The Mero Strategy – Lie :)

I’ve discovered genius of Paul Mero and the New American Reactionary Pseudo-Religious Conservative. It was right there in front of me the whole time;

It goes like this;

Tell a lie, accuse the other side of everything his team is guilty of. Lie some more.

Example: “Conservatives are tough on their own kind…you guys, not so much.”

This one is particularly efficient because its starts with a lie and a projection in the same phrase, “Conservative are tough on their own,” and ends with another lie; “you guys, not so much.”

The reason this technique is so successful for Paul and fellow reactionary conservatives, is that intelligent people just walk away. This is also the reason Republicans keep winning…and lying. Well-educated, informed people quietly dismiss the lies and walk away.

And the ignorant and uninformed just assume it must be true because they don’t know any better and it conveniently validates their obsession with fear.

But I’m glad to see progressives are finally beginning to use the lie word. Its not easy though.

Progressive tend to be very respectful people. We prefer to say things like, ‘now, now Paul, aren’t you projecting a little bit?” Or, “gee Paul, that’s an interesting observation, but I think your interpretation is a bit subjective don’t you?”

No one likes to be disrespectful, but I think the time has come to break out and start calling a spade a spade. Lets just say it. LIAR, LIES, LYING.

So Paul, forget trying to defend the lie about whose tougher on whom. Instead, lets works on speaking the truth.

Which party is the biggest deficit spender? Which party has produced the biggest budget as a percentage of GNP. Which party has more elected officials in jail?

If you can answer these questions truthfully, then we will have a reason to give you the benefit of the doubt for an extra second, the next time you plop down a big fat lie.

With Love and Affection,

Cliff

, ,

  1. #1 by Matt on September 9, 2008 - 11:00 am

    Nice try.

    So basically anything Paul Mero says is a lie, right? Is he not entitled to an opinion?

    So YOU know whether “Conservatives are tough on their own kind” but Paul or someone else doesn’t? How do we know YOU are not lying?

    How about your statement that “Progressive tend to be very respectful people.” That statement’s very similar to the ones Paul made that you’re criticizing. I could call that a lie just like you called his statements lies.

    Anybody that voices an opinion could be incorrect, but to assume that a person is lying purposely is a pretty hefty charge. You may want to reconsider your opinion on this one my friend.

  2. #2 by Who is watching the watchers on September 9, 2008 - 11:09 am

    Blame huge deficits on Congress, whoever is in charge(majority) at the time of approving the budget, is the winner.

    Cliff wrote;

    “The reason this technique is so successful for Paul and fellow reactionary conservatives, is that intelligent people just walk away. This is also the reason Republicans keep winning…and lying. Well-educated, informed people quietly dismiss the lies and walk away”.

    I’m not saying it, you just did. Speaks to intelligence.

    Which explains why you are still here, making excuses for liars on the side you approve of, and vilifying the liars that you do not support.

  3. #3 by Larry Bergan on September 9, 2008 - 1:56 pm

    Let’s be careful not to get “conservative” and “republican” confused here. There are conservative people who don’t lie, but lying is a job requirement in the republican party these days. If I were a loyal republican today, I would be lying to keep myself out of prison.

    Very refreshing to see the democrats FINALLY using the “L” word as a campaign strategy so later we can use the “V” word for a change. I’m not saying democrats haven’t lied, if fact, Jimmy Carter got caught in one last year, but a list of lies by republicans would reach Andromeda.

    “Conservatives are tough on their own kind” has a great deal of truth to it if you add “who don’t tow the line” to the end.

  4. #4 by jdberger on September 9, 2008 - 2:02 pm

    Progressive tend to be very respectful people. We prefer to say things like, ‘now, now Paul, aren’t you projecting a little bit?” Or, “gee Paul, that’s an interesting observation, but I think your interpretation is a bit subjective don’t you?”

    By “we” of course you aren’t including yourself. Are you Cliff?

  5. #5 by Jenni on September 9, 2008 - 2:03 pm

    Conservatives tough on their own kind? — then how come after the last disasterous 4 years where McCain showed he was the disaster-in-chief’s loyal boy 90% of the time — McCain and Obama are neck and neck? If Conservatives were truly tough on their own kind they’d be voting Libertarian, Constitution, or even Democratic Party rather than Republican this year, but it just ain’t so.

    The only time conservatives are tough on their own kind is when one of their own kind strays from the (very) narrow and not so straight path and possibly uses common sense once in a while; ex: climate change.

  6. #6 by Oprahs' Orifice on September 9, 2008 - 2:14 pm

    “then how come after the last disasterous 4 years where McCain showed he was the disaster-in-chief’s loyal boy 90% of the time — McCain and Obama are neck and neck”?

    Same reason no one voted for Kucinich Jenni, after the Democrats won their majority in Congress and then proceeded to bend over squat thrust for our Dear Leader Bush, for two entire years. No one playing the game is voting for a probable loser.

    The goal of “party” is to make sure that the opposition doesn’t win, no matter how bad your candidates are. In the case of republicans they are really making some lemonade.

  7. #7 by jdberger on September 9, 2008 - 2:16 pm

    Jenni –

    In the same vein, I’m sure that since Sen. Obama has renegged on his promise to use public funding, oppose the Telecom act and end the war in Iraq you’re gonna cast your vote for Nader….

    Aren’t you, Jenni?

  8. #8 by Albert O. on September 9, 2008 - 4:11 pm

    jd:

    You go boy, you just go ahead and do everything you can to ensure that America receives four more years of the same. Your kids will be proud of you!

  9. #9 by jdberger on September 9, 2008 - 4:13 pm

    And you just keep changing the subject, Albert!

    How does it go?

    When you’re wrong on the facts, argue the law.
    Whan you’re wrong on the law, argue the facts.
    And when you’re wrong on both, pound on the table and scream like hell!

  10. #10 by cav, entrenched yet negotiable on September 9, 2008 - 4:18 pm

    At this juncture of off-topicness, I’d like to insert my growing ‘bridge to Nowhere’somewhere among the Neocon Hotness: Ann Colture, Dana Perino, Sarah Palen. (R) Feminism rocks!

    This sexism is different than any other and is therefore acceptable.

  11. #11 by Oprahs' Orifice on September 9, 2008 - 4:54 pm

    Yeah really, contrast that to the hard faced clipped hair pant suited variety of democrat woman, and it is enough to attract a man to the republican party.

    Like Magdeline Albright, yah she’s a looker! How about this?

    I guess we all know now why Ted Kennedy drinks like he does.

  12. #12 by Albert O. on September 9, 2008 - 5:40 pm

    jd:

    Actually, my mantra from now on is going to be exactly as stated above. What you folks are doing is, plain and simple, your absolute best to ensure four more years of failed policies.

    Hmmm. How does it go? Be careful what you hope for, because you just might get it!

  13. #13 by Oprahs' Orifice on September 9, 2008 - 5:53 pm

    So Albert, sell us Obama. Why should anyone vote for him?

    Do this and have him stand alone, forget Bush and McCain. Tell us why anyone should vote for Barry.

    It is all relative isn’t it Albert? Sell Obama like you mean it, make a republican buy that wagon, whether he needs it or not.

    For that matter sell Obama to the democrat women that won’t vote for him first.

    Start working and see if you can pick up the scraps, you have legal training, I assume you can be persuasive. Let’s hear it for Obama. What does the man have to offer to the fence sitters right now? Keeping in mind that there aren’t very many.

  14. #14 by Albert O. on September 9, 2008 - 6:22 pm

    Let’s hear it for Obama.

    Well put, OO, well put!

  15. #15 by cav, entrenched yet negotiable on September 9, 2008 - 9:07 pm

    It’s not as though there’s nothing good that can be said about the Obama cantidacy. Granted he’s untested in many ways, but he’s only now in the process of seeking the nod.

    Given the knowns of either contender package, I’d put the Obama ‘mystery’ in the plus column (dems can project too). Then it’s just a matter of the McCain / Palin 08 wingnut package UNSELLING itself. I believe they have this capacity

  16. #16 by Oprahs' Orifice on September 9, 2008 - 9:59 pm

    So you too, have absolutely have no salesmanship skills to offer upon the Obamanation Cav?

    What does he have that anyone wants? What will he specifically do for you? As time goes on he has made his best attempt to be republican lite. Talks great, less filling at least 1/3 the substance of normal atmosphere. Lighter than republican stout, which always did have too many calories, but still has that bold freshness.

    Pretty sure my prediction will hold up. We get republican heavy with lipstick chaser.

  17. #17 by Albert O. on September 9, 2008 - 11:01 pm

    Orifice:

    Just open your eyes.

    And btw, folks like you are doing a great job pushing for four more years of the same. You should really be quite proud of yourself.

  18. #18 by cav, entrenched yet negotiable on September 9, 2008 - 11:06 pm

    I’m not a salesman, and honestly fell that the serious stuff went down in July. Do you think there are that many undecideds still around that an ad budget is goin to swing this deal, or is your defeat posture got from a more sinister knowing? You may be correct. In any case feel free to vote for your cuddly republican heavy and his skirt / Breasts. You are. Intuition, hogwash and the company one keeps get me where I feel I need to be on polling day.

    I too, am prepared for disappointment however this plays out. I just think; McCain / Palin
    will also mean the whole darn neocon establishment, from Cheney to the numerous other corrupt hold-overs like Oliver North, John Poindexter, all the lying murderous scum whose visiblity has been overshadowed by this theatrical sham of a Presidential selection process, will still be on the payroll, instead of in jail where I think they belong. War hero baloney and sexy exteriors won’t outweigh the crap politics that the neocons are about. No way could I vote (R).

    In the mystery department, Obama’s got nutting on Palin. So, once again we have this ‘historic opportunity’…a negro, or a woman. Wow we do live in interesting times. As a demi-dem leaner, the Hil / Barrak primary face-off was rich, but now that it’s become the two party game with real stakes, I just wanna vote for Cynthia McCinney – Get my woman, black and politics all in one bundle. The ‘not-gonna-happen’ nature of that position puts me in the Obama camp by default. But that’s just me.

    Who are you likely to be voting for and why?

  19. #19 by cav, entrenched yet negotiable on September 9, 2008 - 11:23 pm

    Albert, I wonder if that cunt (I’m making an assumption here) is really pushing for a McCain win or simply prompting the Obama supporters (and Obama him-self) to get more substantial – IF WE WANT TO WIN! She seems to know that the opposition will take this if allowed and, claiming another mandate, rule as though their continued wealth depended on it. Real politik.

    She’s not cheering exactly, Her points are deeper than that. I think.

  20. #20 by cav, quite possibly the least among us. on September 10, 2008 - 12:00 am

    Gotta share. Cain’t hep myself.

    Kryptkeeper / MILF 08

    Was it the ‘c’ word? Feel free to insert a * where the u might be.

  21. #21 by Albert O. on September 10, 2008 - 12:22 am

    Well said, cav!

  22. #22 by cav, quite possibly the least among us. on September 10, 2008 - 12:47 am

    Albert! Insomnia much? Me neither. Thanks

    I addressed you with a comment about Oprahs O’s seeming cheerleading that got moderated for want of a * where a U might be. (Presumptive orifice).

    I wondered if O’s seeming cheerleading isn’t more to challenge Barrak supporters to provide a more substantial position as opposed to simply a ‘Not McCain’ one. I’ll credit her with having more depth than might be supposed if that is in fact the case.

    Needless to say the moderated comment was a sparkling literary gem that for want of one simple adjustment, is no more. D*mn.

  23. #23 by Richard Warnick on September 10, 2008 - 7:15 am

    I was an “ABB” (anybody but Bush) voter in 2004. This year, the Not McCain candidate gets my vote. Josh Marshall explains:

    John McCain is running a campaign almost entirely based on straight up lies. Not just exaggerations or half truths but the sort of straight up, up-is-down mind-blowers we’ve become so accustomed to from the current occupants of the White House.

    His whole post is worth reading– highly recommended.

  24. #24 by Oprahs' Orifice on September 10, 2008 - 8:23 am

    Eyes wide open Albert. I assure you as much as you have been absolutely wrong about how this election will pan out, you have no real concept of what a McCain presidency will bring, other than imagined fears of 8 years of pent up freak show emotion.

    Maybe that it might be good is why you fear it so.

    So the best you can say for Obama is that he isn’t Bush or McCain. You guys really are a desperate bunch.

    Obama offers a worse foreign policy choice for president as Brezeziski becomes the decision maker. He is a bungler of the highest order, and his gangs aspirations for empire building far transcend the neo-con agenda. Obama is the stealth candidate for this crazed faction.

    I am rather stunned by the schizophrenic nature of democrats, unable to see that all these foreign wars for oil, that they have supported rather unconditionally at the leadership level, are based on an intransigence to provide for oil out of our own backyard. If people had not noticed, we cannot get as much oil as we used to, as many nations have cut off our oil majors from exploiting their fields. They are exploiting those fields to their own benefit. Think sometime we may get the hint what that means?

    Anyone who has lived in Alaska knows that the story of their being limited oil in the State is ridiculous. I have known too many professional geologists up there that know the truth of the matter. There is tons of oil. It will be developed by McCain/Palin ticket. Pelosi and the loser crew have lost control even before they achieved it.

    For better or worse, their idiocy in dealing with this election has cost them everything. The American People HAVE NO FAITH IN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY. They turn to the only alternative they have.

    The government cannot do many things well, so waiting around until they figure out alternative energy is a joke. For example you can now BUY a compressed air vehicle for under 15k, just not in the US. Ford makes a compact that runs on diesel that gets 65mpg, but you can’t buy it here, because they don’t believe that can make a profit on it. Has government stepped in with anything but blathering? We are on our own no matter who gets elected, so in that regard, the more dysfunctional the Federal government, the better off we will all be.

    It is secret who I am voting for Cav. To be sure it will the vote to render the entire system of Federal government absolutely the least effective. This will force and shift the burdens to the States to solve their own problems, and this is where we will see innovation and success, not from some dumbass federal policy wonks that spend our money like drunken sailors, and think of nothing better than to raise taxes in an attempt to “solve” problems.

  25. #25 by Albert O. on September 10, 2008 - 9:11 am

    OO:

    You, sir, have just been nominated for 1U’s most stupid and susceptible person of the week award. Congratulations! And congratulations on your efforts to ensure that we have at least four more years of the biggest disaster our country has ever experienced.

    You should be proud, sir; notwithstanding, however, the fact that your children and grandchildren will resent the hell out of you for your selfish, biased and wholly out of touch with reality outlook. Again, I congratulate you!

    PS. Take a primer on the English language – Oprah is singular, not plural.

  26. #26 by Cliff Lyon on September 10, 2008 - 9:25 am

    Then Albert, it should come as no surprise to you , Oprah is Glenn Hoefer (Who is Watching)

  27. #27 by Oprahs' Orifice on September 10, 2008 - 11:30 am

    There are many Oprahs, and multiple orifices, especially here at oneutah, that is how you get Oprahs’ orifice. The hole is shared you know.

    “The biggest disaster our country has experienced”. Now that is quite a stupid statement. Note I have not called you stupid, but what you have stated as stupid. This isn’t so bad Albert, and since you have limited knowledge of US history, I can excuse it.

    If you meant it as hyperbole, well alright.

    So the best you have is sniping at spelling. Still no explanation of why anyone should vote for Obama. Not even a cursory one.

    Look, I got you hook, line and sinker, so you tell me who is susceptible, and gullible. The lack of self control demonstrated in your responses is why the Democrat party is being worked so well currently by the republican spin machine.

    Please someday, operate from the knowledge of what America is, not what you dream it to be, and then say the right things, and win. I swear, for a bunch of folks that imagine themselves as more intelligent, and should lead the country, there should be no reason that republican right can run you ragged. Unless of course they ARE smarter than you. I know, tough to take.

    Fire Howard Dean.

  28. #28 by Albert O. on September 10, 2008 - 11:35 am

    OO:

    As I said previously, congratulations! You’re doing a heck of a job.

  29. #29 by Larry Bergan on September 10, 2008 - 1:23 pm

    Whoiswatching/Oprah/Blessed Rope/glenn/The Jester/Are You Serious/Man of Lamancha, (or whatever) ect,ect,ect….

    has invented a new form of commentary called JUNK POSTS. They are like the annoying advertising cards that fall on the ground when you take the mail out of your mailbox.

    Bend over and throw them away!

    They serve no purpose whatsoever, but to waste your time. They even waste his time, but he figures if democrats get elected, they’re going to tax his stock dividends and he won’t be able to sit around on his ass wasting his and your time anymore.

    Don’t feed the trolls and you won’t have to clean up their poop.

  30. #30 by Larry Bergan on September 10, 2008 - 1:25 pm

    Damnit! I just fed the troll, didn’t I?

  31. #31 by Paul Mero on September 10, 2008 - 2:39 pm

    Cliff, while I am flattered that you would use me (or SI) as your daily conservative whipping boy, I must say this post is uncharacteristic even for you. I can see your in-house Misanthrope writing this sort of thing, but not you.

    I don’t remember saying this to anyone in a public setting before, but you owe me an apology.

    I am a great many things I am none too proud of, but I am not a liar. You would do well to sit in on one of SI’s Transcend forums taught by my friend Quinn McKay and have him expand your understanding of the nature of integrity. I, like all of us, have lied about many things in our lives (e.g. “honey, that’s a nice dress” or “wow, sweetheart, that’s a great meal”)…but judging a person a liar is something else.

    If you question the veracity of my statement (and opinion) about how conservatives are tougher on each other than progressives, I would challenge you to turn to Chapter 7 of my Natural Family book. That chapter is a very introspective, to say the least, look at social conservatives…and my draft of that chapter was, what my editors called, an open assault on the pro-family movement. What you would read in the printed version is the editors’ doing…and it is indicting enough.

    I am sure progressives quarrel at their tea parties (or pot parties), but conservatives (because there exists such a wide spectrum of “conservatives” these days) are ruthless with one another…if for no other reason than their political philosophy invites scrutiny…which you know is true because your lefty friends can hardly wait to unearth some hypocrisy among us. That seems to be the Left’s reason to live…but why live to point out hypocrisies if conservative standards were so low as to NOT invite scrutiny?

    The love-fest for Palin does not disprove what I say…it actually demonstrates that even conservatives have their limits and we can grow weary of all of the tiresome infightings and have found a sense of collective acceptance (and relief) over Palin. Ronald Reagan served the same function for us, in uniting us, in the late 70s into 1980.

    No doubt I have said too much. By now, I know that saying more is not a benefit in this blog because it gives you guys the opportunity to side-step the main issue and be offended for a word.

    So, to reiterate, Cliff, you do owe me an apology for calling me a liar. (And I will accept it in a private email.)

  32. #32 by Oprahs' Orifice on September 10, 2008 - 2:54 pm

    Pay attention Albert!! I have been trying to teach you something. Why Democrats lose. You are displaying the behavior that leads directly to losing. Even against opponents that are inferior.

    BTW the biggest disaster America has experienced was our Civil War, 550,000 dead total, and much of the South utterly destroyed. C’mon, this is high school knowledge.

    Are we learning yet? Will Obama have to be beaten like a drum for you to figure it out?

    Larry, these posts will be quite telling when what I have predicted comes to pass. You are only jealous because you have great difficulty luring people into responding to your intellectually stimulating posts.

    I will have to respond that you as well do not offer any reasons why anyone should vote for Obama. It would seem that you are easily distracted like Albert, not in control of your emotions, and prone to creating your own junk posts.

    If I am doing a heck of a job, the two of you are most certainly falling flat on your faces. C’mon refute, compete, DO SOMETHING! Other than whine!

    I don’t own any stock Larry, just more of the same from Larry. You live in a fantasy world Larry. Mine.

    If you want serious, I can do that. Tell you what, I’ll make up a new name, become a raving liberal, and you and I can become best of cyber friends. Watch this will be fun. Cliff, please defer from letting Larry know, this will be a fun exercise, and a learning experience for Larry. Albert can learn as well. It is how those who wish to obtain power gain confidence, and steer the true believers into the path of their desires.

    Like republicans are currently doing. If you do not understand the weapons that your enemies are utilizing against you, you can never defend yourself from them, or in fact know what the hell is going on. So you are invaribly defeated, sometimes with very little effort, as naive as it looks from this view, it doesn’t take much.

    That is my Sun Tzu, Junk Post, may it sail into a peaceful horizon.

  33. #33 by Richard Warnick on September 10, 2008 - 5:14 pm

    Paul Mero has mentioned a couple of times that the right wing has a wide spectrum of opinion and engages in infighting. Huh?

    Stephen Colbert has aptly summed up the range of opinions now available on the right of the American political spectrum: “George W. Bush: great president or the greatest president?”

  34. #34 by Paul Mero on September 10, 2008 - 8:09 pm

    Well Richard, you can take the word of a comedian whose whole routine is to spoof everything…or the word of a conservative “insider,” who knows about most of the movement’s skeletons…oh yeah, but you think I’m a liar. Better the word of a know-nothing fool than the word of a know-it-all “liar.” Some choice you leave yourself.

    BTW, I should be polite and ask…I mean, I shouldn’t assume…you do know Stephen Colbert’s show is a spoof don’t you? The Daily Show…same thing. Saturday Night Live…same thing. Just checking.

  35. #35 by Albert O. on September 10, 2008 - 9:03 pm

    Paul:

    Just wondering. Are the Hannity and Limbaugh shows spoofs, too?

  36. #36 by Oprahs' Orifice on September 10, 2008 - 9:11 pm

    They are entertainment as well Albert. In the same way you believe Colbert the buffoon, many on the right believe all that “pills” says.

    One hell of a way to run a country, but apt considering that we are turning out kids that test in 30th @#$%^&* place in international competency testing, that are as dumb as a box of hammers

    Ah America, God shed myspace on thee.

  37. #37 by Paul Mero on September 10, 2008 - 11:03 pm

    I don’t think those radio shows are intended to be spoofs, but they are the first to admit their goal is political entertainment. Though you disagree with everything they say, Albert, do you think tHannity and Limbaugh are spoofs like Colbert or Stewart?

  38. #38 by Larry Bergan on September 11, 2008 - 12:01 pm

    Paul Mero:

    If you can call rallying for war and destabilization of your own country “political entertainment” then I guess you could call traitors like Hannity and Limbaugh whatever you want.

    Part of the genius behind the Colbert and Stewart shows is that heavy use of parody protects their programs from lawsuits when they place copyrighted material on the show.

    The dictionary defines a spoof as “nonsense, tomfoolery, or a hoax”, which would be a DEAD ON description of what Hannity and Limbaugh do. They are walking, breathing spoofs, just like Tom Delay and you love them. Consider that!

  39. #39 by jdberger on September 11, 2008 - 1:06 pm

    noun verb Hannity
    noun verb Limbaugh
    noun verb Karl Rove

  40. #40 by Larry Bergan on September 11, 2008 - 1:17 pm

    noun verb election fraud

  41. #41 by cav, after Sarahs' twat. on September 11, 2008 - 2:45 pm

    I for one am thankful to, informed and entertained by the colorful incarnations of our intelligent, provocative poster whose personas often go unmasked for quite a while (presently Oprah’s Orifice). On this I disagree with Larry. The content of his comentary – pointed as it is – aside, his masks are convincing and I often find myself resenting Cliff’s felt need to reveal who lies behind them. I agree with the authors message and give no credence to what some feel is courage of posting some name that can be found in the phone book. Though I have been known to look up the names of the authors of particularly brilliant LTEs, call and thank them for so eloquently saying what I had been thinking.

    Paul Mero. You have my apology. “All republicans aren’t kooks, but most kooks are republican (or at least neocon)”…I believe somebody important said that.

  42. #42 by Oprahs' Orifice on September 11, 2008 - 3:06 pm

    There is reason to the effect Cav.

    I am revealed by Cliff when I get the upper hand intellectually and am kicking the snot out of some true believing progressive poster. It is all about control.

    The pretense that this is an open site is really humorous. We’ll forgive him, he can’t help it. Did you know that it is all an exercise? Did you know that I am a progressive?

    This site is like Alice in Wonderland, everyone can call themselves what they believe they are. We can leave the name calling to certain individuals.

    Sidenote: What is interesting now is that there is no more debate in this election, peoples minds are made up. Nothing left to do but vote.

  43. #43 by Palin the Paul on September 11, 2008 - 3:16 pm

    And fools folks like you, Orifice, will fail even to vote because you’re too stupid and apathetic.

  44. #44 by cav, after Sarahs' twat. on September 11, 2008 - 4:16 pm

    Good Dog, Palin the Paul. Is that IT? Snap to, my friend, turn on the basement light. It’ll make a world of difference.

  45. #45 by Larry Bergan on September 11, 2008 - 5:12 pm

    You have the right to your opinion Cav, but I think, (insert name), is here to disrupt the blog conversation. Eloquent or not, it annoys me that I have to wonder whether every new commenter on the blog is glenn trying to mess things up. That and he used MY real name to make a comment once. I think that would even anger someone as trusting as yourself.

  46. #46 by cav, after Sarahs' twat. on September 11, 2008 - 6:14 pm

    Larry, point acknowledged….now. let’s shred us some wingnut! 8 )

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: