Via Jammie Wearing Fool (with more at the link), Michael Good win puts it in an interesting way.

[T]he result [of the debt-ceiling compromise] doesn't suit our president, who has an itch for punishing wealth and more spending. To scratch it, he turns reflexively to scapegoating. The man who promised to unite the nation instead relishes dividing it at every opportunity.

So we heard again that the evil "oil companies" and "billionaires" and the "wealthy" and "big corporations" need to "pay their fair share." Doesn't he ever get tired of saying the same things?

I don't know which is worse: That he really believes such drivel will help America, or that he's cynically throwing red meat to the Bubbas of his far-left base. Either way, he needs new material.

But the debt debate made it clear that Obama's idea shop is running on fumes. Like a broken record, he's stuck on the same song -- bigger government, higher taxes. No matter the circumstance, he repeats the mantra.

...

Unemployment is a staggering 9.2 percent and rising, and most economists believe the economy is in serious danger of a double-dip recession. Obama's answer: Let's do it all again.

He gives lip service to the pain of the unemployed and underemployed, then trots out the old ideas. Usually he doesn't even bother to repackage them.
Maybe he hasn't noticed or doesn't care, but the country is giving up on him. The shellacking his party and policies took in the 2010 midterms would be repeated if there were an election today. He's sinking, and his approval is now a woeful 40 percent -- that's Jimmy Carter territory.

I think this is interesting because it strikes me that this is how Obama voters become Obama opponents.

The moderates/fake Republicans/disengaged types who voted for Obama will probably never (mostly) share our ideological opposition to him. Had that soil been fertile ground for such seeds, they wouldn't have voted for him in the first place.

They will vote against him, though, for failure to produce good results. The only way he can make up for a failure to produce good results is to at least offer a plan that strikes people as plausible.

If you can't say "Look what I did for you," the only alternative (and it's not even a good alternative) is to say "Look what my fresh ideas, if they were to be implemented, would do for you."

Not a great way to get re-elected, but beggars can't be choosers. Plan A is always to be an unqualified success. Plan B is to be qualified success.

Plan C -- which is I guess the best-case option for Obama now, unless the economy takes a serious turn for the better -- is to cadge together some plan that might strike people as at least having potential.

After Clinton was repudiated in 1994, he tried Plan C, triangulation, and a series of micro-proposals, like a push for school uniforms, that didn't do much but at least convinced the public he was on the job.

That -- plus, chiefly, an economy which finally started to recover tangibly -- got him re-elected.

But Obama isn't even trying Plan C. He's trying Plan F for Failure: The same old crap.

As has been widely predicted, Obama can't go with Plan C because he's just not like Clinton in this respect. Clinton was a genuine liberal, and would have taken the country down the path of socialism if he could have, but he was also cagey and cynical, and I don't mean those, at the moment, in a bad way.

But Obama is... well, I'm not sure he's wise enough to be cynical. He believes this crap. Clinton did too, but didn't see as convinced of it as Obama.

Clinton would sell out his own grandmother for political advantage, so he'd certainly run against the liberals in his own party.

But Obama can't do that. True, Obama could sell out his grandmother as a racist to get him out of a jam, but he's closer in kinship to the far left than to any blood relative.

He can't, and won't, cross the left. So he can't offer some kind of new plan. Just the same dreary class warfare and redistribution of income and ever-growing welfare state.

In the 90s, if I remember right, liberals fretted that their fellow liberals were less interested in the boycotts that because fashionable during the 80s. Many liberals got tired of the long list of foods they weren't supposed to eat -- apples (they have alar!) and grapes (migrant farmers aren't paid enough to pick them!) -- and just tuned out of the Boycott of the Week.

This was called "Compassion Fatigue." It's not that these liberals disagreed with any of these boycotts. They just grew weary of trying to remember what they could and could not eat. They never argued against the boycotts; they just silently demonstrated their disinterest in them by ignoring them.

That strikes me as a plausible model for how an Obama voter might become a Romney (or Perry, etc.) voter: Not through outright repudiation, not through a major intellectual journey and ultimate re-orientation. Those happen sometimes, of course, but most people are content to go through life believing in all the false and foolish things they've always believed in.

But through a less intellectual driver: Simple fatigue. Weariness. A snap decision, made mostly in the gut, that one is simply tired of someone, and that he is no longer charming, or compelling, or fashionable.

A bit like falling out of love. Few really plan on falling out of love with someone. It just happens. There is a period of increasing dissatisfaction, and then one day, without any definitive event to mark the change, one finds he's just no longer fond of someone he'd once loved.

Obama's on the television too much. He threatened Republicans, during the debt ceiling negotiation, that he would take his case to the public; the public didn't much care.

The public viewed him as cloying. And needy. And attention-seeking. And weak.

I think many people are, as Goodwin says, "giving up on Obama." In fact, I think many people have already given up on him, past tense, and are really just waiting for a suitable eligible candidate to announce himself (or herself), at which point will come the "It's not you, it's me" speech.

Posted by: Ace at 10:35 AM | Comments (172)
Post contains 1083 words, total size 7 kb.

I won't do this all day again. I'll just recap what has been said and move on.

A good video compilation of the various slurs here, at Big Journalism.

Taranto first recaps the ghoulish joy with which liberals greeted the shooting of Gabby Giffords-- exemplified by Jonathan Alter, for example, plotting out future political strategy...

Sad to say, if Giffords had died, she would have been mourned and soon the conversation would have moved on. But Giffords lives, thank God, which offers other possibilities. We won't know for weeks or months whether she can function in public. If she can, she will prove a powerful referee of the boundaries of public discourse--more influential, perhaps, than the president himself.

...then turns to their current posture:

"Terrorist," "racist," "uncivil," "insane," the list goes on--in this context, these words have no real meaning. They are mere epithets. The Obama presidency has reduced the liberal left to an apoplectic rage. His Ivy League credentials, superior attitude, pseudointellectual mien and facile adherence to lefty ideology make him the perfect personification of the liberal elite. Thus far at least, he has been an utter failure both at winning public support and at managing the affairs of the nation.

Obama's failure is the failure of the liberal elite, and that is why their ressentiment has reached such intensity. Their ideas, such as they are, are being put to a real-world test and found severely wanting. As a result, their authority is collapsing. And if there is one thing they know deep in their bones, it is that they are entitled to that authority. They lash out, desperately and pathetically, because they have nothing to offer but fear and anger.

The House erupted in applause as Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords returned to DC and voted in favor of the bill. It was her first appearance on Capitol Hill since being shot last January.

Meanwhile, some wonderful news: Thanks to America's superlative medical system, Rep. Giffords has recovered sufficiently that she returned to Congress last night to cast a vote on the debt deal. She looked frail and shaky as she exchanged greetings with colleagues from both sides of the aisle, but she also talked and waved and seemed completely alert. Even watching at home on C-Span, it was hard not to be moved. "The #Capitol looks beautiful and I am honored to be at work tonight," Giffords tweeted last night.

Giffords voted "yes" on the bill--the one to which the Tea Party "terrorists" had forced the president to agree.

Jen Rubin:

It’s almost hard to recall how the left howled about “civility” in the wake of the Tucson shooting horror. But that was then, and the standards the left sets for the right is one it hardly adheres to. We had Vice President Joe Biden’s now-denied comments casting Republicans in the role of “terrorists.” And then the hometown newspaper for liberal elites got into the act.

There’s no denying the depths — and hypocrisy — to which the New York Times opinion section has sunk.

Liberal (ish?) Charles Lane at the WaPo at least has the guts to call a spade a spade.

I'm omitting his various "to be sures" here -- his declaration of bona fides of opposition to the Tea Party agenda -- because they're not relevant, but they do paint him as part of Team Liberal.

If liberals believe anything, it is that the right is either solely, or mostly, responsible for the degradation of political discourse in America. And they are surely correct to condemn such ugly rhetorical excesses as the Obama-is-Hitler placards that flowered across the land in the summer of 2009.

But liberals are in deep, deep denial about their own incivility issues. Consider the “terrorism” analogy now being aimed at the Tea Party by Democratic members of Congress — in the acquiescent presence of the vice president, no less — and by some journalists who sympathize with the Democrats. To pick just one example of the genre, today’s New York Times carries Joe Nocera’s column, “Tea Party’s War Against America.”

...

I’m puzzled. The Times editorial board only recently condemned “many on the right” for “exploit[ing] the arguments of division,” and “demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats.” Right-wingers, The Times notes, “seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.”

So how can it be okay for Times columnists to demonize the Tea Party and try to persuade Americans that they are not just misguided, but the enemies of the people?

...

There are real terrorists out there: Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, Iran’s rulers. Yet some of the same people who are slapping the “terror” label on the Tea Party and condemning Obama for dealing with them also advocate outreach to Mideast terrorists, if not to negotiate with them, at least to understand of what makes them tick.

Nocera’s colleague Tom Friedman, for example, has excoriated the Tea Party as the “Hezbollah faction” of the Republican party but has also argued that the U.S. must not isolate Mideast radicals if they are “change agents who are seen as legitimate and rooted in their own cultures.”

“They may not be America’s cup of tea,” Friedman instructed. “But we need to know about them, and understand where our interests converge — not just demonize them all.”

ShouldnÂ’t progressives extend the Tea Party that same courtesy, given that they are at least, you know, Americans?

Terrorists are not terrorists, and must be understood, but non-terrorists are in fact terrorists, and should be treated as "the Other," demonized, and dismissed.

Got that?

Bill O'Reilly and Krauthammer debate whether this is all orchestrated and coordinated. Krauthammer doesn't think so (video at the link).

“Well, it certainly is a spitting and the sputtering of people who are, who’ve been deeply defeated,” Krauthammer said. “I mean, they were routed. They were up against a small minority of one half of one-third of the Congress and they got — they lost everything. They got routed. Look, this was their Agincourt, you know, Henry V outnumbered by the French, three to one. The opposition, the liberals, hold the Senate. They hold the White House. They hold the media, which had been leaking and parroting the White House line all the way through, and they still got defeated.

“I think this is sort of a pathetic response. If you have no arguments, what do you do? Ad hominems. You attack, you throw names out. But I have one slight disagreement with you [about this] being a conspiracy [coordinated through left-wing mailing lists of a type similar to Jornolist]. I don’t think these people have the wherewithal to orchestrate a three-car motorcade. The reason for the repetition is lack of intelligence and lack of originality. These are people who are slothful.”

...

“Look, what it means to me is you’ve got people with no intelligence, no originality, no imagination,” he said. “They are sputtering. They have lost. No arguments. What do they do? They want ad hominems. They want epithets. So, somebody uses it on the air — ‘Ah ha, that’s a good one. I’ll use it.’ I don’t credit them [with] the intelligence or the sort of, what it takes to put together a conspiracy.”

I don't know if it's a conspiracy so much as a stupid meme spreading like wildfire through weak minds who seize on it because they have nothing else. One example that that may be the case is Maureen Dowd's latest vapidity. She gives it the "Dowd Spin" -- and by Dowd Spin, I mean she just starts analogizing things to movies and TV -- for her own Tea Party Terrorists column (safe link to NRO, which rebuts her):

They were like cannibals, eating their own party and leaders alive. They were like vampires, draining the country’s reputation, credit rating and compassion. They were like zombies, relentlessly and mindlessly coming back again and again to assault their unnerved victims, Boehner and President Obama. They were like the metallic beasts in “Alien” flashing mouths of teeth inside other mouths of teeth, bursting out of Boehner’s stomach every time he came to a bouquet of microphones.

It was stupid and hateful in its earlier incarnations; Dowd also decides to make it cutesy-trivial, as usual.

Sarah Palin has a very effective rejoinder to this terrorist talk (vid at the link):

If we were really domestic terrorists, shoot, President Obama would be wanting to pal around with us wouldnÂ’t he? I mean he didnÂ’t have a problem with paling around with Bill Ayers back in the day when he kicked off his political career in Bill Ayers apartment, and shaking hands with Chavez and saying he doesnÂ’t need any preconditions with meeting dictators or wanting to read US Miranda rights to alleged suspected foreign terrorists. No if we were real domestic terrorists I think President Obama wouldnÂ’t have a problem with us.

That's a good answer. The left has opened the door on this issue: Let us walk right through it, and proclaim that while they are discussing metaphorical terrorists, these bastards do in fact "pal around with" and make nice-nice with actual terrorists.

And what would their response be?

You know what response I'd love? If they accused Palin of incivility in this response. That would be delicious.

I'd push this talking point just to see if we could get them to make that claim.

As far as our civility-minded President, his spokesman Jay Carney says, in response to a reporter's question, that such talk isn't "appropriate," the lowest level of condemnation possible.

Allah says he "checks the box" here and that's precisely right -- he offers a weak, perfunctory, obligatory statement it's not "appropriate," then says nothing more; if asked later, they can point back to this weak statement to demonstrate their "consistency" on the issue.

But this isn't consistency. We had three weeks of claims the right caused murder in January based on lesser Discourse Offenses than what we've seen in the last 24 hours; simply chiding one's side with the nothing word "appropriate" is hardly genuine consistency.

Consistency would be Obama making a five minute speech, of his own volition, not in response to a question, specifically condemning the left for its excesses.

But this is how Obama always plays it. His surrogates and his media enablers peddle venom and racial appeals, and then he issues a terse statement that he finds such talk "unhelpful" or whatever. He enjoys the fruits of the venom but claims to be above it himself.

Since the media still loves Obama, we can tell how much they believe his slight criticisms by how they behave: If they thought he was on the level, they'd stop. They love him, after all.

But they know he's giving them the Obama Wink, so they continue indulging.

Posted by: Ace at 09:55 AM | Comments (178)
Post contains 1804 words, total size 12 kb.

The FBI thinks this is a good suspect. I'm thinking it'll turn out to be nothing.

The niece's memories are sketchy, from when she was eight years old, and only now does she say she's put the pieces together and figured out he was probably the folk-hero hijacker.

Here's her account:

"My two uncles, who I only saw at holiday time, were planning something very mischievous. I was watching them using some very expensive walkie-talkies that they had purchased," she said. "They left to supposedly go turkey hunting, and Thanksgiving morning I was waiting for them to return."

A day later, Northwest Orient flight 305 was hijacked, and her uncle L.D. Cooper came home claiming to have been in a car accident.

"My uncle L.D. was wearing a white t-shirt and he was bloody and bruised and a mess, and I was horrified. I began to cry. My other uncle, who was with L.D., said Marla just shut up and go get your dad," she said.

Marla Cooper is now convinced there was not a car accident, but that her uncle was injured crashing to earth in a parachute. She says that she also remembers a discussion about the money that day.

"I heard my uncle say we did it, our money problems are over, we hijacked an airplane," she said.

It later became clear, however, that there was no money. It is believed that the hijacker lost much of the cash as he came crashing down.

So, he had no actual money. The only interesting bit here is the timing of the car accident, but that could simply be... a car accident. It's hard to fathom why a man called "L.D. Cooper" would choose, as his alias, "D.B. Cooper."

I think it's more likely this struck the niece as a telling clue (even though it shouldn't have) and she's putting together mis-fit puzzle pieces now.

And maybe confabulating that admission.

The FBI is looking at some objects he was known to have touched (like a hand-made guitar strap) to find fingerprints, to match those against the partial prints of D.B. Cooper.

Posted by: Ace at 09:18 AM | Comments (104)
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.

Backpack contents: Half can of beans. 3 travel-size bottles of Scope. 1 tattered picture of Bo Derek ripped from a March 1980 Playboy. A mint condition Terry Bradshaw Jersey. Zero dignity. *

Dirty Tramp doing what dirty tramps do?

Or prophet foretelling the future of us all under The Won's economic policies?

And what's really going to furrow your brows?

When the hobos turn on your ideological enemy, how might that change the comfortable predator-prey relationship between AoS jackboot and lovable vagabond? more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 08:09 AM | Comments (180)
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

Sad reminder (photo at the link).

Wreckage from shuttle Columbia was uncovered in East Texas this week, the result of a prolonged drought lowering water levels in a lake.

The spherical tank, which is about four feet in diameter, is stuck in the mud alongside Lake Nacogdoches.

More than 40 tons of wreckage rained down on a long swath of East Texas and Louisiana as Columbia disintegrated during its atmospheric re-entry in February 2003, killing all seven astronauts.

The lake is down about 4 feet at the surface level, but of course that exposes a lot of area. Enough to find a large piece of debris that's been hidden for years.

tip: kevlarchick

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 06:15 AM | Comments (111)
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

Guest DOOM! today. Monty, who is one of those increasingly rare Americans with a job, needed a last minute stand-in due to some work commitments.

Speaking of jobs, the ADP employment report is out this morning. Private sector employment up 114K - close to expectations, but too low to move the needle on the unemployment rate if it mirrors the BLS survey data that will be released on Friday.

The DJIA has dropped each of last 8 days for a total pullback of around 850 points with yesterday's selloff being pretty harrowing at around 250 points. This was the biggest one-day drop since October 2008, so ... inherited from Booooooshhhh!. Gold? It's over $1,660 an ounce and just keeps on rising.

So Recovery Summer II™ continues unabated.

Return of the bear market? Faber's a perma-bear. All he has to do is wait around long enough and he'll be right. Of course, this time ...

Somebody at al Reuters is on the DOOM! train. I'm not so sure I agree with their "go East young man" outlook. Trying to find a bright spot in this global depression (hey, just being honest) is a fool's errand.

Jimmy P. points out that the U.S. economy doesn't like to just move sideways. It's either growing or contracting. I'll take the under. He also notes an interesting tell on entering a recession from changes in the unemployment rate, but I think we're in uncharted territory here.

Paul Ryan has on op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal that's worth a read, but who needs words when you can put DOOM! in a couple of charts?

The debt ceiling deal did nothing to change this, and I'm not confident that even if the GOP were to take the White House and the Senate in 2012 we'd be able to do much about it. There's only so much that Hobbit terrorist hostage-takers can do.

And as far as that deal goes, there's been a lot of back-and-forth on whether the super committee process allows for tax increases either legally or practically. There are a couple of good rundowns on this from Keith Hennessey and Andy McCarthy that both boil down to: "hells yeah it does" even though they conflict with each other. more...

Posted by: andy at 04:50 AM | Comments (204)
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.

When a man says that democracy is false because most people are stupid, hit him smartly and with precision on the exact tip of the nose.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:48 AM | Comments (142)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Evenin' all. Time to fix a drink, unfasten your pants, and grab a red pill from the hopper. Oh and word on the street is that a certain moron qualifies for a free Denny's platter tonight.

Credit Ratings Across The World

While we've been stressing over keeping our coveted AAA rating - which we still have...for now - it's always interesting to see how we compare against the world.

And based on this chart of Moody's ratings by country we (undeservedly) look pretty good. Well good until we show the first signs of weakness and then the downgrade knives will quickly come out.

Don't Trust The Greeks: A Eurocrat Speaks The Truth
A quote from former EU Commissioner Frits Bolkestein, interviewed by Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, 30 July 2011:

We're stuck with the Greek misery. I predict that nothing will come of all those beautiful plans for privatizations. The Greek state is weak, a large part of the population is lazy. I also tried to keep the Italians from the euro zone. I didn't succeed.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:23 PM | Comments (756)
Post contains 777 words, total size 7 kb.

In his regular NRO feature "Today’s Questions for the President" Peter Kirsanow looks at Obama's "blame Bush" and "I'm like Reagan" theme.

Here are the best parts - read the whole thing.

Reagan "inherited" a GDP rate of -3.2 percent. You inherited a GDP rate of -4.9 percent. Two and a half years after Reagan took office, however, GDP was at 5.1 percent (and exploded to 9.3 percent the next quarter). Two and a half years after you took office GDP growth is at 1.3 percent (and as likely to implode as explode next quarter).

Reagan inherited an inflation rate of 11.8 percent. You inherited an inflation rate of 0.3 percent. Two and a half years after Reagan took office inflation shrank to 2.46 percent. Two and a half years after you took office inflation has risen to 3.56 percent.

He forgot to add the Volcker factor. Reagan relied upon him as head of the Fed. Obama used Volcker's name and ignored him otherwise.

... Reagan inherited a national debt (adjusted for inflation) of $908 billion. You inherited a national debt of $10.1 trillion. Two and a half years after Reagan took office, $390 billion more had been added to the national debt. Two and a half years after you took office $4.4 trillion more has been added to the national debt.

Percentage-wise, that's about the same increase. But Reagan's additional debt was 6.4% of GDP, Obama's extra debt is 33.1% of GDP. Today's debt is a bigger problem than 1980s era debt because there's so much more of it.

(inflation adj. gdp numbers
1983 Q2 $6,072
2011 Q2 $13,270)

Reagan inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent. You inherited an unemployment rate of 7.3 percent. Two and a half years after Reagan took office the unemployment rate was 9.4 percent, but fell to 7.6 percent within a few months and declined steadily thereafter to 5.3 percent. Two and a half years after you took office the unemployment rate is 9.2 percent. To fall to 7.6 percent by the end of this year, however, more than 1,000,000 jobs per month would need to be created. Only 18,000 were created in June; 25,000 in May.

Reagan slashed tax rates, encouraged American entrepreneurship, and didn’t complain incessantly about the mess he inherited. Will you ever do the same?

Posted by: Open Blogger at 04:53 PM | Comments (123)
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.

With the stroke of a pen we've given ourselves the nominal right to borrow more money, but that doesn't fix anything.

The broad-based index fell for a seventh day and crashed through the key 200-day moving average in an ominous sign for markets. The seven days of losses mark the longest losing streak since October 2008.

"It is going to be a long week," said Jim Maguire Jr., a NYSE floor trader at E.H. Smith Jacobs. "The bid is not here in the market."

The selloff accelerated into the close as volume jumped well above average. The fall was broad-based, with four stocks falling for every one rising on the New York Stock Exchange.

The index also broke through its 2-1/2 year uptrend line from its bear market low in March 2009. Thursday was the index's worst day in a year.

...

Investors seemed to find little to cheer after the U.S. Senate agreed to a deal to raise the debt ceiling because of the possibility it will not stave off a downgrade of the U.S. government's triple-A rating.

"Investors have made the shift from Washington to what I'm calling economic realities," said Fred Dickson, chief market strategist at The Davidson Cos. in Lake Oswego, Oregon.

Credit rating agency Fitch said the deal makes the possibility of default very low, but the US must reduce its debt or face a downgrade.

Moody's said likewise.

MoodyÂ’s Investors Service said the U.S. credit rating may be downgraded for the first time on concern that fiscal discipline may ease, further debt reduction measures wonÂ’t be adopted and the economy may weaken.

The U.S., rated Aaa since 1917, was placed on negative outlook, New York-based Moody’s said in a statement today as it confirmed the rating. Moody’s warned on July 29 a negative outlook was “more likely” as lawmakers reduced the size of spending cuts being negotiated to win approval on a plan to lift the nation’s borrowing limit.

...

“A downgrade is a sign that Congress is failing to address a real fiscal issue,” Guy LeBas, chief fixed-income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott LLC in Philadelphia, said in an interview before the announcement.

Consumers were already forecasting a downturn in June, by cutting their own spending.

Unexpectedly, of course.

Consumer spending unexpectedly fell in June to post the first decline in nearly two years as incomes barely rose, a government report showed, suggesting economic growth could remain subdued in the third quarter.

Um, "remain subdued" is a rosy scenario. It was already weak and with the adjustment of the first quarter's figure to a near-recessionary 0.4% GDP growth, "subdued" growth is the upside.

This is sort of an unrelated point, but I've seen liberals strain to make the case that Bush was really responsible for the increase in debt the past 2 years.

I don't know how they get to that claim, exactly. But even conceding they're right, then what they are saying is this:

Bush spent irresponsibly and even recklessly. (You don't have to argue long with conservatives to get that much conceded.)

Now, Bush having accumulated several more trillions in debt than he ever should have, Obama's response is to... pile on another $5 trillion?

What is there some kind of free $5 trillion rule, that every President gets $5 trillion in debt?

If, as Obama said when he voted against a Bush debt ceiling increase in 2007, Bush was burdening the country with unconscionable levels of debt, what the hell exactly is Obama doing adding another $5 trillion (in just two and a half years!) on top of the burden already accumulated?

That's like a general brought in to replace one who'd gotten 10,000 men killed who then turns around and employs a similar strategy to kill 30,000 men, and then says, "Hey, the other guy did it, didn't he?"

Posted by: Ace at 03:02 PM | Comments (428)
Post contains 664 words, total size 4 kb.