Here is a Fun Halloween Activity you can try!http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xay78d
Did I say “can”? I meant “should”.
October 31st, 2009 at 09:32am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Monday Media Blogging
Here is a Fun Halloween Activity you can try!http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xay78d
Did I say “can”? I meant “should”.
October 31st, 2009 at 09:32am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Monday Media Blogging
Okay, Torrey Pines is up next, I promise. But for now, some lights, and one of my cousins.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:36am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: La Jolla/San Diego,Photoblogging
This week’s quote is from the slyly entertaining Tank Girl:
What’d I tell you? Don’t say “buttsmear” – it’s not becoming. Say… “asshole,” or “dickwad.”
And, of course, there’ll be other people’s wee baby hamsters…
October 30th, 2009 at 07:30am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Friday Quote & Cat Blogging
Okay, so I can understand how Republicans and Blue Dogs might think a House resolution honoring Confucius (or anyone else) is perhaps not the best use of their time these days, what the healthcare reform and the recession and all, but then why show up to vote No in the first place? Is a Nay somehow less time-consuming than a Yea?
And are votes to welcome the Archbishop of Constantinople and congratulate Northwestern’s women’s lacrosse team less time-consuming or frivolous than the one for Confucius? Because none of them had any problem with those. Yes, I’m sure that must have been it – honoring Catholics and Americans is just so much quicker than honoring Asians.
October 29th, 2009 at 08:13pm Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Racism,Republicans,Wankers
Yes, even La Jolla has grungy stuff like manhole covers – it even has manhole covers within manhole covers! Awesome.
1 comment October 29th, 2009 at 11:23am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: La Jolla/San Diego,Photoblogging
Is it Obama, for secretly opposing the public option he claimed to want?
Is it Joe Lieberman, for vowing to join the Republican filibuster against it?
Or is it Harry Reid, for once again completely failing to get an accurate whip count? I know there have been other occasions where Harry has guaranteed that he had the votes to pass something or block something, and it turned out he wasn’t even close. Does he base this on any kind of evidence, or just some kind of gut feeling or misguided belief that his caucus will go along with him without any arm-twisting or horse-trading at all?
If Harry did ask Lieberman if he’d join the filibuster, and Lieberman said no, then shouldn’t Harry be doubly pissed at Lieberman for lying to him and making him look like a fool? Pissed enough to maybe try to take his gavel away?
And if Harry didn’t even bother to ask Lieberman, then he is a fool.
I’m pretty disgusted by this whole situation, but all three of these wankers are just being true to themselves: Obama the feckless non-progressive compromiser, Lieberman the not-so-stealth Republican, and Harry the clueless “leader” completely out of touch with his caucus. I can at least give Harry credit for trying to do the right thing.
1 comment October 29th, 2009 at 07:23am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Democrats,Healthcare,Lieberman,Politics,Wankers
Weekly World News reports that Republicans finally found a hook to justify voting against the hate crimes amendment:
35 Republican senators voted against a defense bill that included hate crime legislation. They claim it was based on cuts in anti-zombie spending.
“This bill would have put our nations homes and schools in grave danger!” Georgia Representative Saxby Chambliss said to cheers from fellow Republicans. “Our great nation cannot afford to gut our zombie defense spending. And that is exactly what the Democrats would have us do.”
When asked if they voted against the bill because it also contained legislation making violence based on sexual orientation a federal crime the Republicans got very quiet and murmured awkwardly for nearly a minute. “Zombies are threatening America!” shouted one Senator from the back, and the rest quickly joined in.
Sean Hannity had financial expert Arthur Zweigg on his show to talk about the bill: “Frankly, Sean, I didn’t see any evidence of cuts to Zombie protection spending.”
“Why do you hate America?”
“Excuse me? I don’t-”
“You want Zombies to crash through our windows and destroy America. By supporting this bill, you’re supporting Zombies. So you must hate America!”
Zombie outbreaks are a growing fear in the country right now. With our still weak economy and flu season around the corner the nation’s people and infrastructure are particularly vulnerable. The Obama administration has promised an overhaul to the country’s Zombie Outbreak policy, however the Democrats have yet to come up with an effective strategy to deal with the zombie threat.
Republicans continue to avoid accusation that their denial of the bill was related to its support of gay rights. Most quickly change the subject to a popular talking point or other rhetorical device. When cornered in a mens room on capital hill Saxby Chambliss stopped washing his hands and jumped out a window, screaming “No comment!” on the way down. Senator Chambliss received no major injuries from the incident.
Frankly, I’m a little surprised that they didn’t try to claim that the hate crimes amendment covered attacks on zombies. Hell, they didn’t even say anything about “reanimation panels”.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:37am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Weekly World News
Sarah Palin is taking her upcoming Oprah appearance very seriously:
Sarah Palin will be appearing on Oprah in November. The former governor is training for what she believes will be a “rough and tumble” interview.
“I know what the media’s like. I know they’re gunning for me. So I’m gonna be prepared.” This was Sarah Palin’s reply as she was training for her upcoming appearance on the Oprah Winfrey program. The former governor of Alaska will be on to talk about her new book “Going Rogue.”
“You Liberal media types are all out to get me. And this is the most powerful woman in the world. So you better believe I’m gonna be ready,” Palin said while doing bench presses. To prepare for the interview in Chicago she is going through tough physical training. Each day she runs 3 miles and kills a deer with her bare hands, in addition to a rigorous gym schedule.
“Oprah’s studio is the bleeding heart of Chicago liberalism. I’m a pilgrim in the lion’s den down there. I’ve seen these types of shows. I know what happens.” Palin had her personal trainer throw chairs at her, which she would mostly avoid. “You never know what left-wing wacko will want to get a piece of the Maverick.”
Palin also spent an hour in a butcher’s freezer punching a large slab of meat. “You see this cow?! I killed this myself! That’s how we do it in Real America! Yeah!”
Her training is not just for a possible physical confrontation though. “My preparation is both mental, and physical,” insists Palin. “They try to trip you up by asking meaningless trivia: ‘find China on a map’ ‘what’s the Bush foreign policy?’ Whatever, I’m gonna be ready.” According to her trainer she spends hours each day playing sudoku and quizzing herself from Trivial Pursuit cards. “She tried reading the New Yorker once, but got frustrated and shot it with a gun. That gun scares me.”
Sarah Palin is covering all her bases in making sure she isn’t blindsided by the show. “I’m gonna handcuff Todd to a chair before I leave Alaska. Then I know you aren’t pulling one of those crazy, ‘your husband is really a woman’ kinda shows.”
This can only end badly.
October 28th, 2009 at 07:16am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Palin,Weekly World News
And can you really sue for it?
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a civil complaint on Monday against members of a liberal activist group who staged a news conference to falsely announce that the 3 million-member business federation had reversed its stance on climate change legislation.
As part of its hoax on Oct. 19, Yes Men announced at the National Press Club that the chamber would stop lobbying against the Senate’s 800-page climate bill. Reuters moved a story based on the false press release, and both CNBC and Fox Business Network reported it – with the anchors correcting themselves mid-story upon learning it was false.
I know, the lawsuit is more about trademark violation, but I think it’s hilarious and a little surreal that the Chamber is suing the Yes Men for trying to make them look like they weren’t complete amoral assholes for one day.
October 27th, 2009 at 09:35pm Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Constitution,Environment,Republicans,Wankers
The last couple of La Jolla beach photos. Up next: Random crap, then Torrey Pines.
1 comment October 27th, 2009 at 11:33am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: La Jolla/San Diego,Photoblogging
Well, the very good news is that for once, progressives have finally managed to do what Blue Dogs and other conservadems have been doing for as long as I can remember:
Democratic leaders were forced to include a national public health insurance option as part of health care reform by progressive Democratic senators who refused to support anything less, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on Monday.
For many years, it’s been centrist and conservative-leaning senators who have been scoring legislative victories by digging in their heels, so this represented a quite dramatic turnabout. It is difficult to remember the last time that progressives won a legislative victory by laying down firm demands and sticking to them. In the House, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has found its feet, too, and is locked in a final battle with conservative Democrats over the shape of a public option.
W00t!!! It’s about damn time!
So what’s the bad news?
“It’s a zero-sum situation,” said Durbin, who is in charge of counting votes in the Senate. “If we thought that just putting the trigger in meant that we’d end with 61 votes,” he explained, then that’s what leadership would have done.
In other words, the Democratic leadership was still perfectly happy to sabotage the public option if it would get them from Filibuster-Proof to Filibuster-Proof + 1, because bipartisanship – even token bipartisanship – is Teh Awesome.
Not to mention that the bill Reid is bringing to the floor still has a state opt-out in it, and as of right now we have no idea how easy or hard that opt-out will be to exercise. So the public option may end up only being available to Democratic states, which is pretty crappy.
October 26th, 2009 at 07:26pm Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Democrats,Healthcare,Politics,Wankers
This is surely the best possible video for The Pretenders’ Boots Of Chinese Plastic:
October 26th, 2009 at 11:31am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Monday Media Blogging
Apparently they’ve realized that they’re going to be judged on healthcare in the 2010 elections, and want to actually have something to show for their efforts before then:
Democrats are pushing Senate leaders and the White House to speed up key benefits in the health reform bill to 2010, eager to give the party something to show taxpayers for their $900 billion investment in an election year.
The most significant changes to the health care system wouldn’t kick in until 2013 – two election cycles away. With Republicans expected to make next year a referendum on health care reform, Democrats are quietly lobbying to push up the effective dates on popular programs, so they’ll have something to run on in the congressional midterms.
Democrats are anxious to mix the good with the bad since some of the pain would be phased in early, including more than $100 billion in industry fees that critics say could be passed on to consumers.
“We want to be able, within the cost framework and the implementation framework, to have as much start as early as possible, even though we know all of it can’t,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), a Finance Committee member who is working with other senators on the effort. “And the White House wants to have as much as possible to start.”
Under the Democratic wish-list, senior citizens would receive discounts on brand-name drugs next year. Small businesses that provide insurance would see tax credits. And a $5 billion high-risk pool would cover people with preexisting conditions.
Democratic strategists expect the 2010 election to present a stark contrast between the parties, particularly if the health care bill receives minimal Republicans support. The front-load strategy could help blunt GOP attacks on the bill as a toxic mix of higher taxes, rising premiums and cuts to Medicare.
The strategy also could ease some of the disappointment among voters who expect more immediate reforms than the bill can deliver, including on the much-debated public insurance option. Democrats in both the House and Senate are closing in on finding the votes to include some form of a public option in the bill, but a government-run insurance plan would likely be one of the last pieces to kick in fully, if it passes.
This is in contrast to Obama, who continues to offer unconvincingly tepid lip-service support for the public option, and then gets annoyed when anyone suggests that he might actually be working against it.
Better Democratic presidents, please.
1 comment October 26th, 2009 at 07:29am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Democrats,Healthcare,Obama,Politics
His re-election prospects are totally in peril… just as soon as the Republicans find their Magical Unicorn Candidate to run against him.
Seriously, shouldn’t these predictions take the opponent – or lack of one – into account? This is like me saying the Giants have a 50-50 chance to win tomorrow without knowing whether they’re playing the Vikings or the Lions.
2 comments October 24th, 2009 at 06:47pm Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Democrats,Media,Politics
This week’s quote is from the surprisingly funny Dead Man On Campus:
You’re on this little holiday in Fuckupland, but I live here permanently!
And, of course, there’ll be other people’s giant singing robots…
If you’ve ever tried to picture Paul Anka as an 8-foot-tall robot covering Oasis, then this is the video for you.
The grand finale is even weirder. Yes, even weirder.
October 23rd, 2009 at 07:11pm Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Friday Quote & Cat Blogging,Monday Media Blogging
From Dana Milbank’s Washington Sketch on Joe Lieberman’s hearings on Obama’s use of czars (oh yeah, that’s much more pressing than finding out what went wrong during Katrina):
Well, if they were real revolutionaries, they could take the czars to Yekaterinburg and shoot them, the way the Bolsheviks shot Nicholas. So far, nobody favors anything that extreme, with the possible exception of Fox News’s Glenn Beck, whom two committee Democrats referred to Thursday as the one “whose name shall not be mentioned” because of the rebellion he stirred up against Obama’s czars.
So does this make Obama Harry Potter?
2 comments October 23rd, 2009 at 07:30am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Katrina,Lieberman,Politics,Wankers
If you don’t want Americans to think you’re obnoxious, crazy extremists, then don’t, y’know, be obnoxious, crazy extremists.
October 22nd, 2009 at 09:11pm Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Politics,Republicans,Wankers
The funniest thing about Republican comedy is that they’re at their most hilarious when they’re not trying to be.
With an ever-increasing number of Czar appointments by President Obama, it has become clear that no position is too absurd. In an effort to assist in adding another cumbersome bureaucratic layer to government and to help properly ensure the basic human right of friendship to all Americans, a new Friendship Fairness Czar has recently been appointed.
Tasked with the daunting responsibility of making sure that every Facebook user is equal, this new Czar will help redistribute the wealth of friendship from those who are too popular to those who are poor in friends.
Details of how the position of Friendship Fairness Czar works are superfluous. The Czar may or may not have been properly vetted. The most important thing is that disparity in the number of Facebook friendships is ended.
Czars are unaccountable and socialist! We know what Facebook is!
Lamar Alexander explaining that the Obama White House is much tougher than the Nixon White House.
Jonah Goldberg “dreading the anti Liz Cheney onslaught” because “She’s so plainly good people.”
If they just stop trying altogether they’ll look like comedic geniuses.
1 comment October 22nd, 2009 at 07:57pm Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Republicans
(Another one I wanted to hit yesterday…)
After Eric Boehlert’s great takedown of Ruth Marcus’s defense of Fox as a news organization rather than a propaganda arm of the Republican Party, it was disappointing to see WH spokesman Robert Gibbs offer up such a lame defense of Obama’s Fox News boycott:
Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –
Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.
Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –
Gibbs: ABC –
Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?
Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.
Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?
Gibbs: That’s our opinion.
O’Reilly and Beck? That’s it? That’s all you’ve got? By not attacking the news part of Fox News, Gibbs allows them to perpetuate the myth that they’re a straight objective news organization that just happens to have some right-wing commentators. Better flacks, please.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:47am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Democrats,Media,Obama,Politics
(I really wanted to hit this yesterday, but I spent all night wrestling with a new router that turned out to be defective)
Among all Nevadans, 52 percent described him as a weak leader, and only 24 percent said strong. Even among Democrats, 47 percent said weak and 39 percent said strong. Ouch. That’s going to leave a mark.
More than half — 54 percent — of all those surveyed also said Reid is “ineffective” in the Senate, while 23 percent said he was “effective.” Even among Democrats, a soul-crushing 51 percent said ineffective, and only 39 percent said effective.
Asked if Reid should be the Democratic nominee for Senate in 2010 or if it is time for someone new to represent the party, a minority of Democrats — 38 percent — agreed that the majority leader of the Untied States Senate should be their party’s nominee. Only 13 percent said it is time for someone new, but 49 percent weren’t sure.
Among Nevadans with an unfavorable view of Reid, 47 percent think Reid is “too far to the left” while 41 percent think he’s “not progressive enough.” Among Democrats who view him unfavorably, a whopping 92 percent think he’s not progressive enough, and only 6 percent said he is too far to the left.
“The numbers say it all,” said PCCC’s Adam Green. “If Harry Reid starts acting like a strong leader and passes the public option, he solidifies his standing with Democrats and Independents and has a chance to survive 2010. If he continues to be weak — refusing to unify the Democratic Caucus behind an up-or-down vote and allowing the public option to be watered down to nothing — Democratic senators will likely be looking for a new Majority Leader in 2011.”
Reid weak? Really? Wherever did anyone get that idea? Well, aside from all the time Reid has done the Republicans’ bidding (remember telecom immunity?) and all the times he has made no effort to whip his caucus, consider some of these recent data points:
o Reid not only allows members of his caucus to threaten to join a Republican filibuster of the public option, but he won’t even reveal who they are.
o Funny how the White House is so heavily involved in the legislative process and dealmaking in the Senate, but not the House. Could it be that Pelosi told them to butt out, and Reid didn’t?
o Which is probably why Pelosi opted to bring the most progressive healthcare bill to the floor, and Reid’s still hemming and hawing and consulting with the White House.
This poll truly is a wonderful thing. Finally, we have some data to push back against the dishonest conventional wisdom that Democrats lose support because they’re too liberal, when the reality is that they usually lose support for being wimps or corporate sellouts (no one could have anticipated…), and the corollary that they only win elections by being mealy-mouthed centrists (see: Rahm Emanuel, 2006 Congressional Landslide Orchestrated Solely By The Genius Of).
Now can we please get pollsters to start adding “why” questions whenever they ask people for approve/disapprove or who they’ll vote for? More Democrats will either start to realize that being strong liberals actually improves their job security, or else fully expose themselves as corrupt corporate whores who don’t care what their constituents think. At the very least, they would no longer be able to hide behind the false conventional wisdom that corporatism masquerading as moderation is what America wants.
October 22nd, 2009 at 07:15am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Democrats,Healthcare,Obama,Politics,Polls
With a headline like “Some Football Owners Are on Limbaugh’s Side in Game of Politics,” you’d expect a story about right-wing football owners defending their pal Rush from the terrible anti-conservative witch hunt which got him kicked out of Dave Checketts’ bid for ownership of the St. Louis Rams, right?
You’d be wrong. Aside from a general recap of what happened, the story’s principal revelation is that NFL owners are very very rich, some of them contribute to Democrats, some of them contribute to Republicans, and some of them contribute to both. Big deal, I could’ve told you that.
That’s pretty much it. Any support for Rush is solely implied by the headline, which fudges the distinction between being on the same side of the ideological divide with overt support. The NFL owners may be on the same team as Limbaugh, but that doesn’t mean they’re on Team Limbaugh. Or if they are, they know enough not to admit it.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:43am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Media,Racism,Republicans,Wankers
Okay, this is the last of them. A few more beach pictures after this, and then it’s on to the Torrey Pines Nature Reserve.
October 21st, 2009 at 07:29am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: La Jolla/San Diego,Photoblogging
Well, this is certainly refreshing, and the exact opposite of Harry Reid’s usual modus operandi. But I repeat myself.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has chosen to put the public option favored by the liberal wing of her party in the healthcare bill that goes to the House floor, pending agreement later Tuesday night by the full caucus, according to two House sources.
Leaders are planning to roll out the bill next week, and are hoping to vote the first week in November.
The plan, called the “robust” option or “Medicare Plus 5” in the jargon that has emerged on Capitol Hill, ties provider reimbursement rates to Medicare, adding 5 percent.
Pelosi has been pressing members to support the more liberal option, or at least to give a definitive answer on their positions.
Yep, this sure would be nice to see in the Senate.
1 comment October 20th, 2009 at 09:38pm Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Democrats,Healthcare,Politics
Okay, I think I have maybe one more post worth of surfer photos after this one, if that. I really need to get back to work on processing the Torrey Pines shots now…
2 comments October 20th, 2009 at 11:21am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: La Jolla/San Diego,Photoblogging
This is probably not a surprise to anyone but the media, the Democrats, and the Obama White House:
The new Washington Post poll finally asks people about their cravings for bipartisanship in the right way, and its finding really challenges the conventional wisdom that people want bipartisan health care compromise at all costs.
Specifically: A majority wants a Dem-only bill rather than a bipartisan one if the Dem-only one includes a public insurance option and the bipartisan one doesn’t. A majority of Independents wants the same. From the internals:
Which of these would you prefer –- (a plan that includes some form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can’t get affordable private insurance, but is approved without support from Republicans in Congress); or
(a plan that is approved with support from Republicans in Congress, but does not include any form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can’t get affordable private insurance)?
Prefer government-sponsored insurance: 51%
Prefer Republican support: 37%
Again: Other public polls have offered respondents a straight choice — do they want a partisan bill or a bipartisan one — without explaining that winning over GOP support has actual policy consequences for the final bill that they might not like.
When this is explained clearly — and the WaPo framing is a far more accurate depiction of the choice the public and lawmakers face — a majority wants the partisan, Dem-only bill with the public option. Indeed, a majority wants the public option more than they want bipartisanship for its own sake. Okay?
Amazing. A majority of Americans would rather have a “partisan” bill than an ineffectual shitty bill that only helps insurance companies. No one could have anticipated.
Now the question is whether anyone’s listening, or if an ineffectual shitty bill that only helps insurance companies was the goal all along and “bipartisanship” was simply the excuse for achieving it.
October 20th, 2009 at 07:16am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Healthcare,Media,Politics,Polls
Here’s a creative workaround to the statute of limitations…
Nearly 10 years had passed since a college student was raped on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and with no known suspect in the 1993 case, the police were not close to an arrest. But what they did have was nearly as critical: the rapist’s DNA profile.
Prosecutors in Manhattan — aware that the legal clock for bringing a case was running out — devised the novel strategy of indicting the rapist’s DNA. Four years later, the sample was connected to a man, Victor Rondon; he was eventually convicted and sentenced to 44 to 107 years in prison.
While there have been many celebrated cases in which DNA evidence has been used to overturn wrongful convictions, often many years after the trial, such evidence has become essential in solving cold cases.
In New York City, prosecutors have secured 117 indictments of DNA samples in rape cases, linked 18 of those profiles to specific people, and obtained 13 convictions, either through trials or negotiated pleas. Five cases are pending.
“What we said was, ‘There is no reason for people to get away with rape because of the statute of limitations,’ ” said John Feinblatt, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s criminal justice coordinator. “They shouldn’t be able to hide behind it; they shouldn’t be able to race for time and get over the finish line and leave a victim without a case being solved.”
Sounds good to me. I’m not a big fan of the statute of limitations concept – if there are extenuating circumstances like hazy witness memory or the suspect’s subsequent upstandingness, then bring them up during trial.
October 19th, 2009 at 07:25pm Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Constitution
Anyone else remember those Discovery.com commercials with the non-actors in crude costumes reading their lines off of cue cards? It sounds terrible, but it actually achieves a sort of sublime brilliance.
I love to travel.
Ahhh. The atmosphere. Ahhhhh.
October 19th, 2009 at 11:29am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Monday Media Blogging
Shorter Alan Blinder: The bailout is Teh Awesome!
Sure, if you’re a Goldman Sachs executive…
October 19th, 2009 at 07:31am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Corruption/Cronyism,Economy,Media
Mr. Deity’s science adviser suggests a time-saving (or at least labor-saving) alternative.
October 18th, 2009 at 11:21am Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Monday Media Blogging,Mr. Deity,Religion
Who are the best guests on television’s political chat shows?
[Mika] Brzezinski jumps at the chance to name Pat Buchanan “because he says what we are all thinking.”
Wow, that is one scary quote right there.
October 17th, 2009 at 02:47pm Posted by EliEntry Filed under: Media,Racism,Republicans,Wankers
|« Sep||Nov »|