of thoughtful.

            1. Maybe they are being unthoughtful. I can’t say I’ve carefully read all of the posts on the subject this week. And I do tend to be rather charitable in my interpretations.

              But we’ve also got a good number of commenters who accuse anyone who doesn’t think we need to immediately exclude all Muslim refugees and immigrants of being stupid or dishonest and seem to think that these attacks should have changed everyone’s mind, as if people didn’t already know it could happen.

              Anyway, I got shit to do.

      4. Their position is to have taxpayers import refugees. I don’t know when that became their position but it’s retarded and no more libertarian than welfare.

        1. I’m not defending everything ever published in Reason. Simply saying that there is no good reason to expect them to change their positions on these things because something bad, but largely expected, happened.

      5. unless you don’t pay attention and just react emotionally to whatever comes along,

        Doesn’t that describe a pretty large swath of the population?

        1. Sure. But I like to think that most of the commenters here and the Reason writers are a bit better than that.

  26. This has gotten to the point of being ridiculous. The only options I’m seeing from the Reason staffers are you’re a pants-shitting loon running around in a panic or you sweep the entire issue of terrorism under the rug (or worse, rationalize it as our fault). Terrorism really is an issue. There really are people out there who wish to kill us. And it isn’t always (or even usually) our fault. Just our existence as an incredibly affluent society that flouts every one of their backward authoritarian edicts makes us a threat to them.

    Pretending the world is something other than what it is doesn’t do much to advance libertarianism. Mostly it just makes libertarians seem out of touch with reality. And the thing is, if you take the long view, it’s libertarianism that’s going to win this for us.

    Those bastards hate us because a free and prosperous society (yeah, yeah, I know, it’s ever-so-unsophisticated to entertain the possibility that maybe they really do hate us for our freedom) really is a threat to them. In that, they’re basically right. In their societies, they’re in charge. In a free society, they’re asking you if you want to take the side streets because the FDR is probably backed up. But, liberty offers for the bulk of people they’d rule over a wildly better life. And, over time, the defection of the populaces they’d rule over is what will inevitably do them in.

    But, how we navigate to that end with the least damage is a worthwhile topic of discussion.

    1. Reason needs to deal with the squirrels before they do terrorists.

      1. Perhaps the squirrels are working for the terrorists. Or vice versa.

        1. Definitely vice versa.

          Everyone works for the squirrels. We’re all just pawns in their little games.

  27. Usually I find the Friday Funnies . . . not funny. And this one especially leaves me cold.

    1. THAT’S the joke!

  28. In lieu of mourning lynx, did anyone watch Sanders’ Georgetown speech? I started but became queasy.

    1. Not I. What put you off the Bern?

      1. The smug, whiny voice for starters. Then the naked class resentment. Sure, I’m nowhere near the top .001 income bracket but we all know how that those in the 50-99% will suffer more.

        1. Sheesh, is he as smug as Hillary?

    2. I started but became queasy.

      Heartbern?

  29. wow Reason praising FDR. Why dont you guys just come out as liberals already?

    1. Yes what other libertraian principles are we going to sacrifice on the altar of open borders?

      1. “libertraian” Is that like a libertarian contrarian?

        1. That reminds me, whatever happened to Botard?

          1. Busy studying for the bar and months of unemployment?

        2. Contrarian the Barbarian.

      2. It’s not as if FDR was open borders…

  30. I need to avoid any immigration threads here. The “MUZZIES GON KILL US ALL” crowd gets on my nerves too much.

    1. Yeah, it’s getting to be a bit much.

      1. Libertarian Civil War!

        1. At least we know both sides will be well armed.

      2. Just camp out at Salon for a while until it all blows over, that way you don’t have to encounter any icky thoughts with which you disagree.

        1. No thanks. I’d rather the anti-immigration crowd fuck off back to Stormfront though.

        2. Fuck off.

          It’s not “icky thoughts” so much as the smug assholes who think they are all clever and superior for their brilliant realism and hilarious suggestions that anyone who doesn’t agree is a secret Salon liberal.

          1. Hey, I hear ya. Whilst I’m in the process of laughing off any concerns about terrorism as a yokel Stormfront fantasy, the last thing in the world I want is some smug cunt picking the mote of my eye.

            1. Look, dickbag, I’ve spent quite some time happily and honestly engaging all the arguments. I just think we’ve all said what we are going to say and it’s getting boring. And smokey from all the burning straw.

        3. I’m fine with icky thoughts, I’d just like some new and interesting icky thoughts. It’s the same shit we’ve been seeing for years, though some people are now more open about it.

          1. Yeah, that’s all I’m saying. For the record, I don’t think that everyone with doubts about the wisdom of having lots of Syrian refugees come to the US is a Stormfront racist moron.

  31. This was one of the AM links stories: Rand Paul’s claim that cities and states led by Democrats have the worst income inequality

    My favorite part:

    As regular readers know, at The Fact Checker we raise a red flag when a politician credits or blames the economic trends of a city or state to the policy decisions ? or even the party affiliation ? of a single executive

    Policy decisions aren’t usually blamed for economic trends?

    1. It is particularly callow article. “Rand’s telling the truth, but, but nuh-uh!”

      1. “He’s telling the truth, so only TWO Pinocchios.”

    2. not policy decisions that reflect poorly on Team Blue.

    3. “cities and states led by Democrats have the worst income inequality”

      That’s because in those states the poor people vote for the party who actually care about them, when they’re actually allowed to vote that is. Kochtopus! Tearat! Bagfuck! Argle-bargle!!!!!!1!eleventytotheeleventy /plug

    4. Not to mention that a lot of cities are completely run by Democrats and it is ridiculous to say that it’s all just being blamed on one executive when the place has been run by one party for decades.

  32. While you’re waiting, watch a security guard faceplant.

  33. Seeing as there will apparently be no AM links I’ll just post this here:

    The tiny pill fueling Syria’s war and turning fighters into superhuman soldiers

    As The Post’s Liz Sly recently noted, the war in Syria has become a tangled web of conflict dominated by “al-Qaeda veterans, hardened Iraqi insurgents, Arab jihadist ideologues and Western volunteers.”

    On the surface, those competing actors are fueled by an overlapping mixture of ideologies and political agendas.

    Just below it, experts suspect, they’re powered by something else: Captagon.[…]

    A powerful amphetamine tablet based on the original synthetic drug known as “fenethylline,” Captagon quickly produces a euphoric intensity in users, allowing Syria’s fighters to stay up for days, killing with a numb, reckless abandon.

    We’re up against an entire army of Rodney King’s folks. Might as well just pack it in now.

    1. if we’re up against Rodney Kings, does that mean the remedy is LAPD street cops?

      1. If you’re suggesting we send the LAPD to Syria to fight ISIS, that’s an idea I think we can all get behind. They’ve been playing soldier for years, so why not give then the chance to go to war for real?

  34. Why is FDR standing?

    1. Probably because he did stand for public appearances early in his presidency to avoid letting people know the truth of his physical condition.

  35. Is there just more money and power in imitating HuffPo?

  36. Test comment

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.